Orioles should consider converting Stowers to 1B

[Tony-OH]

1 hour ago, sportsfan8703 said:

Norby is pushing his way into the COF picture for next year.  

Norby is starting to get Austin Hays comps for me as a hitter though he's shown better plate discipline but a little less average than Hays. He doesn't run or throw as well as Hays so I'm not sure the outfield is a great place for him but maybe he throws better from the outfield motion than the infield motion.  

I wish he was taller because first base might be his best destination but at 5-10, he'd be a pretty small target over there and his wing span would not be very long.

[Satyr3206]

22 hours ago, mikezpen said:

I see Mountcastle seems to have slipped and nobody loves him. Trade him for...whatever. Problem is, other teams can see what's going on, too. They don't love him either and you're not gonna get anything in return. Last year, he was one of the best young sluggers in the game. I don't know what's happened to him. But I wouldn't want him dumped over the off-season for a couple of Dominican 17 year-olds or a pair of grade C pitching prospects.

 

I know what happened. He stopped paying attention to the strike zone.

[Jim'sKid26]

21 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

It's funny, Vavra is listed at 6' 1", 200, and that's considered small.  Eddie is listed as 6' 2", 190, although no doubt he got heavier as he aged.  Palmeiro was 6', 180. Players have gotten bigger, Mountcastle doesn't look gigantic, but is 6' 4", 230.  In the old days you were thought of as massive if you were 6' and 200 pounds, like Anson, Thompson, and Brouthers. Gehrig was 6', 200.

I think Vavra could handle first defensively, but I don't know that he'll hit enough.  His minor league OBP is a combination of .300 average and a good walk rate.  In today's majors very few players hit .300 and with limited power his walk rate will probably drop by a fair amount.  And he's already 25. I think he'll be lucky to OPS .800, and if I had to guess I'd think he'll settle in more like .750. 

Donny Baseball was 6-0 and 175 in his playing days and was one of the best fielding 1B is baseball. 9 GGs. I don't think Vavra is too small. 

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, Jim'sKid26 said:

Donny Baseball was 6-0 and 175 in his playing days and was one of the best fielding 1B is baseball. 9 GGs. I don't think Vavra is too small. 

And probably 50% of players listed at 6' 0" are really somewhere between 5' 9" and 5' 11" but don't want to be listed under 6'.  Because there's a prejudice against small players, and at least some of that is warranted.  There was a year (1999?  2000? somewhere in there) that the O's didn't list anyone under 6' despite Jay Gibbons being about 4' 11".  I kid, but he's not much taller than me, and I'm 5' 7".

Anyway, I think players can certainly handle first if they're not really tall, but shorter players with defensive skills (who aren't lefties) are usually put at second or third, so the 6' 6" oaf can get in the lineup.

I think Ozzie Smith (5' 10") probably would have been the greatest defensive first baseman of all time by a considerable margin if he'd been allowed to try.  But of course he had more value as the greatest defensive shortstop of all time.

Edited August 31, 2022 by DrungoHazewood

[Jim'sKid26]

24 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

And probably 50% of players listed at 6' 0" are really somewhere between 5' 9" and 5' 11" but don't want to be listed under 6'.  Because there's a prejudice against small players, and at least some of that is warranted.  There was a year (1999?  2000? somewhere in there) that the O's didn't list anyone under 6' despite Jay Gibbons being about 4' 11".  I kid, but he's not much taller than me, and I'm 5' 7".

Anyway, I think players can certainly handle first if they're not really tall, but shorter players with defensive skills (who aren't lefties) are usually put at second or third, so the 6' 6" oaf can get in the lineup.

I think Ozzie Smith (5' 10") probably would have been the greatest defensive first baseman of all time by a considerable margin if he'd been allowed to try.  But of course he had more value as the greatest defensive shortstop of all time.

I'm sorry, how did we get from Don Mattingly, who was a very good - though vertically challenged- firstbaseman to Ozzie Smith - who I think never played 1B? I'm not following your logic; please forgive me.

[Aristotelian]

1 hour ago, Jim'sKid26 said:

I'm sorry, how did we get from Don Mattingly, who was a very good - though vertically challenged- firstbaseman to Ozzie Smith - who I think never played 1B? I'm not following your logic; please forgive me.

It was just a long winded way of saying it's better to have a good fielder than a big fielder at the position. 

[deward]

2 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

And probably 50% of players listed at 6' 0" are really somewhere between 5' 9" and 5' 11" but don't want to be listed under 6'.  Because there's a prejudice against small players, and at least some of that is warranted.  There was a year (1999?  2000? somewhere in there) that the O's didn't list anyone under 6' despite Jay Gibbons being about 4' 11".  I kid, but he's not much taller than me, and I'm 5' 7".

Anyway, I think players can certainly handle first if they're not really tall, but shorter players with defensive skills (who aren't lefties) are usually put at second or third, so the 6' 6" oaf can get in the lineup.

