Why is the book closed on Mountcastle at 3rd?

[now]

14 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

According to DRS the 2012 Orioles, prior to Manny being called up in early August, were -14 at third.  So about -20 pro-rated to a full season.  In 2011 they were at -24.

In 2013, mostly Manny, the team was +25 at third.  So a swing of over four wins just on third base defense.

Wowsers. That must be a record improvement.

[now]

8 hours ago, Tony-OH said:

The player development folks evaluated Mountcastle immediately and decided he was not a shortstop. I was told Dan Duquette himself insisted that Mountcastle play shortstop because it would up his value. The problem of course with that idea is that if no other team thinks he's a shortstop, it doesn't help out his value at all. 

There were some people in the organization that wanted to move him to the outfield after his Delmarva season but were overruled. So the team kept playing him at SS and then moved him over to third where everyone knew his arm wouldn't work there either. 

So basically they lost out on several years of outfield defense development because Dan Duquette felt Mountcastle had more value playing SS even though I'm betting, he knew he really couldn't play there either. 

I try to call Duquette's moves and management as I see it, and in this case, his plan for developing Mountcastle defensively was poor.

Just another chapter in the long annals of Oriole decision-making incompetence... to sit on the shelf next to "25 Years of Oriole Greatness."

[DrungoHazewood]

4 hours ago, now said:

Just another chapter in the long annals of Oriole decision-making incompetence... to sit on the shelf next to "25 Years of Oriole Greatness."

Based on our very limited observations and data it looks like the current Mountcastle is roughly an average LFer.  I don't know that a couple more years of practice was going to turn him into Brady Anderson, so this probably wasn't a tragic decision.

[Can_of_corn]

6 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Based on our very limited observations and data it looks like the current Mountcastle is roughly an average LFer.  I don't know that a couple more years of practice was going to turn him into Brady Anderson, so this probably wasn't a tragic decision.

Nice subtle shot at Brady's arm there. 

And I agree with your point.  It's left field.

[Ruzious]

14 hours ago, SteveA said:

I probably didn't ask the question right.   I wasn't questioning drafting him.

Why was he playing shortstop in the first place if his arm is SO bad for an infielder.   Is what I was trying to ask.   

Sorry, my answer before was a bad one.  I just think teams tend to err on the side of over optimism that a player will develop - thinking there's no harm in doing it and maybe they get blind lucky.  If Duq really believed he could up his value by keeping him at SS, I think that was silly at best on his part.  

[jamalshw]

I get the idea behind this conversation. We've got a load of ready (or near-ready) young OF options and save for maybe Bannon, who is a long shot to be a starter for a good team, there aren't any near-ready options in the infield so if we can move someone out of the OF log-jam that opens up ABs for someone that may be part of the future rather than someone like Ruiz who we've seen enough of to know what he is.

Because of that, I would prefer we put Mountcastle at 1B/DH along with Mancini, but if he can prove to be a passable LF option, that increases his overall value. Personally, I'd love to see Mancini and Mountcastle splitting 1B and DH with an OF of Diaz, Hays and Santander. Throw Bannon at 2B or 3B (whichever he is best suited to play) and see who can stick. Fill in the gaps with whoever until Adley is up at C and some of the infield prospects are ready to get a chance up the middle (or in place of Bannon if he can't stick).

[Tony-OH]

5 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Based on our very limited observations and data it looks like the current Mountcastle is roughly an average LFer.  I don't know that a couple more years of practice was going to turn him into Brady Anderson, so this probably wasn't a tragic decision.

I don't think it was incompetence per se, but are you suggesting that 2 or 3 years more of outfield experience would not help him be a better outfielder right now? How much experience do you believe a player needs to become the best defensive outfielder he can be?

While I don't think it was a "tragic decision" either, according to stacast his jumps (-0.9 ft/sec) and burst (-1.2) (Note: They are measured on 2 star catches or harder chances) were well below average and his feet covered (in 1.5 seconds) of 27.9 would have put him 111th of 113 outfielders despite having 78th percential sprint speed running the bases. This suggests he's tentative or was not able to run effectively fast to his speed capability while tracking flyballs. That typically comes with experience.

Now, saying that, he only had five two stars+ chances and converted two of them so we are talking a small sample size. Since most of Mountcastle's chances last year were pretty routine catches (1 star) which are not tracked, and of course five opportunities is not enough of a sample size to draw any formal conclusions, it does suggest that Mountcasle may not be an average defensive outfielder despite the metrics of OAA (0) and success added (-1%) show him to be average to slightly below average.

