Jump to content
PressBoxOnline

Tyler Wilson Hopes To Be Part Of Orioles' 2016 Plans

Recommended Posts

He'll have to improve on his 3.2 K/9 if he wants to be a part of the Orioles in 2016.

Yes, I saw very little to get excited about. Spot starts and maybe a place in the BP. It's hard to see though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are going to draw any conclusions from 36 innings, you could also say that his ERA of 3.50 was #2 on our staff (Wei Yin was #1). Arguably, he is the best pitcher we have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He'll have to improve on his 3.2 K/9 if he wants to be a part of the Orioles in 2016.

Yes, I think that is clear enough. Still, it's interesting that even with that low K rate, his FIP wasn't significantly higher than his ERA (3.77 to 3.50). Also interesting that his K rate at Norfolk slipped from 8.5 to 6.0 from 2014 to 2015, but his ERA actually dropped a bit. I think Wilson is destined for Norfolk again, but could be the first guy called up if a starter goes down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"There's definitely routine-wise leaps and bounds differences. Not really knowing when you're going to pitch or what inning you're going to pitch, but it forces you to be focused and locked down on everything that's going on and watching how each hitter has been pitched to the six innings previous to your turn coming in, rather than actually being the one delivering pitches."

Roch Kubatko masnsports.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wilson > Wright. All day.

As a starter, maybe. Wright has way more upside out of the pen IMO. Can potentially be a back end of the bullpen shutdown arm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As it stands now, if Wright or Wilson is the next man up for this rotation,it doesn't speak well of our rotation.

I would think Worley or Terry Doyle might be in that list also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As it stands now, if Wright or Wilson is the next man up for this rotation,it doesn't speak well of our rotation.

I am not worried about our #5 spot. Wright and Wilson would be fine as #5's. Maybe even #4's. For the money they are making, they could be good contributors. I am more worried that our guys at the top are Tillman and Ubaldo. Our "aces" are league average or maybe worse than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He'll have to improve on his 3.2 K/9 if he wants to be a part of the Orioles in 2016.

Don't be fooled by K's. He's a sinker baller, that pitches to contact. Gaussian throws K's and the ball goes over the fence. Sexy to some I suppose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't be fooled by K's. He's a sinker baller, that pitches to contact. Gaussian throws K's and the ball goes over the fence. Sexy to some I suppose.

Even still I doubt there have been many successful pitchers of any style who could make it at 3 K/9. If he can get it up to 5 K/9 he'll find a role.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Orioles Information


Orioles News and Information

Daily Organizational Boxscores
News

Tony's Takes

Orioles Roster Resource

Orioles Prospect Information

2020 Top 30 Prospects List

Prospect Scouting Reports

Statistics

2020 Orioles Stats

2019 Orioles Minor League Stats

Baseball Savant Stats






  • Posts

    • I understand.  I just think he was decent here in 1990 and decent in Houston in 1991, I'm not sure why he wasn't more highly regarded by both teams.  I agree he wasn't an obvious HoFer until his late 20s.   I think Finley was great.  An OF of Brady, Devo and Finley in the 90s would have been borderline elite defensively.  But he, too, really didn't kick into gear until his late 20s and early 30s.  And while I don't think he was ever named in the Mitchell report, it wouldn't have surprised me if he was using. Glenn Davis was very good, probably tied with Will Clark and Jack Clark as the preeminent slugging first baseman in the NL in the late 80s.   
    • I don't think Schilling is a deranged lunatic.  He has some unpopular opinions that he does a poor job of expressing.  IMO, a deranged lunatic is someone who's dangerous to himself and others in society, I don't see Schilling being that guy. That said, I'd gladly have whatever "stain" Schilling has over Davis.  I'd take 26 Ty Cobbs (cue @DrungoHazewood "He wasn't that bad of a guy!  The Al Stump book was lies!") on this team if it meant we would win.
    • No but it was short lived.  He didn’t really become the obvious HOF pitcher (it’s absurd he isn’t in) until his late 20s. Finley was good but you don’t regret losing him or Harnisch.     And let’s not forget, Glenn Davis was really good for several years before we got him.
    • I voted Glenn, but honestly didn't think through SG's point of likely failed development.  I still think its Glenn though.  We could have been a much different team heading into the mid 90s.  The Chris Davis contract shouldn't be as big of a deal as it is.  In modern MLB, you've got to be able to mitigate or fix these mistakes, and be willing to eat all/some of the costs.    While the contract itself was a disaster and a waste (I think most said that at the time), the team should have moved on in any direction at this point but we are a cheap, poorly run franchise who values staying afloat rather than building a competitive team.  
    • Schilling wasn't terrible in Houston the one year he was there.  3.81 ERA, 2.87 FIP.  
    • I'm not sure I agree here.  They developed Mussina just fine, but he was pretty polished coming out of Stanford.  Gregg Olson was a high pick that was fantastic.  Ben McDonald didn't turn out to be the guy anyone thought he would be, but he was still effective.  Harnisch had improved from 1989 to 1990. I don't think Schilling was regarded in that class of those first three guys.  I don't know if they would have developed Schilling to what he became but I think he'd have had a chance to become good here.  He was good in 1990, albeit in a small sample size.
    • Not second guessing.  I said at the time that keeping Cruz should have been a no brainer.  He was during his career,  an RBI machine with a decent BA. A guy like that you have to keep until he shows real evidence of losing it.  He did not show that when they let him go.   
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...