"matt wieters should be on mvp ballots somewhere. best player in game w/ .765 OPS."
Here's some physical evidence that this actually happened, in case you were skeptical:
matt wieters should be on mvp ballots somewhere. best player in game w/ .765 OPS.
— Jon Heyman (@JonHeymanCBS) September 18, 2012
I have no quarrel with Wieters appearing on an MVP ballot, especially since those things can run 20 players deep depending on the year. What's truly baffling is the second statement, or the justification for the first statement:
Matt Wieters is the best player in the game with a .765 OPS.
Here's the thing: technically, this is true. Because entering play Monday, Matt Wieters was the only player in baseball with an OPS at exactly .765. So by default, yes, this is technically a fact.
But it doesn't matter. It's a ludicrous thing to say. Utterly nonsensical. I suppose Alexei Ramirez is the best player in baseball with a .671 OPS, but only because his only competition at that statistical benchmark is the esteemed Michael Young. Did you know that Justin Smoak is the best player in baseball with a .601 OPS? He's the only one, too! He should be on MVP ballots somewhere!
I guess what Heyman was trying to say is that, for a player with a .765 OPS (which is okay, nothing to write home about, with the league average for catchers at just above .700), Wieters is very good. Especially compared to players who have an OPS in the same neighborhood as Wieters, like Justin Upton (.764) or Neil Walker (.766). Of course, this stems from the fact that Wieters is a catcher, and that he plays great defense. If one was to make a real-life, non-Heymanian argument supporting some MVP votes for Wieters, one would have to cite defensive value as the best supporting evidence. Not some bizarre justification based on a random OPS number that isn't even terribly impressive in the first place.
Hopefully, Jon Heyman is just messing with us. Please.
No comments:
Post a Comment