Most players improve with experience with things like playing the outfield because tracking balls, jumps and routes. Now there does come a time where tools come to play and this is where Mountcastle's raw speed tool is a plus for him over saying someone like a Trumbo who had well below average foot speed and was never going to be a good defensive outfielder. Of course on the other side of the coin, Mountcastle's below average arm will limit him to left field. 
 

 

 

[Sports Guy]

Yea, I wouldn’t call it a tragic decision but it was incompetent to put him in his best position sooner.

The whole purpose of coaching and the organization as a whole is to put you in the best position to succeed.  The Os didn’t do that.  Tragic?  No. Stupid?  Yes

[BrendanPlutschak]

Maybe I'm wrong here, but why are we forced to play him at a position and not make him the DH 75% of the time? Like I get that a player has more value as a position player, and it gives you significantly more flexibility to have guys who can play positions and move things around so guys can get rest days at DH instead of having to sit completely. However it's looking like Santander, Hayes, and Mullins are all above average to very good defensive outfielders. Everything says that Diaz is an above average to very good defensive outfielder. I'm not convinced that playing Mountcastle in LF over Hayes or Mullins is the best idea.

 

To me he's a DH, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. In a pinch when someone needs a day off throw him in left for a game, throw him at first for a game. Give him some practice at 3rd if you want and see if he can fill in there for a game. But put the kid at DH and let him hit, and let your defense shine without him.

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, BrendanPlutschak said:

Maybe I'm wrong here, but why are we forced to play him at a position and not make him the DH 75% of the time? Like I get that a player has more value as a position player, and it gives you significantly more flexibility to have guys who can play positions and move things around so guys can get rest days at DH instead of having to sit completely. However it's looking like Santander, Hayes, and Mullins are all above average to very good defensive outfielders. Everything says that Diaz is an above average to very good defensive outfielder. I'm not convinced that playing Mountcastle in LF over Hayes or Mullins is the best idea.

 

To me he's a DH, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. In a pinch when someone needs a day off throw him in left for a game, throw him at first for a game. Give him some practice at 3rd if you want and see if he can fill in there for a game. But put the kid at DH and let him hit, and let your defense shine without him.

If you get the fact that he has more value than I don't understand why you don't get the rest of it.

If at all possible you play him where he has the most value.

If the O's get players that can provide more value than he can in left and first than he will provide more value at DH, in which case he should play DH.

 

I also don't think we've seen near enough to declare the kid a DH.  The advantage in defense in left field at OPACY isn't that compelling an argument that we should run someone like Mullins out there.  How many plays are the guys you mentioned going to make that Mountcastle won't? 

[BrendanPlutschak]

4 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

If you get the fact that he has more value than I don't understand why you don't get the rest of it.

If at all possible you play him where he has the most value.

If the O's get players that can provide more value than he can in left and first than he will provide more value at DH, in which case he should play DH.

 

I also don't think we've seen near enough to declare the kid a DH.  The advantage in defense in left field at OPACY isn't that compelling an argument that we should run someone like Mullins out there.  How many plays are the guys you mentioned going to make that Mountcastle won't? 

Very fair point. I guess my question would be everything we're reading early early early in the process is that DJ Stewart is the "lead candidate" as DH. My question is would you rather have Stewarts bat, or Mullins glove. To me if that's the choice, I'd rather have Mullins glove and put Mountcastle at DH.

 

But I do get your point that we need to look beyond this season and try to make Mountcastle as valuable as this team as possible, and not being a liability in the field is important.

[Can_of_corn]

I am not a believer at all in Mullin's bat.

[Frobby]

5 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I am not a believer at all in Mullin's bat.

When you say “not a believer at all,” what do you mean?   I’ve seen OPS projections for Mullins ranging from as low as .637 (PECOTA) to as high as .692 (Steamer).    Personally I think he’ll be at the higher end of that range, but I think that range is pretty accurate.    

[Can_of_corn]

2 minutes ago, Frobby said:

When you say “not a believer at all,” what do you mean?   I’ve seen OPS projections for Mullins ranging from as low as .637 (PECOTA) to as high as .692 (Steamer).    Personally I think he’ll be at the higher end of that range, but I think that range is pretty accurate.    

I don't think he will hit enough to hold down a starting job.

[Tony-OH]

41 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I am not a believer at all in Mullin's bat.

I'm not convinced Mullins is more than a 4th/5th outfielder at the major league level and he's only that because if his defensive abilities. His XWOBA was much lower than his WOBA which of course is probably due to the success of the bunt hits. Either way, he did make some progress hitting left-handed but he still should only bat right-handed in emergencies or as a late game fill in.