Matt Wieters Continues to Be Cursed
Baseball can be really weird, but the game has rarely facilitated action more unusual than the sort that occurred in the fifth inning of Game 5 on Thursday night between the Nationals and Cubs.
I have never seen a sequence like this… probably because I'm guessing literally no one has ever seen a sequence like this, ever. pic.twitter.com/rlkEteveUk
— Mike Petriello (@mike_petriello) October 13, 2017
The inning in question produced a series of four events that had never happened consecutively in the game’s recorded history, covering some 2.3 million half-innings.
None of the 2.73m half innings in our db have even had all 4 of these events. 22 w/ 3. Only 5 games had all 4.https://t.co/ntifpJIb6n
— Baseball Reference (@baseball_ref) October 13, 2017
Craig Edwards dove into a potentially overlooked batter-interference call that would have stopped the Nationals’ hemorrhaging in the inning, held the deficit at one, and perhaps have allowed the team to keep playing this October.
For the purposes of the current post, however, this author will focus on Matt Wieters specifically. Wieters continues to be cursed as a catcher — in part, it would seem, because of his size.
One of the first items this author published for FanGraphs concerned the challenges faced by the tall catcher — specifically, with regard to framing. It seems intuitive that it’s more challenging for the taller specimens among the catching population to crouch and get the low strike. Pitches at the bottom of the zone, meanwhile, are the sort most likely to be framed successfully.
Eight of the top-10 framing catchers in 2016 were between 5-foot-10 and 6-foot-1. This season, seven of the top-10 framers were 6-foot-1 or shorter, with Tyler Flowers (6-foot-4), Caleb Joseph (6-foot-3), and Gary Sanchez (6-2) representing the tallest players on the list. None is as tall as Wieters, who is 6-foot-5.
There’s likely some selection bias: perhaps taller players who would otherwise excel at the position aren’t directed to it, are persuaded to abandon it. Nevertheless, it seems like it’s more difficult, in general, for taller players to receive as effectively as their shorter peers.
Wieters continues to decline as a receiver, rating as one of the poorest framers in the league this year according to Baseball Prospectus’s metrics. He ranked 100th in framing runs saved (-7.1 runs below average) and 95th in FRAA (-6.4), which takes into account total value, blocking, and framing. Framing continued to represent an issue for Wieters in the postseason: his out-of-zone strike rate (4.9%) was below the league average (6.1%) in the postseason through LDS play, his in-zone ball rate (5.8%) above the league average (5.3%).
Wieters is again losing strikes and gaining less favorable counts for his pitchers. Nor was that even the most conspicuous of problems for Wieters on Thursday.
While the umpires probably missed a batter-interference call when Javy Baez’s backswing hit Wieters, that particular event occurred only after the Nationals catcher he had failed to secure a Max Scherzer pitch that passed through his and traveled to the backstop. Was Wieters crossed up? Was it just a matter of Scherzer missing his mark? It’s not clear. Whatever the case, Wieters wasn’t able to react in time. Given his height, he had more distance to travel to secure the pitch. The runners advanced and Wieters exacerbated the problem by throwing the ball into right field, allowing a run to score and the baserunners to advance to second and third. The Cubs’ lead grew to 6-4.
The inning should have been over, perhaps. But the play wasn’t reviewable.
Against the following batter, on a 1-1 pitch, Wieters then — again, perhaps due to his large frame and long arms — reached too far forward and Tommy La Stella’s bat connected with his glove. That catcher-interference call loaded the bases. Scherzer then hit Jon Jay with a pitch to force in a run. The deficit grew to three runs.
So, in a span of two batters, Wieters was charged with a passed ball, error, and catcher’s interference. The Cubs had trailed by a run to begin the inning; their lead was 7-4 at the close of the inning. The Nationals, of course, lost 9-8.
Defeat can have many authors, but Wieters was one of them Thursday.
