Is Mouncastle as good a hitter as Mancini was prior to his rookie year?

[HowAboutThat]

Meh, actually I don’t care anymore. If he hits well enough to compensate for his defense, wherever he plays, then OK. If he can’t make the transition, which has been the case for many a hitter before him, then not-OK.

I just hope they don’t keep him around for years like Mike Wright if he doesn’t produce.

[Can_of_corn]

7 minutes ago, interloper said:

Mediocre defense, great sound off the bat: two things Mancini possesses that Mountcastle also possesses, yet I see you denigrate Mancini on the regular. 

That's hypocritical, no? 

I don't think I've been unfair in my criticism.  He's a poor defensive player who bats right handed.  That limits his value.  I don't think he will bring back much in trade due to those factors.

If it comes to pass that Mountcastle isn't superior at the bat or in the field to Mancini I'll feel the same way about him.  I think Mountcastle has the potential be be superior defensively because of his past history.

Edit- Keep in mind I'm against gaming Mountcastle's service clock since I don't think he will be the caliber of player that warrants such action.  Obviously I'm not predicting stardom.

[Frobby]

1 minute ago, Philip said:

Meh, actually I don’t care anymore. If he hits well enough to compensate for his defense, wherever he plays, then OK. If he can’t make the transition, which has been the case for many a hitter before him, then not-OK.

I just hope they don’t keep him around for years like Mike Wright if he doesn’t produce.

Pitchers who can throw hard get the most chances.    

I have essentially zero doubt that Mountcastle will be a much better major league player than Mike Wright.    I’d say his floor is about Renato Nunez, his ceiling is a bit north of Mancini.    
 

[Tony-OH]

2 hours ago, wildcard said:

Forget the defense for a minute.   Mancini had a 775 OPS at AAA prior to his rookie year.   Mountcastle had a 871 OPS at  AAA.   But the ball was different.   Do you think we can expect Mountcastle to hit as well has Mancini did his rookie year?

At the same age as Mountcastle last year (22), Mancini slashed .284/.326/.409/.735 between Low and High-A ball. So yes, I think Mountcastle has an excellent chance to hit as well or better than Mancini in the big leagues next year during his rookie season. 

I realize he has a few doubters on here because of his plate discipline, but I am not one of them.

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, RZNJ said:

Superior because of his past history? For being a SS in name only, and so sub par at 3B that a ML team in need of a 3B would not consider him a potential ML 3B.  There were reports that his brief audition at 1B didn't go so well either.  Are all of those things somehow a plus for him developing into a competent outfielder?  I'm not saying he can't,  just that I don't see his history as being a plus.

As opposed to being a first baseman in college yea. 

I rate crappy minor league shortstop over mediocre college first baseman.

[Tony-OH]

51 minutes ago, Frobby said:

 

I think there’s two issues here: short term and long term.    I would not bet on Mountcastle having as good a rookie year as Mancini, when the latter put up a 120 OPS+.   That’s a very good rookie year, and was good for 3rd in the ROY voting.   It would be asking a lot for Mountcastle to match that, and I’ll guess he falls short of that, while still holding his own and putting up a 110+.    And, he’ll be two years younger than Mancini was when he does that.

Which brings us to the long term.    I think Mountcastle has the higher ceiling, though Mancini is doing a pretty good job of maxing out on his.    I think in the long run Mountcastle will be a somewhat better hitter, which is saying something, because Mancini’s pretty damned good.    The plate discipline is an issue but I think Mountcastle will adjust at least to a reasonable degree.    

By the way, for some league context, Mancini had a .351 wOBA and 124 wRC+ in AAA, while Mountcastle had .367 and 117.     The league average was .254/.319/.378 when Mancini played at Norfolk, .266/.342/.445 when Mountcastle played there last year.   So really, they performed quite similarly if you consider league context.   
 

You forgot to add one very important detail that some seem to forget, he was two years younger than Mancini at the same time in AAA. 

[HowAboutThat]

6 minutes ago, Frobby said:

 I’d say his floor is about Renato Nunez, his ceiling is a bit north of Mancini

If his floor is Nunez, then he shouldn’t own a glove. Put him at DH, and in 20 years he goes into the Hall next to Edgar.

If his Ceiling is a bit North of Mancini, you’ve got a few additional options on D, but don’t go crazy, and all will be well.

