Wieters.... Best Oriole prospect ever?

[Malike]

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

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?

He chose players that had hit at least 138 home runs over a 10 year period. I hardly think he went for pure power hitters, 138 homers over 10 years, IMO, does not constitute a power hitter. Now, I'm sure some big boppers are on this list. The intention of the list, to me, seems to imply that players in this age bracket do seem to peak at 26-32, and the 33-35 seasons show that there is still gas left in the tank.

I'm not arguing for or against the list, you asked for evidence, I presented what I could find as far as studies go and unfortunatley as is the problem with most statistics; they are limited in their scope somewhat. I'm not sure the perfect study can be done to appease all readers.

[rlc]

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.

Sorry if I came off harshly. Wieters is a great prospect, and he could very well win Minor League Player of the Year. I haven't heard a bad word about his defense yet, but he has been DH'ing once or twice every week, which only makes sense. I'm sure Altobelli would have DH'ed Grich if the option had been available in '71.

[Lucky Jim]

He chose players that had hit at least 138 home runs over a 10 year period. I hardly think he went for pure power hitters, 138 homers over 10 years, IMO, does not constitute a power hitter. Now, I'm sure some big boppers are on this list. The intention of the list, to me, seems to imply that players in this age bracket do seem to peak at 26-32, and the 33-35 seasons show that there is still gas left in the tank.

I'm not arguing for or against the list, you asked for evidence, I presented what I could find as far as studies go and unfortunatley as is the problem with most statistics; they are limited in their scope somewhat. I'm not sure the perfect study can be done to appease all readers.

It's not the limitation in scope that bothers me, it's the fact that it has no control for a lot of statistical noise.

Further, an average doesn't show that player B has gas left in the tank if player A actually improved during that time: hence, Barry Bonds alone could make it appear - when averaged with someone who suffered a radical decline - that players get better over time.

Your response seems to imply that you've misread my criticism. The fact of the matter is, the top players are always going to peak earlier and decline later - if their numbers are of an order higher than everyone else, the study's "averaging" methodology won't point to anything of any value.

Finally, he chose the top performers in power over time, which means that the study runs the risk of not including those who decline. It's self-selecting in that sense. If someone peaks at 27 and declines seriously by 31 then they're highly unlikely to be in the study - which is going to (pretty obviously) be biased toward those with insignificant drop-offs or steady performance.

Are these flaws not pretty evident?

[Lucky Jim]

Sorry if I came off harshly. Wieters is a great prospect, and he could very well win Minor League Player of the Year. I haven't heard a bad word about his defense yet, but he has been DH'ing once or twice every week, which only makes sense. I'm sure Altobelli would have DH'ed Grich if the option had been available in '71.

He's pretty clearly a plus defender. Catching is far more taxing than other positions. I highly doubt that Grich would've DH'd had it been available. Why would he? But the fact that Wieters does is irrelevant, I think.

[MurphDogg]

Sorry if I came off harshly. Wieters is a great prospect, and he could very well win Minor League Player of the Year. I haven't heard a bad word about his defense yet, but he has been DH'ing once or twice every week, which only makes sense. I'm sure Altobelli would have DH'ed Grich if the option had been available in '71.

Yeah, yeah, back in the old days everybody was so much tougher. Catchers didn't catch 162 games back then either, and Wieters' bat is too valuable to keep out of the lineup. I am sure that if there was no DH then Wieters would be playing first base, not catching every game or riding the pine.

[Malike]

It's not the limitation in scope that bothers me, it's the fact that it has no control for a lot of statistical noise.

Further, an average doesn't show that player B has gas left in the tank if player A actually improved during that time: hence, Barry Bonds alone could make it appear - when averaged with someone who suffered a radical decline - that players get better over time.

Your response seems to imply that you've misread my criticism. The fact of the matter is, the top players are always going to peak earlier and decline later - if their numbers are of an order higher than everyone else, the study's "averaging" methodology won't point to anything of any value.

Finally, he chose the top performers in power over time, which means that the study runs the risk of not including those who decline. It's self-selecting in that sense. If someone peaks at 27 and declines seriously by 31 then they're highly unlikely to be in the study - which is going to (pretty obviously) be biased toward those with insignificant drop-offs or steady performance.

Are these flaws not pretty evident?

The flaws are certainly evident, but that could probably be said about any blind study. If we knew the players he used for his study we would have a better idea. I mean, I hope there are players on this list like Sexson, to help balance out the study. I suppose, without knowing who is on the list its hard to make a determination.

[grady41]

Murph, catchers caught alot more games back in the day. Check on how many games Bench caught, also Gary Carter, both those caught alot every year, maybe in the 150's. Bench did play a little OF or !B if I remember correctly.

As for peak years 32 to 35 , want stats look at Frank Robinson, the experts on the Reds said he was to old, traded him to Baltimore and you know the rest of the story. If they guys have leg problems,or keep pulling hamstrings, then they tend to age quick and might not be useful after 33 to 35. Although Frank had some injuries which helped the Reds think he was to old.

[MurphDogg]

Murph, catchers caught alot more games back in the day. Check on how many games Bench caught, also Gary Carter, both those caught alot every year, maybe in the 150's. Bench did play a little OF or !B if I remember correctly.

As for peak years 32 to 35 , want stats look at Frank Robinson, the experts on the Reds said he was to old, traded him to Baltimore and you know the rest of the story. If they guys have leg problems,or keep pulling hamstrings, then they tend to age quick and might not be useful after 33 to 35. Although Frank had some injuries which helped the Reds think he was to old.

The most games Bench ever started at catcher was 139 in 1968 at the age of 20, which is not that many more than most catchers today. He caught 1301 innings that year which is a hefty load but only about 20 more than Jason Kendall caught in his heaviest seasons. Piazza started 144 games in 1996 and 141 in 1993, though with fewer innings caught, as he would presumably be pulled for a pinch runner or a double switch. Gary Carter started an incredible 152 games in 1982 with 1350 innings, and had a similar heavy load in 1978 but otherwise didn't deviate too far from today's standards.

Stats courtesy of Baseball Reference.

[RayFink1e]

Ed Rodgers

[IamtheSkip]

I think it's gotta be Matt Riley.

Everyone associated with the Orioles crapped in their figurative pants over what he did at Delmarva.