162 games of Ryan Mountcastle

[Frobby]

Ryan Mountcastle played in his 162nd major league game last night.   Here’s the tale of the tape after the equivalent of one full season:

656 PA, 597 AB, 80 R, 165 H, 28 2B, 1 3B, 33 HR, 103 RBI, 4 SB, 46 BB, 170 K’s, .276/.328/.492, 118 OPS+.

Not too shabby for a rookie.    I think it’s realistic to think he can be an .850+ OPS guy in his prime, and maybe threaten .900 in his best seasons.   

[sportsfan8703]

10 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Ryan Mountcastle played in his 162nd major league game last night.   Here’s the tale of the tape after the equivalent of one full season:

656 PA, 597 AB, 80 R, 165 H, 28 2B, 1 3B, 33 HR, 103 RBI, 4 SB, 46 BB, 170 K’s, .276/.328/.492, 118 OPS+.

Not too shabby for a rookie.    I think it’s realistic to think he can be an .850+ OPS guy in his prime, and maybe threaten .900 in his best seasons.   

Good post. Good enough for a 1.7 WAR. He’s penalized so much for DH/1B. Now that he knows he’s the 1B long term, he can focus there instead of the other positions we were trying to force him into. 

[ChrisP]

Favorite current Oriole and it's not close. He was interviewed recently on an Oriole podcast and he seems like a good guy to root for. 

[spiritof66]

It's become pretty common to present what a young player does in his first 162 games in MLB, with the explicit or implicit suggestion that it represents a full season's performance for a player who hasn't yet played a full season.

But very few guys play 162 games in a season; almost everyone sits out some games to get rested or to deal with minor injuries (and now with protocols). And there are bereavement and paternity leaves. So 162-game numbers that are raw, and not percentages -- HRs, hits, runs, RBIs, BBs, SBs, etc.-- are inflated representations of a player's single-season performance. When I see 162-game numbers, I usually subtract 10 percent (assuming a player's full season is about 146 games) as a rough way to adjust those numbers. 

With Mountcastle, I'd like to think his numbers so far represent much of his MLB learning period, and that he'll be hitting (and walking) at higher levels for a long time.

[UMDTerrapins]

For an organization that hasn't in my opinion been very prolific at drafting and developing position players, I have a soft spot for Mountcastle, Mancini, Mullins, and Hays. And the stable of prospects in our system now. Just think how Mountcastle would be perceived if he had been able to stick at SS. He's a plus bat with a promising career ahead of him. 

[jamalshw]

51 minutes ago, UMDTerrapins said:

For an organization that hasn't in my opinion been very prolific at drafting and developing position players, I have a soft spot for Mountcastle, Mancini, Mullins, and Hays. And the stable of prospects in our system now. Just think how Mountcastle would be perceived if he had been able to stick at SS. He's a plus bat with a promising career ahead of him. 

Or 3B...or even LF. 

Still, he's a solid piece for the team. Once Adley is up and if the team can find someone for at least one of the infield spots this winter and the offense is certainly starting to come together and form something that is not too hard to get excited about in the next couple years. Now we need to start to see someone similarly step up on the pitching side. 

[Moose Milligan]

2 hours ago, spiritof66 said:

It's become pretty common to present what a young player does in his first 162 games in MLB, with the explicit or implicit suggestion that it represents a full season's performance for a player who hasn't yet played a full season.

But very few guys play 162 games in a season; almost everyone sits out some games to get rested or to deal with minor injuries (and now with protocols). And there are bereavement and paternity leaves. So 162-game numbers that are raw, and not percentages -- HRs, hits, runs, RBIs, BBs, SBs, etc.-- are inflated representations of a player's single-season performance. When I see 162-game numbers, I usually subtract 10 percent (assuming a player's full season is about 146 games) as a rough way to adjust those numbers. 

With Mountcastle, I'd like to think his numbers so far represent much of his MLB learning period, and that he'll be hitting (and walking) at higher levels for a long time.

I don't disagree with this, but I was more interested in the rate states instead of the counting numbers.  

