Kinda weird the AL Rookie of the Year didn't make the Topps team. I know he's a reliever, but they should probably account for that considering past ROYs have included relievers Gregg Olson, Scott Williamson, Huston Street and Kaz Sasaki.

Boy, Wieters was better than Santos, but not by a significant margin. Who had money on THAT? With 73 more AB he managed to amass only two more doubles and two more homers than Santos did?

Does Omir Santos belong in the Ruben Gotay Wing of the Mets Hall of Fame already?

Ehh....the difference in their hitting stats seems close enough that the balance could be tipped by other factors like baserunning (Santos had a advantage in taking the extra base), clutch hitting (Santos did a little better with men on, Wieters did his worse work w/RISP), and defense (superficially, Santos was a good bit better at controlling the running game and went errorless vs. 5 errors for Wieters).

I dont see any reason that picking either one should be greeted with outrage.

There wasn't a rookie 2B better than Chris Getz?

There wasn't a rookie 2B better than Chris Getz?

Probably not. If you think about it, there are only so many open jobs for rookies from year to year.

There wasn't a rookie 2B better than Chris Getz?

Luis Valbuena and Getz's teammate Jayson Nix were the only real competition.

Well, Coghlan is actually a pretty good 2bman

I expected to see some Wieters-smiting-Topps comments, but no.
..
I'm disappointed in you guys.

Ehh....the difference in their hitting stats seems close enough that the balance could be tipped by other factors like baserunning (Santos had a advantage in taking the extra base), clutch hitting (Santos did a little better with men on, Wieters did his worse work w/RISP), and defense (superficially, Santos was a good bit better at controlling the running game and went errorless vs. 5 errors for Wieters).

The difference in their hitting really isn't at all close - most of that 67 points of OPS difference is OBP. Plus Wieters had 25% more plate appearances of value.

Santos had 3 errors, not zero, and I'd hesitate to make any conclusion about the running game in such a small sample.

On the other hand, it's not worth getting worked up about any award, especially a meaningless one. It's just odd, more than anything, that Santos was picked over Wieters given that Wieters was clearly the better player and is a much bigger name.

EDIT: Mystery answered. Wieters has an exclusive deal with Upper Deck, so Topps didn't issue a single card of his this year.

Ehh....the difference in their hitting stats seems close enough that the balance could be tipped by other factors like baserunning (Santos had a advantage in taking the extra base), clutch hitting (Santos did a little better with men on, Wieters did his worse work w/RISP), and defense (superficially, Santos was a good bit better at controlling the running game and went errorless vs. 5 errors for Wieters).

I dont see any reason that picking either one should be greeted with outrage.

Wait, what?

Santos had an 82 OPS+ vs. 97 for Wieters, and Wieters had 79 more PAs. That's not close at all.

EDIT: Mystery answered. Wieters has an exclusive deal with Upper Deck, so Topps didn't issue a single card of his this year.

Can players do this? I thought the MLBPA negotiated these things for everyone? Is it b/c Wieters wasn't yet an MLBPA member before the season started?

Santos is awful.

Can players do this? I thought the MLBPA negotiated these things for everyone? Is it b/c Wieters wasn't yet an MLBPA member before the season started?

Matt Wieters has successfully sued the show "Law and Order" for unlawful use of the name of his biceps.

Can players do this? I thought the MLBPA negotiated these things for everyone?

Players can opt out, Barry Bonds did it a couple of years ago.

There wasn't a rookie 2B better than Chris Getz?

There wasn't a rookie 1B better than Travis Ishikawa? Criminy!

You could easily pick Garrett Jones -- 293/372/567, 147 OPS+ in 358 PA -- over Reimold -- 279/365/466, 117 OPS+ in 411 PA.

Nevermind, looks like he had 61 service days with Min in 2007 (Cot's) and so not a rookie.

Wieters has an exclusive deal with Upper Deck, so Topps didn't issue a single card of his this year.

Surely there are plenty of images of Jesus in the public domain.

Kinda weird the AL Rookie of the Year didn't make the Topps team.

Actually, not weird at all. Back in 2005, Dan Johnson of the A's was the unanimous pick for the first baseman on their All-Rookie Team. The NL Rookie of the Year winner that year was a first baseman also. If you can't guess who it was, here's a link to help.

I'm sure there are plenty of other ridiculous oversights over the years.

People still collect baseball cards? I thought that hobby jumped the shark at the last Oriole card debacle...

