Cedric Mullins’ defense of late

[Frobby]

Man has this guy been flashing the leather of late!  Diving catch racing in last night, leaping/diving catch in the RCF gap on Sunday, two really nice running catches on balls near the fence in the RCF gap last Friday.   He’s at 5 outs above average, 5th among CF and 94th percentile per Statcast.  Rdrs has him +7.  Rtot and UZR have him slightly negative, to which I say BS!

https://www.mlb.com/orioles/video/keegan-akin-in-play-out-s-to-jesse-winker?t=t110-default-vtp

https://www.mlb.com/video/keegan-akin-in-play-out-s-to-taylor-trammell?t=most-popular

https://www.mlb.com/video/andrew-vaughn-lines-out-sharply-to-center-fielder-cedric-mullins?t=most-popular

https://www.mlb.com/video/dean-kremer-in-play-out-s-to-jose-abreu

[Moose Milligan]

He's been fantastic.  I don't know if he gets a gold glove, but I think he'd be a candidate for sure.  

 

 

[RZNJ]

Some nice catches but it seems on anything hit at him his first step is always back.  He's no Paul Blair on shallow fly balls.  That was a great catch laying out for the ball in the alley against the Sox.  I'm happy with his defense but my two criticisms would be the shallow fly and he does seem a bit tentative when he gets close to the wall sometimes.  He's great going alley to alley.

[emmett16]

He has made 3 catches in the last week that I didn’t think he had a chance to make at all.  He’s fun to watch out there.  Palmer made a comment last night that just about every ball to the OF, that doesn’t leave the ballpark, is going to be caught.  

[Aristotelian]

That ball he took away from Vaughn might be the best play I've seen in CF since peak Jones. Got a well deserved tip of the cap.

[Frobby]

5 minutes ago, RZNJ said:

Some nice catches but it seems on anything hit at him his first step is always back.  He's no Paul Blair on shallow fly balls.  That was a great catch laying out for the ball in the alley against the Sox.  I'm happy with his defense but my two criticisms would be the shallow fly and he does seem a bit tentative when he gets close to the wall sometimes.  He's great going alley to alley.

Statcast has him neutral on balls behind him or in front of him, +2 lateral towards 3B and +3 lateral towards 1B.

I’m not going to drive myself crazy comparing guys to Blair, Brooks or Belanger.  Sure, Mullins is no Blair.  He’s not one of the top 3 defensive centerfields of the last 70 years, like Blair was.  But he’s very good.   

[Aristotelian]

Also I think it was the Yankee series, their announcers were complimenting Mullins defense. They said anything hit to his general area is going to be caught and they also said you should never run on Mullins because of his arm (????).

[Just Regular]

I think I've heard Blair at a Fanfest give a quote like he doesn't believe you can be a great CF unless you play shallow, but generationally he defended against 3-4 Mark Belangers, and this year near MLB-worst Bat Jorge Mateo hits balls 110 mph occasionally.

The Statcast podcast last week did a '22 Yankees chasing '98 Yankees type feature, and it got me wondering about the generally accepted constant improvement of the game.    

How far back would you guess it has to go for today's Orioles to outplay some old greats...'98 Yankees, '83 Orioles, '75 Reds, '66 Orioles?     With Doctor Strange powers, everyone is transported to 1983 Memorial Stadium for a 5-game series of day games with zero off days.

Playoff bracket in the style of the 2022 AL playoffs...I'll give the Yankees and Reds byes, and enter both the '21 Orioles and '22 Orioles as opening round opponents for the '66 and '83 teams.    100 simulations...most dogpiles is??

 

[Tony-OH]

42 minutes ago, RZNJ said:

Some nice catches but it seems on anything hit at him his first step is always back.  He's no Paul Blair on shallow fly balls.  That was a great catch laying out for the ball in the alley against the Sox.  I'm happy with his defense but my two criticisms would be the shallow fly and he does seem a bit tentative when he gets close to the wall sometimes.  He's great going alley to alley.

I'm too young to remember Paul Blair in his prime, but I know he's widely considered one of the best defensive CF of all-time. Saying that, Mullins is not great, but about league average on coming in on balls. He's never had a negative or positive OOA coming in in balls. So basically, he's get to what he's supposed to get to, but he's not going to make that amazing play coming in very often.

[Frobby]

44 minutes ago, Just Regular said:

I think I've heard Blair at a Fanfest give a quote like he doesn't believe you can be a great CF unless you play shallow, but generationally he defended against 3-4 Mark Belangers, and this year near MLB-worst Bat Jorge Mateo hits balls 110 mph occasionally.

Blair was very much a “players were better back in my day” guy.   I saw him once on an MLB Network show where the Gold Gloves were announced and they showed some CF making a great diving catch.  Blair harrumphed that if you knew what you were doing and judged the ball right, you’d never need to dive for a ball.   And I believe he said he’d never dove for a ball.

Now, I did see plenty of Blair and he was an amazing CF.   Best first step instincts and jump I ever saw from an OF, and very fast.   But the idea that a good fielder would never need to dive for a ball is ridiculous.  There’s always going to be some balls at the very edge of your range that you can only reach by diving.   Generally, players today are more athletic and willing to throw their bodies around to get to a ball, compared to 50-60 years ago.   Players didn’t do it much then, it just wasn’t part of the game.  