Dave wrote that his signing by the Nationals was curious back in February. The club has a history with Boras clients, of course. And Wieters isn’t without his virtues: he’s lauded for his ability to work with pitchers, his intangible value as a teammate. But by those skills we can measure, he has only declined further in 2017.
Wieters’ bat has never developed as hoped, and while he’s posted a 93 wRC+ mark for his career, he produced only a career-low 66 wRC+ this season. His defense has been in decline since 2012 and his framing and overall defensive are below average since 2013. He was worth negative WAR according to FanGraphs (-0.2) and Baseball Prospectus (-0.4) this season.
This author suggested that the Nationals needed a catcher back in July and they finished last in catching WAR (-1.1) as a team.
The Nationals’ 2017 season is over and, going forward, they still need a catcher.
A Cleveland native, FanGraphs writer Travis Sawchik is the author of the New York Times bestselling book, Big Data Baseball. He also contributes to The Athletic Cleveland, and has written for the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, among other outlets. Follow him on Twitter @Travis_Sawchik.
Some of the calls he got for Gio and Co. last night were so un-Weiters
On the one hand, that was a very poor effort by Wieters to block the strikeout pitch to Baez. On the other hand, it remains really weird to me that hitters can be rewarded for swinging at a pitch so bad the catcher can’t even handle it with an opportunity to reach base and avoid an out. As far as I’m concerned, once you strike out, that should be it.
Obviously, all other runners should be allowed to advance, but I don’t think I’ll even be okay with the idea of batters reaching base by striking out.
I don’t see much use in changing the rules of the game that have always existed. They are not ruining the game and they never have. I see more harm in adding rules, than taking them a away. I agree that it is a weird rule, but it is an interesting wrinkle and it is very well-known – it is not some obscurity like the Baez backswing. I think we might just miss it if it wasn’t there. Weiters got caught being lazy which he was all night.
“It has always existed and therefore always should” is probably the worst possible logic for keeping any rule.
On the other hand, you need a better excuse than “it’s stupid” to change it, and there is more logic to it than people give it credit for often (that a play needs to fielded for an out to exist – not counting exceptions which utilize a counter logic such as infield fly rule, etc.)
You are just telling a general progressive narrative which is not true. People like baseball, right? Why change it? This isn’t civil rights that we are talking about, which I would guess is the undertone of your statement. You didn’t even quote my quote accurately lol. You read what you wanted to read there. To offer up something else that contributes little to the discussion, every new idea is not a good one.
There are many plays in which a player is rewarded for a mistake or reckless play.
Are there? I am pretty sure that this is the epitome of bad decision resulting in a positive outcome.
Either get rid of the third strike rule, or let the batter run to first on any wild pitch. Why would it only exist for the third strike?
Because it does. Every kid learns this when they advance past little league. I am not saying that the rule is particularly logical, or that I understand its origins, but it is not some obscure back-swing rule that nobody knows about or something like that. I think adding and subtracting from America’s past time is a bad idea.
Weiters cost his team another run earlier than those events that you listed. It was probably a wild pitch, but as a catcher guy, I always blame the catcher. I don’t care much for the distinction between WP and PB. Weiters tried to backhand a ball in front of him with a runner on third, which is just being lazy. You would have to not watch the game to not know what i am referring to. More happens than what shows up in the play log.
Surprising that you don’t mention that they went into spring with two catchers. You may have suggested the issue back in July, but they had it taken care of in April until… I don’t know what they actually thought.
It’s not unreasonable to say that Wieters’ poor play cost the Nats the game and the series.
Yeah… scoring 20 runs per game would help though! Teams lose games, but Weiters didn’t help a lot – that’s for sure.
Once the Lerners decided to override the judgement of their GM, the die was cast. Tough to blame Wieters; he played exactly as expected, poorly. Hard to blame Baker, the owner signed the guy, you can’t bench him. And Rizzo fought against the signing. Hope the Lerners learned.
Will this be added to his legendary website?
That’s a sequence, and an entire series, that’s going to keep him up nights for a while.