Topps is unveiling its All-Rookie team this morning, and a certain highly touted and much-publicized Oriole went ignored.

Matt Wieters didn’t make the list.

They should thank their lucky stars that Wieters is not in a Old Testament mood today.


(I mean he wasn't the Ubermensch until late in the season, but he still was better than Santos)

"There wasn't a rookie 2B better than Chris Getz?"

Luis Valbuena and Getz's teammate Jayson Nix were the only real competition.

What about Ryan Roberts?

You could easily pick Garrett Jones -- 293/372/567, 147 OPS+ in 358 PA -- over Reimold -- 279/365/466, 117 OPS+ in 411 PA.

Nevermind, looks like he had 61 service days with Min in 2007 (Cot's) and so not a rookie.

Most of Jones's service time in '07 was in September, and doesn't count against his RoY eligibity. He finished 7th in the voting this year, and unlike with Volquez last year, no one objected.

Well, the Mets were in a pennant race all season. Sorry, sometimes I just can't help myself.

They should thank their lucky stars that Wieters is not in a Old Testament mood today.

Which? Ezekiel 23:20 ?

Okay, as someone who helped foster the Wieters hyperbalooza (though for my own reasons, mainly annoying Wyers), let me take a step back here for a moment:

...Nolan Reimold was chosen among the outfielders, so at least the Orioles didn’t get shut out.

At least.

But the award has taken a serious credibility hit without Wieters.

This is the funniest #### I've read all week. Forget Wieters for a second here:

1) It's the Topps All-Rookie Team.
2) I didn't even know this existed until this article.
3) If I don't know an award exists, the odds that the average person knows it exists are slim to none and none just farted.
4) This is the official website of the official broadcaster of the Orioles, and the Nationals, who are co-owners, and the Ravens for that matter. This is MSM. The fact that he couldn't/didn't get a quote from anyone, anyone involved in the organization is a pretty good clue what the teams/players think of this award.

So an award that nobody knows exists and those that do, the ones that are "honored" with the award, don't care about somehow takes a credibility hit?

Now, don't forget Wieters:
1) He ain't that much better than Santos on offense. Sure, it's a 97 OPS+ to an 82. But take a gander at the BABIP between the two. Wieters pulled off a .356, while Santos was a much more reasonable .280. Give Santos Wieters' mark, and he has 18 more hits over the BIP plate appearances. He hits .323, has a .353 OBP, and if we convert those 18 hits to his normal rate of doubles and homers, 3 of them are doubles and 2 are homers (rounding as close as possible), giving him a .487 SLG. How does .323/.353/.487 strike you? That'd have been good for 26th in OPS in the NL.

2) Santos has better defensive numbers, with the huge boulder of salt to be taken for small sample sizes in rookie catcher defensive numbers.

Wieters - 738 innings in the field, 489 PO, 35 Assists, 12 DP (big edge here), 5 errors, 3 PB, 0 WP, .991 FP, 6.39 RF/9 to lg 7.48, 65 SB allowed, 21 CS, 24% throw-out rate.
Santos - 680 innings in the field, 502 PO, 26 Assists, 4 DP, 3 errors, 3 PB, 0 WP, .994 FP, 6.98 RF/9 to lg 7.77, 35 SB allowed, 15 CS, 30% throw-out rate.

We can ignore RF, of course. But basically there are two differences here, the 8 DP edge for Wieters vs. the 30 extra SB allowed - the 6 caught. So 8 DPs vs. 24 net steal margin.

that’s an honest appraisal, not the words of a “homer” who covers the team.

Only a homer would dream of covering this topic in the first place.
------------

Now, all that said: Some people doubted Jesus, too. If Wieters comes into the league and shows his talents from the beginning, then people will get used to them, like they did fish and loaves, and water to wine. And how did that turn out? Wieters knows how to learn from other people's bad luck. No nails through his hands, he needs those!

Omir Santos is a pretty lousy hitter. And he has a stupid-looking beard.

Those 65 SB Wieters allowed? He did it in 738 innings in the field. The IP total is good for 22nd in the majors, the SB (unadjusted) are the 11th most allowed. If you adjust Wieters PT up to 11th, you add 200 more innings and he has the same number as Mauer. He now gives up 83 SB, good for 4th, but 100 IP in the field behind #3, 150 behind #2, and the same amount as #1, Varitek. Put him tied for 6th in innings with Laird, he's up to 3rd, just behind AJ. 5th in innings, and he's all alone in 2nd.

