Jump to content

162 games of Ryan Mountcastle


Frobby

Recommended Posts

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Upvote 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
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.


×
×
  • Create New...