[HowAboutThat]

5 minutes ago, RZNJ said:

Superior because of his past history? For being a SS in name only, and so sub par at 3B that a ML team in need of a 3B would not consider him a potential ML 3B.  There were reports that his brief audition at 1B didn't go so well either.  Are all of those things somehow a plus for him developing into a competent outfielder?  I'm not saying he can't,  just that I don't see his history as being a plus.

I mention things like this constantly, but constantly get slammed for doing so. I don’t care anymore. Bring him up when service time is no longer an issue, and let him play and he’ll make his way or not.

Meanwhile, about Stewart...

[Frobby]

19 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

You forgot to add one very important detail that some seem to forget, he was two years younger than Mancini at the same time in AAA. 

I didn’t say that because it was obvious.  I quoted interloper’s post about their comparative stats at age 22, and I mentioned that Mountcastle would be two years younger this year than Mancini was in his rookie year.    So, I think the age point was covered.    

That’s also why I focused on short term vs. long term.    Mountcastle’s age gives him more time to develop and reach his peak, which is why I like his ceiling better in the long term.    In the short term, though, I think you need to take into account that Mancini had a much smoother rookie transition than most players do.    I think most of us, even people who were high on Mancini, were pleasantly surprised by how easily he adjusted that year.    It’s possible that Mountcastle will too, but that’s asking a lot, even if you like Mountcastle better in the long run.   
 

[weams]

2 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

Yes.

The sound rarely lies.

He is unlike any young hitter that I have heard as an Oriole since Manny. 

[weams]

5 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I didn’t say that because it was obvious.  I quoted interloper’s post about their comparative stats at age 22, and I mentioned that Mountcastle would be two years younger this year than Mancini was in his rookie year.    So, I think the age point was covered.    

That’s also why I focused on short term vs. long term.    Mountcastle’s age gives him more time to develop and reach his peak, which is why I like his ceiling better in the long term.    In the short term, though, I think you need to take into account that Mancini had a much smoother rookie transition than most players do.    I think most of us, even people who were high on Mancini, were pleasantly surprised by how easily he adjusted that year.    It’s possible that Mountcastle will too, but that’s asking a lot, even if you like Mountcastle better in the long run.   
 

I really want to concentrate on tools. Not results. Especially bat speed and natural loft. And with that, Mountcastle just wins. 

[DirtyBird]

2 hours ago, TINSTAAPP said:

No because Mancini's approach at the plate and plate discipline improved at every level as he advanced through the minors. In his last full season in the minors, Mancini actually had a respectable 9.5 BB%. I bet Mountcastle's walk to strikeout ratio would resemble rookie year Jonathan Schoop if he played an entire season next year in the majors.

Small sample size:

Mountcastle in Spring Training

'18 - 24 AB, 1 BB, 9 K, .987 OPS

'19 - 39 AB, 5 BB, 9 K, .748 OPS

Walk rate isn't important. 

[Frobby]

Just now, weams said:

I really want to concentrate on tools. Not results. Especially bat speed and natural loft. And with that, Mountcastle just wins. 

I can’t debate you on this.    I’ve seen probably 20-40 film highlights of good Mountcastle at bats, usually from some mediocre angle, and that’s just not something I can base a judgment on.    Meanwhile I’ve seen Mancini bat hundreds if not thousands of times.    

I’ll only add that plate discipline and pitch recognition are also important regardless of bat speed and loft.    Especially at the major league level against the best pitchers in the world.    All indications are that Mountcastle’s tools will play at the big league level, but just how good he turns out to be will depend a lot on these factors.   
 

[weams]

1 minute ago, Frobby said:

I can’t debate you on this.    I’ve seen probably 20-40 film highlights of good Mountcastle at bats, usually from some mediocre angle, and that’s just not something I can base a judgment on.    Meanwhile I’ve seen Mancini bat hundreds if not thousands of times.    

I’ll only add that plate discipline and pitch recognition are also important regardless of bat speed and loft.    Especially at the major league level against the best pitchers in the world.    All indications are that Mountcastle’s tools will play at the big league level, but just how good he turns out to be will depend a lot on these factors.   
 

Sure. Mancini is pretty good. 

[Frobby]

3 minutes ago, DirtyBird said:

Small sample size:

Mountcastle in Spring Training

'18 - 24 AB, 1 BB, 9 K, .987 OPS

'19 - 39 AB, 5 BB, 9 K, .748 OPS

Walk rate isn't important. 

That sample is too small to make any statements.    Especially in spring training where the quality of the competition varies drastically.