Wieters.... Best Oriole prospect ever?

[rlc]

Bobby Grich and Don Baylor were at Roch at the same time, both had pretty good years.

Baylor was The Sporting News Minor League Player of the Year in 1970 as a 21 year old in AAA. Grich was TSN Minor League Player of the Year in 1971 as a 22 year old in AAA.

When Wieters gets to AAA and is named Player of the Year, we can start talking about who had the better year.

[MurphDogg]

Baylor was The Sporting News Minor League Player of the Year in 1970 as a 21 year old in AAA. Grich was TSN Minor League Player of the Year in 1971 as a 22 year old in AAA.

When Wieters gets to AAA and is named Player of the Year, we can start talking about who had the better year.

If Wieters skips AAA and goes straight to the Majors with better numbers than either Baylor or Grich had in a single season we can't talk about who had the better year? Sorry, I disagree... Why, judge it on Baylor and Grich's terms? If Wieters has an OBP of .450 with a slugging percentage of .580, while playing a much more premium defensive position at a higher level than Baylor and Grich did then we should be able to talk about it.

[SoPAOsFan]

I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but I remember David segui hitting like 350 in AA, and 375, in triple A. I could be way off though. And if I remember correctly, we had another hitter who tore it up then.

[rlc]

If Wieters skips AAA and goes straight to the Majors with better numbers than either Baylor or Grich had in a single season we can't talk about who had the better year? Sorry, I disagree... Why, judge it on Baylor and Grich's terms? If Wieters has an OBP of .450 with a slugging percentage of .580, while playing a much more premium defensive position at a higher level than Baylor and Grich did then we should be able to talk about it.

If Wieters is inducted into the Hall of Fame next week, we can certainly compare him to Ripken and Murray, but right now he's played 15 games in AA, at the same age (or a year older than the age) at which Grich and Baylor were dominating AAA.

Comparing their raw numbers in leagues that are 38 years apart is not going to be a terribly useful exercise - Grich and Baylor were playing in a league that had no DH.

And speaking of the DH - since when is that a "more premium defensive position" than SS, the position Grich played in the minors? Do you project Wieters to win five Gold Gloves in his first five years in the majors? I'd guess so, since you say he's playing "at a higher level" than Grich, who only won four.

[backwardsk]

Hype wise, Ben McDonald has got to be in the conversation.

[Fred Manfraud]

Lots of good points made here. The one thing I don't understand is this fascination with performing at AAA. I think that's outdated. How many games did Markakis play at AAA? (Answer: none). Matt Holliday and Vladimir Guerrero didn't see significant time at AAA. As has been said by some here, some teams are comfortable with having their top prospects in AA. AAA has become more geared for veterans who are ready to step into the majors on an emergency basis. If the player is talented enough, there's no reason they have to prove anything at AAA.

[Leitch]

Lots of good points made here. The one thing I don't understand is this fascination with performing at AAA. I think that's outdated. How many games did Markakis play at AAA? (Answer: none). Matt Holliday and Vladimir Guerrero didn't see significant time at AAA. As has been said by some here, some teams are comfortable with having their top prospects in AA. AAA has become more geared for veterans who are ready to step into the majors on an emergency basis. If the player is talented enough, there's no reason they have to prove anything at AA.

Back in the day it didn't seem to be that way, however. Looks like most Orioles prospects spent at least one season in Rochester and quite frankly if they didn't beat the damn door down they spent another. Boddicker spent 3 full years in Rochester, and not because he wasn't performing either.

[Fred Manfraud]

Back in the day it didn't seem to be that way, however. Looks like most Orioles prospects spent at least one season in Rochester and quite frankly if they didn't beat the damn door down they spent another. Boddicker spent 3 full years in Rochester, and not because he wasn't performing either.

Yes, times have changed. Many of today's top players have spent at least a little time at AAA and I'm sure that didn't so anything to hurt their development. It wouldn't bother me if Wieters and Reimold for example spend time in AAA, but I'm not sure it's necessary especially in the case of the top prospects like Wieters.

[catfishncwc]

Hype wise, Ben McDonald has got to be in the conversation.