[Pickles]

3 hours ago, Frobby said:

Ryan Mountcastle played in his 162nd major league game last night.   Here’s the tale of the tape after the equivalent of one full season:

656 PA, 597 AB, 80 R, 165 H, 28 2B, 1 3B, 33 HR, 103 RBI, 4 SB, 46 BB, 170 K’s, .276/.328/.492, 118 OPS+.

Not too shabby for a rookie.    I think it’s realistic to think he can be an .850+ OPS guy in his prime, and maybe threaten .900 in his best seasons.   

You know, three months ago, I would have been inclined to disagree with this.  

But now this is basically my position too.

If you've been watching him the last few months you have been able to watch him grow his approach in real time.  He can hit.  If he makes them throw him strikes, he can really hit.  He's seemed to have figured that out.

Outside of Mullins, Mountcastle establishing himself as a ML regular this year has to be high on the feel good story list.

[Sports Guy]

One question I would like to see asked RM this offseason is how much did playing LF and learning the position effect your offense?

 

[Just Regular]

Currently resting 50th in "RBI's in the 2020's", a competition I think he has a shot to fare well in if Orioles run production goes according to plan.

Young-ish rivals above him currently in this junk stat:

Rafael Devers, Matt Olson, Manny Machado, Vladimir Guerrero, Fernando Tatis, Kyle Tucker, Juan Soto, Bo Bichette, Austin Meadows.

1000% this will be a MASN graphic circa 2026.

[Frobby]

1 minute ago, OrioleDog said:

Currently resting 50th in "RBI's in the 2020's", a competition I think he has a shot to fare well in if Orioles run production goes according to plan.

Young-ish rivals above him currently in this junk stat:

Rafael Devers, Matt Olson, Manny Machado, Vladimir Guerrero, Fernando Tatis, Kyle Tucker, Juan Soto, Bo Bichette, Austin Meadows.

1000% this will be a MASN graphic circa 2026.

I’ll take Guerrero.   

[ChrisP]

3 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I’ll take Guerrero.   

Soto. I think he'll hold up better 2028-29. 

[interloper]

 

1 hour ago, Sports Guy said:

One question I would like to see asked RM this offseason is how much did playing LF and learning the position effect your offense?

 

I'm just glad we can put the whole "BUT WHERE'S HE GONNA PLAY" thing to bed. He's a first baseman, and a real solid one, it turns out. At least solid enough that we don't mention his defense too much except to point out a nice play. I don't have any problem with him being at 1B long term. I like his athleticism over there, he's quick, he's made some really nice picks this year. He looks settled and comfortable now which, to your point, might be part of why he's clicked at the plate the 2nd half of the year.

[Tony-OH]

2 hours ago, UMDTerrapins said:

For an organization that hasn't in my opinion been very prolific at drafting and developing position players, I have a soft spot for Mountcastle, Mancini, Mullins, and Hays. And the stable of prospects in our system now. Just think how Mountcastle would be perceived if he had been able to stick at SS. He's a plus bat with a promising career ahead of him. 

Interestingly, none were true 1st round (first 30 picks) who have outplayed the Orioles actual 1st rd pick of that draft.

Mountcastle (36th overall pick - $1.3 mil vs DJ Stewart 25th - $2.06 mil) - 2015 draft
Hays (3rd round - $665,800K vs Cody Sedlock 27th - $2.097 mil) - 2016 draft
Mancini (8th round - $151,900K vs Hunter Harvey 22nd - $1.947 mil) - 2013 draft
Mullins (13th round - $100K vs DJ Stewart 25th - $2.06 mil) - 2015 draft

Jordan's later picks tended to outperform his top picks.

 

[UMDTerrapins]

6 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

Jordan's later picks tended to outperform his top picks.

That is interesting! Funny how two of our best Rule V picks were also not our top picks. 

Your list is also a reminder for me that it's not uncommon for guys to take 5+ years from their draft year to become productive ML regulars. I gotta keep that in mind with our current position prospects. I think I'm reasonable about my expectations for our prospects, but tend to think of them breaking through sooner than I ought to.