So Wieters this year allowed runners to steal at a clip only matched, being generous now, by late-career AJ Pierzynski and the corpse of Jason Varitek.

Omir Santos is a pretty lousy hitter. And he has a stupid-looking beard.

So does your wife.

So does your wife.

No, idiot. My wife is the beard.

No, idiot. My wife is the beard.

For you. But she's a lovely woman, making the reference inapt. However, you resemble the genetic result of a troll copulating with a billy goat in a sewage pit under power lines. As only a lesbian could mistake you for anything approaching a man of average attractiveness, it's clear that you are her beard. And a stupid-looking one.

However, you resemble the genetic result of a troll copulating with a billy goat in a sewage pit under power lines.

Separated at birth, you and I.

Thank goodness. Now, here's your bucket of fish heads.

I posted my comments from here (sans the stuff about the award itself) onto the thread there, got this response:

You didn't see any improvement in Wieters behind the plate as the season progressed? Gotta say, it was pretty obvious. And look at the way he hit over the last month or so. Anybody who thought he would come up and hit .400 while playing the most demanding position and learning all these new pitchers was being unrealistic, to say the least. - Roch

As I said there, not being an O's fan, I didn't see the improvement, but I hope it's there. But as for that last month of the season...whoo-boy, .413 BABIP.

Now, don't forget Wieters:
1) He ain't that much better than Santos on offense. Sure, it's a 97 OPS+ to an 82. But take a gander at the BABIP between the two. Wieters pulled off a .356, while Santos was a much more reasonable .280. Give Santos Wieters' mark, and he has 18 more hits over the BIP plate appearances. He hits .323, has a .353 OBP, and if we convert those 18 hits to his normal rate of doubles and homers, 3 of them are doubles and 2 are homers (rounding as close as possible), giving him a .487 SLG. How does .323/.353/.487 strike you? That'd have been good for 26th in OPS in the NL.

Don't you think it's possible that Wieters had a better BABIP because he's actually a better hitter who hit the ball harder?

EDIT: And, of course, BABIP is irrelevant for evaluating a player's past results. Wieters actually got those hits and Santos didn't.

Anyone who has collected baseball cards knows about the Topps Star All-Rookie team and the prestigious golden trophy that comes with it, just saying.

There are a lot of flops among past winners though. Anybody remember Dwain Anderson ? The trophy looks cool on his '73 card though.

You know, Jeff, there are at least two players involved in preventing a SB. Chad Moeller caught for the O's last year, and he's thrown out 24% of baserunners over his career. For the Orioles he threw out just 7 percent. His SB/9 jumped from a career .6 to .94 last year. Including Zaun, the other Oriole catchers allowed 54 SBs in 674 IP, pretty close to Wieters rate.

Even Ramon Castro, an awful backstop, prevented SBs well last year for the Mets.

I'm guessing the pitchers might have a little something to do with those numbers.

Damn...If I'm the Orioles I hope those 2 separate next year...and by a lot.

Don't you think it's possible that Wieters had a better BABIP because he's actually a better hitter who hit the ball harder?

Than Santos? Sure, maybe. 56 points better than the league average? No. With enough ABs, he'd have tied Chone for 8th in the AL in BABIP last year. Do I see a reason to believe that a guy whose own BABIP fluctuated from month to month like Wieters, who, if he hit the ball hard, it didn't show up in ISO (his .124 is surrounded by the likes of Adam Kennedy, AJ, Asdrubal, and Marco Scutaro), who had a nearly bang-on-the-nose league average LD%, that this guy's high BABIP is because of hitting the ball harder? No.

And wait a minute there. With all the talk about FIP around the site, and the appropriateness of neutralizing non-player determined factors when judging past performance, you can't just out of hand dismiss that entire concept. I happen to be on that side; as I've said, I think WPA's one perfectly legitimate use is in judging MVP awards, and I've made the similar argument when it comes to ranking 90s pitchers vs. 60s pitchers. What was did was did. But that doesn't mean there's not a place for neutralizing it when looking at past performance, and the context in which I did so ("Hey, Santos was better defensively, and the entire difference on offense plus some is due to Wieters' crazy-high BABIP, so don't act like it's a sham that Santos was named.") is one of those, I think.

Just to note, Santos had a .132 ISO and a 24% LD.

Calm down there. You don't have to be such a major applewhite about it.