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

2020 Top 30 Prospects List

Prospect Scouting Reports

Statistics

2020 Orioles Stats

2019 Orioles Minor League Stats

Baseball Savant Stats






  • Posts

    • I don't have any personal animosity toward RZNJ.  It's a message board.
    • I guess it depends on the mindset.  If the big contract was the important thing to you I can see why you wouldn't want to risk losing money by testing positive.
    • Obviously, it's money related but it's also roster related. They believe, and I believe, that they won't lose anything with the extra AB's Stewart and Mullins are likely to get with this move.  Good point by SG for keeping Nunez for depth for now but the better point by Frobby.  At 26 years old Elias apparently feels Nunez is what he is.  A 750-820 OPS go with no defensive value and extremely streaky.  Is it worth 2M to make sure that's all he is?  
    • Beats me.  But I don't believe anyone who's had a bit of success at the ML level while juicing stops taking them, especially after they've bagged a big contract.  
    • I will say it seems strange that Nunez doesn't have some trade value vs a DFA. His avg exit velocity really fell off last year but his WOBA  has increased every year he's been with the Orioles to his career best .341 (MLB avg of .317) though his xWOBA fell to .301 (.321 MLB average) suggesting he was a little lucky last year. His defensive really fell off to the point that he's a DH, which of course puts a lot of pressure on his bat. With Mancini returning, and Stewart needing everyday at bats and an outfield that is getting crowded in a good way (Mountcastle, Stewart, Hays, Santander and Mullins and Diaz at some point perhaps), he's in a bit of a roster crunch.  I'd like to think a guy who was on pace to hit 30+ home runs at 26 years old with a good solid barrel percentage (80 MLB percentile) would have more value, but with offensive numbers continuing to rise, I guess is you bring no defensive value your bat needs to be special, and Nunez is a streaky hitter who can be special at times, but eventually ends up slightly better than average offensively.  Do I think money is involved in this decision? Yeah, I think it would be naïve to say that his arbitration number wasn't a factor. Was it the only factor, no because as I pointed out, there's going to be a crunch for PAs next year between 1B, DH and corner outfield.  As for Davis, it's quite clear that with COVID still lingering, the question on whether a full season will happen next year looms big on whether to finally cut bait on him. It's clear that Davis has no intention of doing the right thing and retiring, so he will continue to embarrass himself and any remaining legacy so he can cash some big checks in the future that he hasn't earned. It's certainly his right to do so. Also, with the CBA coming up, maybe the Orioles think they will save money from his albatross contract if the players strike? It's clear he's only still on the roster because the Orioles are exploring all ways to try and get out of paying him. Nunez was a decent stick, but his defensive woes really cut onto his value and at the end of the day, it seems Elias has decided he rather give those DH at bats to others.  
    • I have a theory. No better than your average CoC theory.  I believe pretty strongly that he did them.  Why stop?  Well, once he bagged his big contract, he may have felt the health risks and the low risk of getting caught were not worth it.  Perhaps he had a health scare or just being married and having a young family made him reevaluate the health risks. I know that he lost a lot of body mass over the last 5 years.  He says he was slow to change his swing because he had prior success.   Then why lose muscle and mass purposely if that's the way you were when you had all your success? No idea on Brady.  He still hit like 24 homers after the 50 homer season.  He may have used but that seadon was an aberration either way.  Like Davey Johnson in 73.  If you believe Brady used, I don't think the seasons after the 50 homer season necessarily mean that he stopped.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Popular Now

×
×
  • Create New...