Don’t forget that in the 3rd inning, Wieters failed to block Gio’s wild pitch, which resulted in a run. It was a touch pitch that bounced off the edge of the plate, but Wieters did not move his body toward the ball. Rather, he merely tried to scoop up the ball with his mitt.
I bet the Nationals are so happy Lerner went over Rizzo’s head and gave Wieters a pillow deal. I mean, Derek Norris would have been radioactive and all that in DC too, but Wieters would be crazy to opt out of that deal now. So now you have to hang onto him and hope he does better, or eat 10 million dollars. Talk about a lose-lose situation.
Oh, and that Wilson Ramos guy did adequately (if not spectacularly) in Tampa Bay too. Or, if they wanted below-replacement-level catching they could have signed the desiccated corpse of Ryan Hanigan for a lot cheaper.
I don’t know what kind of voodoo magic Boras uses on Ted Lerner, but it is pretty good.
Wieters was just so awful behind the plate last night I couldn’t believe it. I didn’t watch many Nationals games this year, but he’s backhanding pitches in the dirt, letting pitches go through the 5 hole….no situational awareness whatsoever. All in the biggest game of the season. He almost looked disinterested. Just drop to your knees and keep the ball in front of you, once, and the odds of the Nationals winning the game going way up.
He threw out 25% of the runners that attempted to steal (just below league average) during hte season. Bunch of errors (8). Everyone thought he was cooked hitting already so that’s not a surprise.
Did anyone watch Nationals’ games during the year? I know he couldn’t have been that bad all season. That game was a like an instructional tape on how NOT to play catcher.
Agree 100% with your take. I wonder what was going on with him as it had to have been something.
So the Boras tax on the below-market Strasburg deal has to get paid at th worst possible time.
Remember when Weiters was supposed to be the next Johnny Bench crossed with Babe Ruth?
I believe the line was “Mauer with power”
I never bought that, but yeah he was really hyped as a prospect. He never really improved at Georgia Tech. He was basically the same guy for three years, which is huge red flag to me and pretty much nobody else. I guess my point is that Weiters has had lazy streak going back a decade.
Still ended up with a better career than Dustin Ackley
He had two really good years, which is almost certainly more than the majority of #5 draft picks. I mean, do we really think Matt LaPorta or Ross Detwiler would have been better for the O’s?
Ok, now I’m curious. #5 Draft Picks from 2000-2012:
2000: Justin Wayne
2001: Mark Teixeira
2002: Clint Everts
2003: Chris Lubanski
2004: Mark Rogers
2005: Ryan Braun
2006: Brandon Morrow
2007: Matt Wieters
2008: Buster Posey
2009: Matt Hobgood
2010: Drew Pomeranz
2011: Bubba Starling
2012: Kyle Zimmer
So I guess this your periodic reminder that while your top draft pick might become Buster Posey, you’re (a) more likely to get Matt Hobgood and (b) you should be okay with Matt Wieters.
It’s important to remember when looking at older drafts how often and how far a player could fall due to signing bonus demands. Despite being the fifth overall pick, Wieters received the highest signing bonus of all 2007 draftees (https://www.perfectgame.org/articles/view.aspx?article=1314). So while he was picked fifth, he was probably considered a better prospect than Moskos and Vitters, possibly Moustakas, and maybe even Price.
That was an amusing draft up top, to be sure. Hard to believe Jason Heyward made it to pick 14.
Also slightly surprised to find that Josh Donaldson was actually a first round pick.
Apparently the Braves had essentially tampered with Heyward so other teams couldn’t get a look at him in showcases and / or were given exaggerated injury reports that assured Heyward landed to them. Considering their reputation for local signings going back forever, you could believe anything in this moment I think.
I mean, yes, that’s true. But that makes it even worse! If the 5th pick’s talent level is inflated by the way signing bonuses used to work, then you should have *more* successes and this list is actually even *more* optimistic than what you’re going to get today.
I was also never a fan of Ackley. I am never a fan of anyone who stakes their claim as a top draft pick in their freshman year of college. It is a good rule of thumb.
OMG !!!