Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
MurphDogg

Mountcastle rookie/prospect eligibility tracker

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, MurphDogg said:

If it weren't for the 7 inning double-headers and the new extra innings rule, Mountcastle might have gotten those 4 extra ABs.

If I recall correctly they sat Hays a game late last year to guarantee he wouldn't make the cutoff.

Do you think they would have done the same with Mountcastle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

If I recall correctly they sat Hays a game late last year to guarantee he wouldn't make the cutoff.

Do you think they would have done the same with Mountcastle?

Our analytics are better now; we count that stuff up front.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some thoughts about rookie status.

This year, 75 position players made their major league debut.  Only 7 of them surpassed rookie status.    The one with the lowest number of at bats was Luis Garcia of the Nats, who had 134 at bats in 139 PA (one less PA than Mountcastle).   46 of the 75 debuted before Mountcastle, but he was 7th in total PA, 8th in AB.

Last year 98 position players debuted.    54 have lost their rookie status by now, but 44 still have it (at least, based on the AB criterion; some may have lost it on days of service).

83 position players debuted in 2018.    60 have lost rookie status, 23 still have it (based on AB).
 

  • Upvote 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Philip said:

Rookie or not I hope he learns to open his glove when the second Baseman throws to him.

It does happen - to wit - DJ Stewart's catch yesterday in RF!  Now one may argue that the difficulty made it actually "easier" to glove the ball instinctively but whatevs.  I was happy to see DJ make those two tough plays yesterday and was happy to see RM glove his last PO tightly.  😋

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember when we didn't understand why Mountcastle didn't get called up after the apparent super 2 deadline had passed?  Then a few days later he did get called up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's banter fodder, but I also think it is kind of a nothingburger.   If Super 2 is taken away, an artificial "Rookie of the Year" shot the following season probably has more upside for the player than the club for those future arb hearings. 

The club gets that sweet sweet prospect rankings bump (Kremer Top 100 now?)

I just saw the story about new rules yesterday disqualifying Adell and some others next year due to service time; Mountcastle was not addressed, but I think he's still good as since 8/21 it was only about 40 days.  The gist of the story seemed to be you got credit for September 2020 days and if you exceeded 45 days you lost rookie status regardless of your AB or IP total.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Remember when we didn't understand why Mountcastle didn't get called up after the apparent super 2 deadline had passed?  Then a few days later he did get called 

How can we forget?  Literally. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

Remember when we didn't understand why Mountcastle didn't get called up after the apparent super 2 deadline had passed?  Then a few days later he did get called up?

There is no such thing as an apparent Super 2 deadline, especially this year.    

It is my understanding that every day of service time this year counts as 2.8 days, for FA/Arb eligibility purpose.    Looks like Mountcastle was up for 38 days which translates to 106 days of service.    We won’t know the cutoff date until the end of 2022 (by which time there will be a new CBA and Lord knows if Super-2 will still exist or how it will be determined).   

Last winter the super 2 cutoff was 2.115 (Josh Hader), lowest in a decade.    Mountcastle’s 106 sets him up to be lower than that at the end of 2022.   Whether that’ll keep him out of Super-2 is anyone’s guess.   The Brewers probably thought they were safe bringing up Hader in 2017 considering that the cutoff had been above 2.130 each of the previous three years and hadn’t been below 2.122 this decade.    But they were wrong.   And I’d imagine the whole pattern of callups was different this year because of the short season, so it’s really hard to know what to expect.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Frobby said:

I can see you are being snarky, but where is your evidence that the O’s manipulated Mountcastle’s playing time to preserve his rookie status? He played every single game after his call-up.    The only game he didn’t start was the first game of a doubleheader, three weeks before the season ended, and even in that game he game in during the middle of the game and got 2 at bats.  He only had 6 games in which he had less than four plate appearances, and in five of those he played the entire game.   Over the last 17 games, he batted 3rd or 4th every game, not something you’d do with a rookie if you were trying to keep his at bats down.   
 

In short, I see no evidence that the O’s tried to manage Mountcastle to the 130 at bat standard.   He stayed under it himself by walking 11 times and having three other plate appearances that didn’t count as an at bat.   

While I’m on the subject, it’s crazy in this day and age that rookie status depends on AB rather than PA.    Two guys come up to the majors, one two days after the other, and they each play every game the rest of the year.    The first guy has 145 PA and walks 16 times.    The other has 137 PA and walks 7 times.    The first guy keeps rookie status and the second guy doesn’t— that makes no sense whatsoever.  

