Every time I watch Posey hit...

[DrungoHazewood]

Or his .809 OPS in April means he's facing pitching that hasn't fully gotten into regular season shape and in September he's facing pitching that has tired from the wear and tear of the regular season, or he's facing AAAA pitching from clubs that are out of the running and giving innings to pitchers in evaluation mode. If we're going to go adventuring, then to me this seems to be a more plausible explanation then some climatological theory.

That's pretty easily refuted. Look at the 2012 league splits - every month the AL had an OPS between .723 and .737, with a little baby peak in midsummer when it's hot. Randomly picking other years that is the general pattern: very small month-to-month variations, and if you can tease out a pattern it's that offense goes up a tick when it's hot.

If there was any truth to poor, unconditioned pitching in April or tired pitching in September it doesn't show up in the numbers.

[Frobby]

You know, if Wieters just duplicates what he's done the last two years over the next 10 we'd be looking at a catcher with 300 career home runs, 1000 RBI, 12 Gold Gloves, 12 All Star appearances, and a pretty decent case for the hall of fame. And that's assuming no improvement, just what we have right now, year in and year out. Stretch that until he's 40 and you have a guy that is a virtual lock for the hall of fame.

Seasons like Posey had this year is rarely sustainable for a catcher, particularly one strong defensively, and not something you can really fairly expect. Carlton Fisk only hit 30 home runs once in his career, batted .300 only once in a qualifying season, never led the league in anything meaningful(except HBP in '80 and Passed Balls in '83), topped 100 RBIs only twice, was awarded only one gold glove, and never won a world series, only making the playoffs twice. From year to year, Fisk wasn't really a spectacular baseball player, but with catchers it's definitely more the big picture stuff, less the numbers bolded in black ink. See also Gary Carter if it suits you better.

I'm not worried, and nobody else should be either. Matt Wieters is a superior all-around catcher. He does everything well, and some things unusually well, in a position where you're rather lucky if you can get anything. You'll be meeting kids with the words "Matt" and "Wieters" in their name if we keep getting these not-as-impressive-as-Posey seasons out of this guy.

Durability has a lot to do with how a catcher's career is judged. Wieters having 10 additional season like the ones he had at ages 25-26 won't be easy at all. Fisk may not have been the best example to use because his lengthy career is very aberrational.

[DrungoHazewood]

You know, if Wieters just duplicates what he's done the last two years over the next 10 we'd be looking at a catcher with 300 career home runs, 1000 RBI, 12 Gold Gloves, 12 All Star appearances, and a pretty decent case for the hall of fame. And that's assuming no improvement, just what we have right now, year in and year out. Stretch that until he's 40 and you have a guy that is a virtual lock for the hall of fame.

Well, maybe. Sure, if he's getting GGs and All Star appearances every single year maybe his case moves from ok to very good. But it could be he's building the resume of Lance Parrish. Who was a big catcher, a multi-year All Star and GGer, who played until he was 39. And got 1.7% of the HOF vote the one year he was on the ballot. He was out-polled (by healthy margins) by Luis Tiant and Jim Kaat and Dave Stewart.

For catchers, as much as any other position besides maybe reliever, the HOF voting is about narrative as much as stats.

[hallmt18]

All this talk of who Wieters compares to grates on my nerves. I would rather look at who he IS than who he ISN'T.

The Catcher position for the O's is well-manned for the foreseeable future. I feel confident with him in the lineup every day.

Look at it this way: if the Orioles released Matt Wieters, how many teams would be interested in picking him up? How many teams would he start for?

[Frobby]

Well, maybe. Sure, if he's getting GGs and All Star appearances every single year maybe his case moves from ok to very good. But it could be he's building the resume of Lance Parrish. Who was a big catcher, a multi-year All Star and GGer, who played until he was 39. And got 1.7% of the HOF vote the one year he was on the ballot. He was out-polled (by healthy margins) by Luis Tiant and Jim Kaat and Dave Stewart.

For catchers, as much as any other position besides maybe reliever, the HOF voting is about narrative as much as stats.