[DrungoHazewood]

25 minutes ago, Just Regular said:

I think I've heard Blair at a Fanfest give a quote like he doesn't believe you can be a great CF unless you play shallow, but generationally he defended against 3-4 Mark Belangers, and this year near MLB-worst Bat Jorge Mateo hits balls 110 mph occasionally.

The Statcast podcast last week did a '22 Yankees chasing '98 Yankees type feature, and it got me wondering about the generally accepted constant improvement of the game.    

How far back would you guess it has to go for today's Orioles to outplay some old greats...'98 Yankees, '83 Orioles, '75 Reds, '66 Orioles?     With Doctor Strange powers, everyone is transported to 1983 Memorial Stadium for a 5-game series of day games with zero off days.

Playoff bracket in the style of the 2022 AL playoffs...I'll give the Yankees and Reds byes, and enter both the '21 Orioles and '22 Orioles as opening round opponents for the '66 and '83 teams.    100 simulations...most dogpiles is??

 

I am 100% on board with the slope of history argument that baseball gets better all the time, and that an average team today would wipe the floor with the 1927 Yankees. 

But there's a limit, you have to inject some realism.  If the slope of history was so steep that a .450 team today would regularly beat the 1998 Yankees then David Ortiz and Nelson Cruz couldn't exist.  Nobody would still be a good player in their mid 30s, much less a star.

I have argued that the increase in quality in MLB is something like 0.5% a year. That's small enough that over a 20-year career the majors get 10% better, and over a century 50% better.  The 1893 Orioles are probably better than the '22 Orioles, although I'm not sure how the '83 team would adjust to wall-to-wall 97 mph max effort pitchers.

[Spy Fox]

20 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

The 1893 Orioles are probably better than the '22 Orioles, although I'm not sure how the '83 team would adjust to wall-to-wall 97 mph max effort pitchers.

A typo that threatens to send us into an even deeper classic Drungo rabbithole! 

Sadie McMahon's season for the 1893 O's would certainly help us solve our "1450 innings" dilemma. 

[RZNJ]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

Blair was very much a “players were better back in my day” guy.   I saw him once on an MLB Network show where the Gold Gloves were announced and they showed some CF making a great diving catch.  Blair harrumphed that if you knew what you were doing and judged the ball right, you’d never need to dive for a ball.   And I believe he said he’d never dove for a ball.

Now, I did see plenty of Blair and he was an amazing CF.   Best first step instincts and jump I ever saw from an OF, and very fast.   But the idea that a good fielder would never need to dive for a ball is ridiculous.  There’s always going to be some balls at the very edge of your range that you can only reach by diving.   Generally, players today are more athletic and willing to throw their bodies around to get to a ball, compared to 50-60 years ago.   Players didn’t do it much then, it just wasn’t part of the game.  

I agree that there are times you need to dive but it's way overdone.   Last night the kid centerfielder on the other team made what looked like a great catch when he reached out a the last moment to catch Rustchman's drive into RCF but he should have made the catch easier.   He was cruising to the ball instead of running full speed in then got fooled a little bit and had to reach out.  Looks great but it wasn't.

Most of these diving catches would be made if the outfielder actually stayed on their feet and ran "through the ball".    A foot first slide will actually get you to the ball slower than just running and making the knee high/shoestring catch.    Most headfirst slides are also slower than just to continue running.   Sprinters sometimes lean at the end of the race but you'd have to execute a perfect dive to actually get to point A faster than to just continue running.   Just my opinion.  I'm not an expert on physics but I have a pretty good idea.

[Just Regular]

1 hour ago, DrungoHazewood said:

But there's a limit, you have to inject some realism.  If the slope of history was so steep that a .450 team today would regularly beat the 1998 Yankees then David Ortiz and Nelson Cruz couldn't exist.  Nobody would still be a good player in their mid 30s, much less a star.

I agree.   Having followed the teams 40-some years, on a gut level, I don't see John Means navigating Ripken-Murray-Singleton, and pretty sure Boddicker would have the upper hand on Mountcastle, etc.

In BP Book Tour days, I did hear Kevin Goldstein opine (perhaps to entertain a Seattle audience pre-Bedard trade) Adam Jones was about as good as Willie Mays, but that take felt and feels too aggressive.

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, Spy Fox said:

A typo that threatens to send us into an even deeper classic Drungo rabbithole! 

Sadie McMahon's season for the 1893 O's would certainly help us solve our "1450 innings" dilemma. 

Ha! Yep, I meant 1983. 

My guess is if the 1893 Orioles played the 2022 Orioles they'd call it off after three or four innings with the modern guys ahead 22-0.  '93 was the first year of the 60' 6" pitching distance and McMahon allowed over 1.5 baserunners an inning and 232 runs in 346 innings. Walked 156 and struck out just 79, against a bunch of opponents who probably averaged 5' 8", 160 pounds and many of whom choked up 5" with a split-handed grip on a 30" bat. The current Orioles' staff probably throws 10-15 mph faster on average than the 1893ers.

A question I'll never get answered is what someone like John McGraw would do against a modern pitcher throwing 100 mph with good control.  1893 was not one of McGraw's better seasons, but he hit .321 with 101 walks and 11 strikeouts in 597 PAs. Nine doubles, 10 triples, five homers (three inside the park).  My best guess is that if you put him in the Tardis and brought him to 2022 he'd look something like Lance Blankenship or Joey Rickard.