Jump to content

Dempsey strongly implied last night that he hated Wieters' pitch-calling

Frobby

By Frobby
in Orioles Talk

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 65
  • Created
  • Last Reply
bobmc Hangout Grand Counsel

bobmc

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Redskins Rick said:

Of course last night, I will have to own up, to mainly watching the Capitals. I know blatant sin to admit, but I was split screen with the Caps in the big screen. :):):)

 

You had company in the dugout

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Frobby Hangout Grand Counsel

Frobby

Posted
  • Author
Posted
38 minutes ago, oriole said:

I am surprised to see how well Castillo can avoid a passed ball. Just from conventional stats it looks like Wieters was a magician at blocking balls and Castillo had some high PB numbers. After watching him keep Brittons erratic sinker in front of him last night I'm not leaning much on past performance anymore...he has looked great and seems to be a good hitter too.

Castillo has looked pretty sloppy at times on catching and blocking pitches.    He did do an excellent job on Britton last night, no question.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tx Oriole Hangout Grand Counsel

Tx Oriole

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Frobby said:

On the post-game show last night, Rick Dempsey was effusive in his praise of Welington Castillo's pitch calling, saying things like "finally we have a catcher who will call something other than a fastball with two strikes and a runner on base!"    He never mentioned Wieters by name, but he gave the distinct impression that he thought Wieters was a lousy pitch-caller and that Castillo is a big improvement.    I was kind of surprised how blunt he was.

I know there are some posters who were critical of Wieters' pitch-calling at times, but it was usually criticism of a specific sequence, rather than a general statement.    I think Dempsey is overstating things, as he always tends to do anyways, but I'm curious what others think.

One difference I have noticed is that Wieters always called a lot of fastballs in the first couple of innings, whereas Castillo seems more inclined to show all the pitches right away.   

Oh that's Dempsey being Dempsey. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
oriole Veteran All-Star

oriole

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Castillo has looked pretty sloppy at times on catching and blocking pitches.    He did do an excellent job on Britton last night, no question.    

There were a couple pitches that if Castillo missed them I would not have blamed him one bit. I may have lamented that Wieters would have gotten to it but Britton was all over the place last night. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Enjoy Terror Hangout Grand Counsel

Enjoy Terror

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, DrungoHazewood said:

No one had ever accepted one before, and he was almost certainly leaving money on the table by accepting.  A year later after a meh season he got $21M over two years.  

Doesn't really matter what they thought he'd do; the context of our conversation was that DD quickly wanted to shut the door and be rid of Matt Wieters. They offered him a QO last season instead of letting him go to FA, or trading him mid 2015. Seems to me that there was no haste to be rid of him, and even just an offer of QO is evidence enough to me that they entertained the thought of keeping him around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SteveA Hangout Grand Counsel

SteveA

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, dan-O said:

I don't question that. My comment is in regards to his broadcasting skills and opinions about the team over the years. I like the guy enough, he just makes me roll my eyes. 

You mean like when he said that Arrieta was the best of the young pitchers that came up around this time, and most people laughed at him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
El Gordo Hangout Grand Counsel

El Gordo

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Snutchy said:

Palmer has made it a point to mention that Castillo has them throwing everything out of the gate.

I like Matt, but Castillo is the superior catcher. 

Why is showing them everything up front such a good idea? If you can be effective early by locating the fast ball why not do that and show the other stuff the nex times through the lineup. If you don't establish FB command early you're not likely to do well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
backwardsk Hangout Grand Counsel

backwardsk

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, El Gordo said:

Why is showing them everything up front such a good idea? If you can be effective early by locating the fast ball why not do that and show the other stuff the nex times through the lineup. If you don't establish FB command early you're not likely to do well.

Because if that becomes a tendancy, teams can sit on the fastball the first time through without respecting the secondaries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Snutchy All-Star

Snutchy

Posted
Posted
36 minutes ago, El Gordo said:

Why is showing them everything up front such a good idea? If you can be effective early by locating the fast ball why not do that and show the other stuff the nex times through the lineup. If you don't establish FB command early you're not likely to do well.

Because it has worked for Bundy and they haven't been able to sit on any one pitch. First time through they'll wait for the fastball and let the rest sail by. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
El Gordo Hangout Grand Counsel

El Gordo

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Snutchy said:

Because it has worked for Bundy and they haven't been able to sit on any one pitch. First time through they'll wait for the fastball and let the rest sail by. 

If it works for one pitcher does that mean ot works for all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing


  • Posts

    • Can_of_corn
      Hurricane Milton is looking scarier by the minute

      By Can_of_corn · Posted

      Just did a bit of a walk. Some decently large braches down, one segment of privacy fence missing and standing water on the property in a low spot.  
    • Can_of_corn
      Hurricane Milton is looking scarier by the minute

      By Can_of_corn · Posted

      Just woke up and I don't hear any wind or rain.
    • EddeeEddee
      Do the Orioles need someone like Machado?

      By EddeeEddee · Posted

      Not that I am in any way full agreement, but this is a classic post.  Doesn't Machado play chess?  Maybe we could get some chess boards in the clubhouse and junk all the legos.  Not all great baseball men are John McGraw bad asses.  Some can be Christy Mathewsons as well, I suppose.  Not that I imagine today's young players much resembling McGraw or Mathewson, but they are the first two contrasting old school types that come to mind.  I will say just based on his postseason alone I'd much rather have Tatis over Machado.
    • NashLumber
      Hurricane Milton has apparently ripped the roof of the Tropicana Dome to shreds

      By NashLumber · Posted

      Wow, that was so strange to see.  Eerie. 
    • OriolesMagic83
      What's Your Top Priority

      By OriolesMagic83 · Posted

      Well I refuse to believe that only the O's have no players that want extensions.
    • NashLumber
      Any updates on the renovations to OPACY?

      By NashLumber · Posted

      Great points. Definitely agree. 
    • EddeeEddee
      Will MASN be among these soon ? MLB taking over TV broadcasts of 3 teams

      By EddeeEddee · Posted

      Customer advocate groups have tried for decades to force the cable companies to allow channel by channel (a la carte) subscriptions, but the cable companies fought this because it would result in far less revenue (than forcing us to pay for a hundred channels we don't watch).  The government refused to intervene, so we've been stuck with the existing business model for all this time.  Streaming is forcing the change because streaming -- for now -- is an a la carte model.   MLB's fear must be this: if the regional sports network cable channel model goes away, will most users pay anywhere close to what these channels made as part of a cable bundle for just one streaming channel where all you watch are Orioles games (or maybe Orioles and Nats games -- whatever the case may be)?  So if you pay $100/month for cable with MASN, you are probably watching at least a few other channels too.  But will you pay $15/month (or whatever the price may be) just to watch the Orioles -- even during the months when there is no baseball?  The existing basic cable model has been quite stable because people tend to watch at least 5 or 6 channels.  They're reluctant to cancel their whole cable package just because baseball season is over -- or they've been too busy to watch many games this season.  But with a single streaming channel of just baseball there is bound to be a far more unstable revenue base.  All the streaming channels are already dealing with this problem.  I think MLB is maybe reluctant to go all in on streaming for this reason.  Perhaps they're looking for new different model that could allow them to bundle individual team channels with Netflix, or Prime, or maybe with your cell phone plan or something else.  This could give them some stability, but it could also be a turn off for the more hardcore fans who just want the Orioles and little else.  It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out and if MLB, and the Orioles, will prosper or suffer as a result.

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...