Dempsey is helping Austin Wynns

[Redskins Rick]

24 minutes ago, El Gordo said:

Just curious, has any one explbned why Dempsey's notion of catchers sitting back too far is wrong?

Frobby said he thought it was wrong and that the catchers was not sitting 3 feet back

[DrungoHazewood]

59 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

Yeah, I looked them up to see if it was a career thing, but it was more of a very weird, unclutch season for him. I have a strange obsession with the 1980 Oakland A's due to Billy Martin's decision to basically run his starter's into the ground. They were a really interesting offensive club as well with an amazing outfield of Rickey Henderson, Dwayne Murphy and Tony Armas with Mitchel Page is the 4th outfielder DH. They had several good role players like Gross and Dave Revernig who were pretty strict platoon players.

Each of those guys were decent to really good, but the team had offensive holes at catcher, shortstop and second base and the platoon of Revernig, Jeff Newman was an absolute out machine (.273 OBP).

This was one of my favorite teams to play in OOTP where I would try to acquire a decent 2B, SS or C and then use my bullpen in a more modern way to see if I can take this Cinderella team that went 83-79 and finished 2nd into a playoff team. 

I did manage to win over 90 games one time with them but my game got corrupted (this was an old OOTP, maybe 14) and I lost the season and never continued.

 

I have a fascination with a lot of weird teams, and those 1980 A's are very weird.  I always suspected that they won because Martin got a huge percentage of innings out of the top four pitchers and didn't have to rely on pitchers #5-whatever for anything.  Of course in semi-modern baseball that workload essentially ended the careers of the four of them in short order.  Billy didn't care, Billy was always going to self-destruct and get fired in a year or two.

Baseball today is very risk-averse, so weird strategies are rare.  If you try a basic four man rotation on a strict pitch count people look at you like you have three heads.  I still think it's crazy the shift took off, since it's so weird.  If the Rays had won 68 games in 2011 or 2012 the shift might have been dead on arrival.

[jtschrei]

Love Dempsey and all his ridiculousness. He's our homer okay? Here are my thoughts: 

1-- This was a six-hour session. It's not a big deal either way. Wynns can take the advice or leave it. 

2--  I wonder if Dempsey's advice is good. I played catcher in high school and I've never really gave tons of thought to how close I was to the batter. I just got behind the dish at what I thought was the appropriate depth behind the batter. His advice about positioning was interesting. 

3-- Why isn't anyone criticizing Wynns? He could have just not done a coaching session with Dempsey. 

4-- I wonder what new hire, Tim Cossins, thinks.... hmm.... 

[Redskins Rick]

1 minute ago, jtschrei said:

Love Dempsey and all his ridiculousness. He's our homer okay? Here are my thoughts: 

1-- This was a six-hour session. It's not a big deal either way. Wynns can take the advice or leave it. 

2--  I wonder if Dempsey's advice is good. I played catcher in high school and I've never really gave tons of thought to how close I was to the batter. I just got behind the dish at what I thought was the appropriate depth behind the batter. His advice about positioning was interesting. 

3-- Why isn't anyone criticizing Wynns? He could have just not done a coaching session with Dempsey. 

4-- I wonder what new hire, Tim Cossins, thinks.... hmm.... 

My nephew played catcher in high school in South Carolina, and I can tell you, they worked with him on feet placement, pitch framing and all kind of things that I remember, but to be honest, I think all they said was to get as close to the plate as you could without getting slammed by the bat.

[wildbillhiccup]

27 minutes ago, El Gordo said:

Just curious, has any one explained why Dempsey's notion of catchers sitting back too far is wrong?

I did some quick Googling and couldn't find anything to the depth of a catcher's stance changing/evolving, but this article was kind of interesting. 

https://baseballrebellion.com/new-catching-program-and-article-the-importance-of-the-stance/

 

[SteveA]

5 hours ago, Redskins Rick said:

AOL never left the email scene.

There are millions of free email AOL accounts in existence, no different than gmail, yahoo, or hotmail, etc.

