Comments on: Wieters Is Really, Really Good

By: Joe R

Joe R — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 06:44:38 +0000

For some reason I think Wieters would be okay even if his catching abilities deteriorate.

He’s going to be awesome.

By: Carson Cistulli

Carson Cistulli — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 08:07:39 +0000

Pardon me for my ignorance (and being born in 1979), but was Jennings highly touted at the time of his rookie year? I just looked at his Baseball Cube page and can barely even remember the Donruss ’88 card they have posted there, even though it was my first set.

By: DavidCEisen

DavidCEisen — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 20:31:43 +0000

“Okay, so, Hamelin and Jennings are around to remind us that he’s not a 100% mortal lock for stardom, but even including those guys, they totaled 33,620 major league at-bats and combined for a .283/.377/.501 mark. That’s an .878 OPS as a group.”

This is surprising how? The best players are going to have the most at-bats, therefore they will cancel out Hamelin and Jennings. It tells you nothing about the potential for Wieters to be a bust. Busts by definition don’t get ML at bats.

I’m not saying that Wieters will be a bust, but for a site that is dedicated to statistics, that was a very poorly crafted argument.

By: Samg

Samg — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 23:46:43 +0000

Mauer is 6’5″

By: Mike O

Mike O — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 17:45:49 +0000

Jacob Jackson brought up a good sabermetric point about Wieters statistical progression in college. Usually it does rise dramatically in most prospects as experience increases and seasonal swing refinements are learned.. Given there is no rise, and I hate to put this out there, but based on his size and being immediately excellent instead of having progressive statistical increases, I have to wonder if this is a performance enhancement issue. It is something we have to honestly look at with every player now and try to determine how it will effect the projected stats. I’d like to think that he is not, and his outrageous performance thus far is due to advanced strike-zone knowledge thanks in part to years of instruction from his father. The statistical anomaly of there being no level of progression and just a consistently high flat bar of awesomeness does make me look at Wieters with maybe a little extra scrutiny, though.

By: Mike

Mike — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 17:19:12 +0000

Wieters has a much much better understanding of the strikezone than Bruce did.

By: giantsrainman

giantsrainman — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 07:28:39 +0000

How far behind do you all think another 22 year old catcher (Pablo Sandoval) who broke out this year in not just A+ and AA+ but MLB as well is? I am aware of what the 5 free projection systems think. Bill James and Marcel like while Chone, Oliver, and ZIPS not so much. I think the three projection systems that don’t expect much are missing the breakout and treating it too much as an aberation compared to his earlier minor league years. What are the thoughts here?

By: Brian Cartwright

Brian Cartwright — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 05:54:59 +0000

3 years of college gives an adequate sample size which showed Wieters with a wOBA in the 340s – major league average, but quite good for a catcher.

One year in the m the minors, with a wOBA well over 400 put his projection at 370 – star level.

I say that he’ll end up somewhere between the two

By: philosofool

philosofool — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 01:20:32 +0000

I worry about the small sample size on Wieters. Wieters has to wipe the drool off after a scout watches him, so that says something about how accurate that sample is. Still… You look at what Jay Bruce did between 2007 and 2008 in AA and AAA and you have to wonder whether Wieters is really going to translate when he reaches the big leagues. Scouts didn’t drool less over Bruce.

By: Fake Teams

Fake Teams — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 13:32:20 +0000

Ganging up on the Pirates: Brian Bullington over B.J. Upton.