Ben Mcdonald has to be in the begining of this conversation. At the time he was the highest rated amateur pitching of that generation. How does not be the best prospect of the Orioles at least during the 80's-90's

[MurphDogg]

If Wieters is inducted into the Hall of Fame next week, we can certainly compare him to Ripken and Murray, but right now he's played 15 games in AA, at the same age (or a year older than the age) at which Grich and Baylor were dominating AAA.

Comparing their raw numbers in leagues that are 38 years apart is not going to be a terribly useful exercise - Grich and Baylor were playing in a league that had no DH.

And speaking of the DH - since when is that a "more premium defensive position" than SS, the position Grich played in the minors? Do you project Wieters to win five Gold Gloves in his first five years in the majors? I'd guess so, since you say he's playing "at a higher level" than Grich, who only won four.

You are absolutely right, I goofed on Grich. Wieters is a potential Gold Glove catcher (not a DH as you stated) who threw out over 40 percent of base stealers at Frederick. Arguments can be made that catcher is a more premium defensive position, the defensive spectrum makes such an argument. Comparing raw numbers probably is pretty useless, though I do disagree with you about AAA being an important comparison point as 38 years has made a difference in the treatment of top prospects, and many don't spend full seasons at AAA. I am really excited about Wieters as he should be in the top 3 of prospects in the league at the end of the year, which ought to propel him into the conversation.

[grady41]

Murph, you are correct about going to the majors from AA, hopefully Weiters can do that. Grich and Baylor as well as Freed put up some great numbers at Rochester, they couldnt make it to the show because F Robinson,and Rettenmund blocked Baylor, Grich was blocked by Belanger and D Johnson, Freed none other then Boog. I only wish the O's had that problem now.

Times have changed, players dont stay on teams as long, heck, when a guy is 29 now there are so called experts who think they should be traded, when in reality they are in there prime and are very productive till 34 or 35.

[Lucky Jim]

Murph, you are correct about going to the majors from AA, hopefully Weiters can do that. Grich and Baylor as well as Freed put up some great numbers at Rochester, they couldnt make it to the show because F Robinson,and Rettenmund blocked Baylor, Grich was blocked by Belanger and D Johnson, Freed none other then Boog. I only wish the O's had that problem now.

Times have changed, players dont stay on teams as long, heck, when a guy is 29 now there are so called experts who think they should be traded, when in reality they are in there prime and are very productive till 34 or 35.

Evidence? Or just baseless speculation?

[Mike B]

I can't ever remember another prospect that has had this much sucess in the minors. Can anyone else remember an Os prospect that has had this much sucess in our history?

This is the organization that brought up Jim Palmer, Don Baylor, Bob Grich, Dave McNally eddie Murray, Mike Mussina, Cal Ripken Jr. etc. There is a differnce now. We are in the internet age. In the past we only read about the Murrays, Ripkens occasionaly in the newspaper. Wieters is the most talked about ever, but if he ends up anywhere near the player that some of the above were then we really have something.

[Malike]

Evidence? Or just baseless speculation?

There is evidence a players prime years are 26-32. 100 players were used in this study from the past decade. Clearly you can see age 34 and 35 seasons are not huge decline and free falls. Read the whole study here : http://sports.espn.go.com/fantasy/baseball/flb/story?page=age27myth

[Lucky Jim]

There is evidence a players prime years are 26-32. 100 players were used in this study from the past decade. Clearly you can see age 34 and 35 seasons are not huge decline and free falls. Read the whole study here : http://sports.espn.go.com/fantasy/baseball/flb/story?page=age27myth

Seems like a pretty useless study to me. As the writer noted:

The players selected were the ones who hit the most home runs in the past 10 seasons. No, it doesn't cover the entire gamut of players. Still, considering that the age-27 theory is so often applied to the possibility of bursts in a hitter's power, it's a fairly appropriate sampling.

I'm not sure how the enormous - chemically enhanced - late stage power surge for a number of players is controlled for here. Nor do I see how a study dealing with the top-100 power hitters won't be hopelessly distorted by the top percentage. Making it appear that lesser hitters are better than they actually are. I.e., the "average" conceals those whose production dropped.

Finally, the utter lack of a random sampling is troubling.

No? Do folks disagree?