AOL actually took over hosting Verizon Emails a few years ago.   So my @verizon.net account is actually on AOL.  I access my e-mail vs the AOL web mail site.

[Redskins Rick]

2 minutes ago, SteveA said:

AOL actually took over hosting Verizon Emails a few years ago.   So my @verizon.net account is actually on AOL.  I access my e-mail vs the AOL web mail site.

Aye, I do remember my brother complaining about that.

[foxfield]

12 minutes ago, SteveA said:

When we had the "cavalry" coming up (Matusz, Bergeson, etc) Dempsey offered the opinion that Jake Arrieta was the best of them all.

That drew a lot of laughter on here.

In fairness, there were some who saw Arrietta as the best too.  I'm not saying me, I had high hopes for Bergeson and for a brief instance I thought I astute.   

[DrungoHazewood]

27 minutes ago, jtschrei said:

2--  I wonder if Dempsey's advice is good. I played catcher in high school and I've never really gave tons of thought to how close I was to the batter. I just got behind the dish at what I thought was the appropriate depth behind the batter. His advice about positioning was interesting. 

The back line of the catcher's box is about 5 1/2 feet behind the back of the batter's box.  Assuming that the catcher's glove really can't be any closer than the back line of the batter's box, and the catcher's feet are maybe a foot behind his glove... the math says there's maybe four feet of wiggle room. So it's theoretically possible catchers are now 3' further back than in 1990.  But that seems like a large change that nobody except Rick Dempsey has noticed.  Wouldn't that mean that a pitcher is now throwing three feet further than they were 30 years ago?  Wouldn't that mean a typical pitch dropped 3" or 6" or more during that extra three feet?

This just seems implausible. It's more likely Dempsey noticed a few catchers being slightly further back and it came out as "everybody is 3' further back and it's ruining everything!"

[interloper]

45 minutes ago, jtschrei said:

Love Dempsey and all his ridiculousness. He's our homer okay? Here are my thoughts: 

1-- This was a six-hour session. It's not a big deal either way. Wynns can take the advice or leave it. 

2--  I wonder if Dempsey's advice is good. I played catcher in high school and I've never really gave tons of thought to how close I was to the batter. I just got behind the dish at what I thought was the appropriate depth behind the batter. His advice about positioning was interesting. 

3-- Why isn't anyone criticizing Wynns? He could have just not done a coaching session with Dempsey. 

4-- I wonder what new hire, Tim Cossins, thinks.... hmm.... 

He's a homer on TV, but he'll throw any number of Orioles coaches and front office people under the bus off air when he's angling for a coaching gig. 

[Frobby]

12 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

The back line of the catcher's box is about 5 1/2 feet behind the back of the batter's box.  Assuming that the catcher's glove really can't be any closer than the back line of the batter's box, and the catcher's feet are maybe a foot behind his glove... the math says there's maybe four feet of wiggle room. So it's theoretically possible catchers are now 3' further back than in 1990.  But that seems like a large change that nobody except Rick Dempsey has noticed.  Wouldn't that mean that a pitcher is now throwing three feet further than they were 30 years ago?  Wouldn't that mean a typical pitch dropped 3" or 6" or more during that extra three feet?

This just seems implausible. It's more likely Dempsey noticed a few catchers being slightly further back and it came out as "everybody is 3' further back and it's ruining everything!"

I think it’s implausible too.    I will say this: it’s possible that the umps have gotten more lax about letting the batters put their back foot behind the batter’s box, and that has forced the catcher back by an equal amount.    But we’re not talking “at least 3 feet.”    That might be 6-12 inches.    

Also, Dempsey’s statement that by moving back three feet, a pitch on the corner might be two feet outside by the time it reaches the catcher’s glove, shows a similar amount of exaggeration.   

[Cumberbundy]

8 hours ago, Moose Milligan said:

I'm being a contrarian here, but why's Dempsey a damn idiot?  Is it cause he talks in a folksy manner?  Is it cause he's paid to be more of a homer than Jim Hunter?  

Let's stop pearl clutching and pretending that Dempsey is going to ruin Austin Wynns.  