Parrish is a very interesting comp. He was a great player for 10 years, making the all star team 6 times, winning three Gold Gloves and five Silver Sluggers. At the end of that 10-year period, he had a .786 OPS (114 OPS+), 212 HR and 700 RBI, and amassed 28.9 rWAR. But even though he played for another decade, he wasn't the same player. He made two more all star teams and won another Silver Slugger, but he had a .703 OPS (93 OPS+) with 112 HR and 370 RBI, earning 7.9 rWAR in that span.

Really, productivity after the first decade of play is a huge component to making the Hall of Fame. It's simply impossible to know right now what kind of player Matt Wieters will be in his mid-to-late 30's. I certainly don't think it's clear that Wieters will have a better career than Parrish had. That judgment is a long way off.

[Frobby]

All this talk of who Wieters compares to grates on my nerves. I would rather look at who he IS than who he ISN'T.

The Catcher position for the O's is well-manned for the foreseeable future. I feel confident with him in the lineup every day.

Look at it this way: if the Orioles released Matt Wieters, how many teams would be interested in picking him up? How many teams would he start for?

In order to answer your question, don't we have to compare Wieters to the starting catchers on the other teams?

[hallmt18]

In order to answer your question, don't we have to compare Wieters to the starting catchers on the other teams?

Haha. Point taken, Mr. Frobby.

Edit: I guess that means that if anyone answers my question, it will grate on my nerves!!!

[DrungoHazewood]

Parrish is a very interesting comp. He was a great player for 10 years, making the all star team 6 times, winning three Gold Gloves and five Silver Sluggers. At the end of that 10-year period, he had a .786 OPS (114 OPS+), 212 HR and 700 RBI, and amassed 28.9 rWAR. But even though he played for another decade, he wasn't the same player. He made two more all star teams and won another Silver Slugger, but he had a .703 OPS (93 OPS+) with 112 HR and 370 RBI, earning 7.9 rWAR in that span.

Really, productivity after the first decade of play is a huge component to making the Hall of Fame. It's simply impossible to know right now what kind of player Matt Wieters will be in his mid-to-late 30's. I certainly don't think it's clear that Wieters will have a better career than Parrish had. That judgment is a long way off.

There's a ton of uncertainty and ambiguity in this. Weiters could be a guy who does any number of things, and how history regards him is something we'll have to leave for 2030 or 2040 and beyond. I always thought HOF voting for catchers was a little odd - Lance Parrish was a very good player, and wouldn't be close to the worst HOF catcher. But he was never really seriously considered.

And there just haven't been that many catchers in history who had both a long career and a high level of performance. There are only 22 catchers in history with a career WAR of 30 or more. 451 total position players. You'd expect 1/8th, or 12.5%, but in reality it's about 5%. It's just hard to play catcher. 30 WAR makes you the 22nd-best catcher in history, roughly the 40th-best player at any other non-pitching position.

[Frobby]

There's a ton of uncertainty and ambiguity in this. Weiters could be a guy who does any number of things, and how history regards him is something we'll have to leave for 2030 or 2040 and beyond. I always thought HOF voting for catchers was a little odd - Lance Parrish was a very good player, and wouldn't be close to the worst HOF catcher. But he was never really seriously considered.

And there just haven't been that many catchers in history who had both a long career and a high level of performance. There are only 22 catchers in history with a career WAR of 30 or more. 451 total position players. You'd expect 1/8th, or 12.5%, but in reality it's about 5%. It's just hard to play catcher. 30 WAR makes you the 22nd-best catcher in history, roughly the 40th-best player at any other non-pitching position.

I listed 23 catchers over 30 WAR in post no. 126. But maybe you're not counting Brian Downing.

[DrungoHazewood]

I listed 23 catchers over 30 WAR in post no. 126. But maybe you're not counting Brian Downing.

Sorry, didn't read the whole thread. We probably had slightly different criteria in our searches. I think I used 75% of games played at catcher.

[Frobby]

Sorry, didn't read the whole thread. We probably had slightly different criteria in our searches. I think I used 75% of games played at catcher.

My search wasn't that scientific. I just went down the list of career rWAR leaders and picked out the ones who I thought of as catchers, and then I double checked it against the list of who played the most games at catcher in their careers. I had a couple of guys on my list who probably don't meet the 75% threshhold, like Joe Torre, Brian Downing, and Gene Tenace. So,I may have missed a couple of guys who were on your list.