The rule really needs to be updated to plate appearances. It's pretty ridiculous that it's still AB like a walk doesn't count towards being a rookie or not.

Saying that, it will be nice to know Mountcastle will be a rookie next year. If he hits anywhere near what he did this year he will certainly have a great chance to be the Orioles first rookie of the year since Gregg Olson in 1989. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I think an argument could be made that it is possible that Super 2 status plays a role in a team's thinking, I really don't think that rookie status matters at all to MLB teams, as far as roster management is concerned.  I don't see any real benefit to the team whether a player keeps his rookie status or not.  I just don't think that teams really care all that much about offseason prospect rankings.  Fans care far more about things like that than teams do, IMO.  Teams do, however, have an incentive to keep a player out of Super 2 status, whether they will admit to it or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

Remember when we didn't understand why Mountcastle didn't get called up after the apparent super 2 deadline had passed?  Then a few days later he did get called up?

Green font, you gotta remember the green font.

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.

Sign in to follow this  

Orioles Information


Orioles News and Information

Daily Organizational Boxscores
News

Tony's Takes

Orioles Roster Resource

Orioles Prospect Information

2018 End of Season Top 30 Prospects List

Prospect Scouting Reports

Statistics

2019 Orioles Stats

2019 Orioles Minor League Stats

Baseball Savant Stats






  • Posts

    • 1966 ranks 107th of the 115 World Series ever played?   The hell with that!    That series was a huge upset and featured two 1-0 nail biters.  1970 ranks 95th?    The great O’s team over the Big Red Machine?   Brooks puts on the best defensive show of all time and this is what we get? 1983 ranks 84th?    So all three Orioles wins are in the bottom 32 World Series ever played, and worse than every World Series they lost?   Aargggghhh! Now for the killer: you have to jump all the way to 36 for Mets vs. Orioles in 1969.    Other than the fact that the Mets were a terrible team before ‘69, what about that series is better than 1983?    They are both 5 game series where the winning team lost the opener and then swept 4 straight.   Screw this!  This is why I hate all New York sports teams so much.     1971 — 20th.     1979 — 13th.    Now, I can’t really argue that, objectively speaking, the two seven game losses to the Pirates weren’t better World Series than the four other 4-5 game Series that the O’s played.  But lord it pains me to see them up so high.   And just to add insult to injury: “When Eddie Murray batted in the eighth inning of Game 7, the championship leverage index in the moment was higher than for any other play in history. He flied to the edge of the warning track, and after a slightly awkward break, Dave Parker ran it down. Five more feet and it could have looked a lot like the ball Nelson Cruzmisplayed, for which David Freese got a triple, in 2011.” https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/29104085/ranking-every-world-series-mlb-history
    • FV dropped from 50 to 45 and ceiling dropped from 55 to 50.   That feels a little harsh to me.   But based on the write-up, it seems Tony heard some things about Diaz’s camp that were a bit more negative than what has been stated publicly.    I think Diaz is a guy who could exceed his projection if things go right for him.  
    • Ceiling grade dropped from 55 to 50 this year.    
    • Hopefully “better than those guys” is not the standard we’re trying to meet.   
    • One name I haven’t seen listed yet is Hunter Harvey, who is still rookie-eligible.  He was ranked 10th last year. For now I will assume he’s been downgraded after being somewhat less impressive in 2020 than in 2019, but it’s also possible that Tony didn’t realize he was still eligible.    The next two on last year’s list were Wells and Rom.   That’s not a pairing here, but Zimmermann did reach the majors and didn’t embarrass himself, so Wells and Zimmermann is possible.   Assuming Tony meant what he said about not shuffling the order of incumbent players who weren’t in Bowie, McKenna-Hall and Hall-Mayo aren’t possibilities since there are several incumbent players ahead of Hall.    That leaves Baumler-Mayo or Mayo-Baumler.    The latter seems more likely since Mayo was the higher pick and got the higher bonus.     As between Mayo-Baumler and Wells-Zimmermann, I think Tony will go with the younger pairing with more upside.    Wells and Zimmermann are both 5th starter/swingman types.   And my gut tells me that Wells not being invited to Bowie is a bad sign for him.   So I’m going Mayo-Baumler.   
    • Got this pairing correct.   Not that excited about Vavra’s writeup, though.    
    • I think it all depends on how much his deception plays up. He throws a little harder than Milone and his release point and extension on his release helps it play up as well.  I like him, but was disappointed that Elias didn't have him at the auxiliary camp. 
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...