[Tony-OH]

2 minutes ago, foxfield said:

In fairness, there were some who saw Arrietta as the best too.  I'm not saying me, I had high hopes for Bergeson and for a brief instance I thought I astute.   

Not going to say I saw him as a future Cy Young award winner, but I know that I said several times that Arrieta had the best pure stuff of them all. My only question was his phyche and command, both of which he apparently found in Chicago.

Matusz still remains an enigma to me. When he was in the minors his changeup was a real weapon, a swing and miss pitch. His curveball was a good pitch as well and he did a great job of changing speed on his curveball and fastball to give different looks. He had the slider, but is was his fourth pitch in the minors. He pitched backwards in the minors, pitching off his offspeed pitches and spotting his fastball which touched 93-94 on occasion, but was fairly straight. The Orioles then had him mess with a sinker to give him some more movement.

When he showed up to the majors, Wieters used him like a fastball pitcher with him throwing either his 4-seamer or sinker mostly, with his change up being his most used off speed pitch. The sinker was never very good and got hit hard, but the curveball and slider were pretty effective his first go around.

In 2010, Matusz's best season as a starter, his fastball really played well (.247 BAVG) and his changeup was once again his most used offspeed pitch (18.61 WHIF percentage/.270 BAVG), but his slider was his best pitch even though he used it the least (17.54 WHIF/.153 BAVG). He was still using his curveball (.233 BAVG) but it wasn't missing bats (4.89 WHIF). He thankfully started to shelve his sinker which got hit at a 3.40 WHIF/.362 BAVG clip.

So it this point, Matusz looks like a left-handed starter that should have been a 4-seam fastball, slider guy with a 3rd pitch changeup and show me curveball. 

2011 comes around and the injury bug hits. He had a wart removed, was hit in the bicep during a scrimmage game, and then he gets an intercostal strain that puts him on the DL. I guess it's fair to say he never quite recovered from that strain because he was absolutely murdered in one of the worse seasons for a starter with more than 10 starts in major league history.

In 2012, Matusz comes back and was better then in 2011, but he was still struggling to find the consistency of his 2010 campaign. His best month as a starter in 2012 came when he dropped his fastball percentage (4-seam and sinker) to career low 54% while he upped his slider percentage to a career high 25%. He went back a little more fastball heavy in June and was shelled, leading to him getting demoted to AAA where he was then converted into a LOOGY. One thing of note, during a 8-start stretch between the end of April and early June, Matusz pitched to a 3.33 ERA holding batters to a .239/.291/.383/.674. The five starts after that stretch he went 0-5 with a 8.44 ERA with batters slashing .400/.465./710/1.175, ending his career as a starter in the major leagues.

He came back in August and was lights out as a mainly fastball-slider reliever cementing it in Buck Showalter's mind that Matusz was a left-handed reliever and nothing more. 

The question is, was Matusz' pitch selection part of his problem? If he was a 50-50, of even 40-60 fastball offspeed pitcher would he have succeeded as a starter? With modern analytics telling pitchers to throw more offspeed nowadays, it makes me wonder whether Matusz could have been more with better analytics. Should he have shelved that sinker for good, thrown the slider more along with the changeup giving him three looks?

Now, I don't know the answer to that, but I do know that Matusz struggled the more times he was faced and seemed to wear down in heat and throughout an outing, suggesting his best role probably was as a reliever. I also know he was not exactly a workout warrior in the off season (there were other rumors as well) and I'm sure that didn't help as well.

He's just an interesting case because it one point the stuff looked like it would work as a starter and certainly looked better than a future LOOGY when he was in the minor leagues or when he was drafted 4th overall. Either way, he remains a disappointment for a guy who was drafted 4th overall with Buster Posey being the pick afterwards.

 

 

 

 

[Ohfan67]

I don’t care if Austin Wynns gets a little coaching from Dempsey. I suspect Austin is smart enough to take the best of what is offered and ignore the rest. I found the interview classic buffoonery from Dempsey: boastful, insulting and belittling of others, and rambling nonsense. 