I think Ozzie Smith (5' 10") probably would have been the greatest defensive first baseman of all time by a considerable margin if he'd been allowed to try.  But of course he had more value as the greatest defensive shortstop of all time.

You sure about that on Gibbons? I stood next to Jay Gibbons while he was signing autographs outside Fenway; I'm 5' 11" and he seemed to be about the same (but way more jacked)

[DrungoHazewood]

8 minutes ago, deward said:

You sure about that on Gibbons? I stood next to Jay Gibbons while he was signing autographs outside Fenway; I'm 5' 11" and he seemed to be about the same (but way more jacked)

I'm not 100% sure, but we used to joke pretty regularly here on the Hangout about how he was considerably shorter than his listed height.

[jdwilde1]

13 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

It was just a long winded way of saying it's better to have a good fielder than a big fielder at the position. 

The things is, over 90% of a first baseman’s chances involve being able to catch the ball while keeping his foot on the bag. Height/reach play a very big part in that.  

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, Jim'sKid26 said:

I'm sorry, how did we get from Don Mattingly, who was a very good - though vertically challenged- firstbaseman to Ozzie Smith - who I think never played 1B? I'm not following your logic; please forgive me.

Short players can play first base.

[DrungoHazewood]

1 minute ago, jdwilde1 said:

The things is, over 90% of a first baseman’s chances involve being able to catch the ball while keeping his foot on the bag. Height/reach play a very big part in that.  

90% of his chances involve catching a ball someone else throws to you at chest height.  The large majority of a 1B chances are very routine. 

But a lot of the important chances are ranging far off the bag and/or fielding very sharply hit balls that would otherwise become hits. Basically being a third baseman who doesn't have to throw as far.  A lot of the best first basemen would be 2B/SS/3B but they can't because they're left-handed.

I would rather have a 5' 10" first baseman who could handle shortstop than some 6' 6" guy who isn't mobile but could reach the occasional wild throw.

[deward]

2 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I'm not 100% sure, but we used to joke pretty regularly here on the Hangout about how he was considerably shorter than his listed height.

He definitely wasn't any taller than me, so not his listed height, but he didn't seem much shorter, so within a couple of inches of it (unless he was wearing lifts that day). 

[Tony-OH]

2 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

And probably 50% of players listed at 6' 0" are really somewhere between 5' 9" and 5' 11" but don't want to be listed under 6'.  Because there's a prejudice against small players, and at least some of that is warranted.  There was a year (1999?  2000? somewhere in there) that the O's didn't list anyone under 6' despite Jay Gibbons being about 4' 11".  I kid, but he's not much taller than me, and I'm 5' 7".

Anyway, I think players can certainly handle first if they're not really tall, but shorter players with defensive skills (who aren't lefties) are usually put at second or third, so the 6' 6" oaf can get in the lineup.

I think Ozzie Smith (5' 10") probably would have been the greatest defensive first baseman of all time by a considerable margin if he'd been allowed to try.  But of course he had more value as the greatest defensive shortstop of all time.

The issue is not that a short player can not handle the fielding, scooping or throwing, it's that they provide less reach than a taller player, thus making height something desirable for a 1B. 

Think about how many close plays their are at first base or how many times a first baseman had to jump up to get a throw and maybe swipe a tag. 

Steve Garvey played 1B for a long time and was listed 5-10 and was probably 5-8. Of course he put up a -11.8 dWAR over that period, but at the end of the day, infielders like having those big and hopefully nimble first baseman to throw to. 

This, along with his below average foot speed, is what makes Stowers a good candidate over someone like Norby.

[NCRaven]

6 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

90% of his chances involve catching a ball someone else throws to you at chest height.  The large majority of a 1B chances are very routine. 

Crap.  Now I need to start keeping count.

[RZNJ]

6 minutes ago, Tony-OH said:

The issue is not that a short player can not handle the fielding, scooping or throwing, it's that they provide less reach than a taller player, thus making height something desirable for a 1B. 

Think about how many close plays their are at first base or how many times a first baseman had to jump up to get a throw and maybe swipe a tag. 

Steve Garvey played 1B for a long time and was listed 5-10 and was probably 5-8. Of course he put up a -11.8 dWAR over that period, but at the end of the day, infielders like having those big and hopefully nimble first baseman to throw to. 

This, along with his below average foot speed, is what makes Stowers a good candidate over someone like Norby.

It might be a better fit for Stowers but that doesn't mean Stowers is a better fit than Norby for 1B.   We have a pretty good idea that Norby can handle groundballs.   No idea on Stowers.    Of course, Renato Nunez who didn't look awful at 3B, looked awful at 1B so you never know.    Stowers being bigger and LH is an advantage but that advantage is nullified if Norby is a better fielder, surer hands, better range.