[wildbillhiccup]

22 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

Not going to say I saw him as a future Cy Young award winner, but I know that I said several times that Arrieta had the best pure stuff of them all. My only question was his phyche and command, both of which he apparently found in Chicago.

Matusz still remains an enigma to me. When he was in the minors his changeup was a real weapon, a swing and miss pitch. His curveball was a good pitch as well and he did a great job of changing speed on his curveball and fastball to give different looks. He had the slider, but is was his fourth pitch in the minors. He pitched backwards in the minors, pitching off his offspeed pitches and spotting his fastball which touched 93-94 on occasion, but was fairly straight. The Orioles then had him mess with a sinker to give him some more movement.

When he showed up to the majors, Wieters used him like a fastball pitcher with him throwing either his 4-seamer or sinker mostly, with his change up being his most used off speed pitch. The sinker was never very good and got hit hard, but the curveball and slider were pretty effective his first go around.

In 2010, Matusz's best season as a starter, his fastball really played well (.247 BAVG) and his changeup was once again his most used offspeed pitch (18.61 WHIF percentage/.270 BAVG), but his slider was his best pitch even though he used it the least (17.54 WHIF/.153 BAVG). He was still using his curveball (.233 BAVG) but it wasn't missing bats (4.89 WHIF). He thankfully started to shelve his sinker which got hit at a 3.40 WHIF/.362 BAVG clip.

So it this point, Matusz looks like a left-handed starter that should have been a 4-seam fastball, slider guy with a 3rd pitch changeup and show me curveball. 

2011 comes around and the injury bug hits. He had a wart removed, was hit in the bicep during a scrimmage game, and then he gets an intercostal strain that puts him on the DL. I guess it's fair to say he never quite recovered from that strain because he was absolutely murdered in one of the worse seasons for a starter with more than 10 starts in major league history.

In 2012, Matusz comes back and was better then in 2011, but he was still struggling to find the consistency of his 2010 campaign. His best month as a starter in 2012 came when he dropped his fastball percentage (4-seam and sinker) to career low 54% while he upped his slider percentage to a career high 25%. He went back a little more fastball heavy in June and was shelled, leading to him getting demoted to AAA where he was then converted into a LOOGY. One thing of note, during a 8-start stretch between the end of April and early June, Matusz pitched to a 3.33 ERA holding batters to a .239/.291/.383/.674. The five starts after that stretch he went 0-5 with a 8.44 ERA with batters slashing .400/.465./710/1.175, ending his career as a starter in the major leagues.

He came back in August and was lights out as a mainly fastball-slider reliever cementing it in Buck Showalter's mind that Matusz was a left-handed reliever and nothing more. 

The question is, was Matusz' pitch selection part of his problem? If he was a 50-50, of even 40-60 fastball offspeed pitcher would he have succeeded as a starter? With modern analytics telling pitchers to throw more offspeed nowadays, it makes me wonder whether Matusz could have been more with better analytics. Should he have shelved that sinker for good, thrown the slider more along with the changeup giving him three looks?

Now, I don't know the answer to that, but I do know that Matusz struggled the more times he was faced and seemed to wear down in heat and throughout an outing, suggesting his best role probably was as a reliever. I also know he was not exactly a workout warrior in the off season (there were other rumors as well) and I'm sure that didn't help as well.

He's just an interesting case because it one point the stuff looked like it would work as a starter and certainly looked better than a future LOOGY when he was in the minor leagues or when he was drafted 4th overall. Either way, he remains a disappointment for a guy who was drafted 4th overall with Buster Posey being the pick afterwards.

 

 

 

 

I'll be the first to admit I didn't see Arrieta being as good as he is. I remember him throwing hard, but straight as an arrow and he he seemed incapable of keeping the ball down in the zone. I guess the lessen learned is the importance of good coaching. The Cubs obviously did a better job of coaching him and helping him harnessing his talent. I don't think it was just a matter of him maturing. 

With Matusz I always wondered how much confidence played into his ineffectiveness. He just never seemed sure of himself on the mound to me.