How much longer can we endure Mountcastle's and Mateo's OBP?

[Can_of_corn]

3 minutes ago, btdart20 said:

I was referring to Billy Hamilton's usage in 2013.  22 PAs but 13 SBs (mostly as a pinch runner).  Maximize what his speed/defense brings while minimizing his weaknesses (hitting/OBP).  Are you in the 'cut Mateo' camp?

I don't think he needs to be cut at the moment. 

I was referencing a poster that thinks a player being "replacement level" is unacceptable.

[Bemorewins]

1 hour ago, turtlebowl said:

Urius is going to be back soon and I could see him getting some more run at first base.  You have him at first along with Ortiz at SS and you add a lot more contact in your everyday lineup. 

I still would be curious to see Westburg at first.  He is a guy without a true lockdown position within the organization but by all accounts he has a decent glove.  The bat looks to play so wouldn't that be a possible immediate upgrade? 

 

No, not IMO. The chances of Westburg coming to the show and immediately outhitting Mountcastle are EXTREMELY LOW. What makes you confident that he can immediately succeed, where so many others (much more talented prospects like Gunnar, Adley, Grayson, etc.) have struggled?

[forphase1]

2 minutes ago, btdart20 said:

I was referring to Billy Hamilton's usage in 2013.  22 PAs but 13 SBs (mostly as a pinch runner).  Maximize what his speed/defense brings while minimizing his weaknesses (hitting/OBP).  Are you in the 'cut Mateo' camp?

As to 'cut Mateo' for me it depends.  If we aren't willing to turn him into a part time player, then yes, I'd rather him be traded or cut than to keep running him out there to start 4-5 times a week.  He has value to the team, just not as a starter with constant and consistent plate appearances.  Now the choices shouldn't be between 'he's a starter' versus 'he's off the team', but it seems sometimes that seems to be the case, as Hyde (or whoever makes such decisions) seems very reluctant to lessen the role of players even when it's needed or necessary.

[Bemorewins]

1 hour ago, spiritof66 said:

I can't speak for others, but to me Matteo's speed is a valuable offensive asset that is reflected only partially in batting statistics. Stealing bases, taking extra bases, distracting pitchers all contribute to scoring runs in ways that don't show up in OBP, SLG, OPS or BA. Even if his starts and ABs are reduced, which is where things seem to be headed, his speed (and ability to steal bases) can be useful if he pinch runs for other guys who get on base, especially for a team that seems to play so many close games.

Honestly, that may be the best role for Mateo (defensive replacement/pinch runner/bench player). It appears that the more frequent that he plays, the more his flaws/weaknesses get exposed. Isn't that the classic profile of a good bench player? Capable but not consistent enough to start.

[Frobby]

5 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:

No, not IMO. The chances of Westburg coming to the show and immediately outhitting Mountcastle are EXTREMELY LOW. What makes you confident that he can immediately succeed, where so many others (much more talented prospects like Gunnar, Adley, Grayson, etc.) have struggled?

I think you might be overestimating the frequency which good players struggle when they debut.  Mountcastle himself had an .878 OPS in his first 140 PA in the majors.  I would agree that many players struggle initially, but there’s a significant portion who don’t.  And sometimes, the initial struggle is worth it to get to the good part.   

It would be interesting to study how players do in, say, their first 100/200 PA vs. afterwards.   Maybe I’ll put my mind to that at some point, at least in some limited way.   
 

[Frobby]

Let’s say you had two players with a .650 OPS.  One guy alternates back and forth between streaks of 1.000 and .300 OPS; you never really know when those streaks are going to begin and end.  The other guy just fluctuates a modest amount; he’s always hovering around .650.  And let’s assume both are superb fielders, the kind who are good enough that you’ll tolerate some subpar offense.  Which of these players would you rather have?

For me, I’d take the steady .650 guy.   I’d rather know what I’m getting in a given week or month, rather than having to guess which version of the player is going to show up.  

[Bemorewins]

6 minutes ago, Frobby said:

I think you might be overestimating the frequency which good players struggle when they debut.  Mountcastle himself had an .878 OPS in his first 140 PA in the majors.  I would agree that many players struggle initially, but there’s a significant portion who don’t.  And sometimes, the initial struggle is worth it to get to the good part.   

It would be interesting to study how players do in, say, their first 100/200 PA vs. afterwards.   Maybe I’ll put my mind to that at some point, at least in some limited way.   
 

Of all the top prospects who have come to the show in the last 3 years, how many can you name who didn't struggle initially? Because the list is VERY LONG in terms of the ones who did and are still doing so. And that issue is not specific to the Orioles (Volpe, Witt Jr. JRod, Alvarez [top prospect coming into the season along with Gunnar from the Mets], Greene [from DET], Torkelson, Harris II) just to name some all had initial struggles. ALL of these players [EVERY SINGLE ONE] was more highly touted/ranked and one could argue more talented than Jordan Westburg. This informs my thinking in making the statement that the odds are VERY LONG that Westburg can immediately succeed where all of these others have initially had failure.

Now, I agree with the bolded part of your statement, but that is not what the poster asserted. I don't discount that Westburg could be a major contributor to the O's some day OR even come up and immediately hit the ground running. I just believe that the odds of that are really low, given how most young players (even the very best prospects) tend to struggle while adjusting to the Major Leagues. 

[maybenxtyr]

17 minutes ago, Frobby said:

Let’s say you had two players with a .650 OPS.  One guy alternates back and forth between streaks of 1.000 and .300 OPS; you never really know when those streaks are going to begin and end.  The other guy just fluctuates a modest amount; he’s always hovering around .650.  And let’s assume both are superb fielders, the kind who are good enough that you’ll tolerate some subpar offense.  Which of these players would you rather have?

For me, I’d take the steady .650 guy.   I’d rather know what I’m getting in a given week or month, rather than having to guess which version of the player is going to show up.  

I asked that in a game thread last week in reference to Mountcastle. I would prefer the player that's at least consistent, even if they're not great.

[maybenxtyr]

7 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:

Of all the top prospects who have come to the show in the last 3 years, how many can you name who didn't struggle initially? Because the list is VERY LONG in terms of the ones who did and are still doing so. And that issue is not specific to the Orioles (Volpe, Witt Jr. JRod, Alvarez [top prospect coming into the season along with Gunnar from the Mets], Greene [from DET], Torkelson, Harris II) just to name some all had initial struggles. ALL of these players [EVERY SINGLE ONE] was more highly touted/ranked and one could argue more talented than Jordan Westburg. This informs my thinking in making the statement that the odds are VERY LONG that Westburg can immediately succeed where all of these others have initially had failure.

Now, I agree with the bolded part of your statement, but that is not what the poster asserted. I don't discount that Westburg could be a major contributor to the O's some day OR even come up and immediately hit the ground running. I just believe that the odds of that are really low, given how most young players (even the very best prospects) tend to struggle while adjusting to the Major Leagues. 

He and others have to come up at some point. Obviously this is a good team, but there's several holes that can potentially be addressed from the system. 

[Bemorewins]

6 minutes ago, maybenxtyr said:

He and others have to come up at some point. Obviously this is a good team, but there's several holes that can potentially be addressed from the system. 

Some will come up and realistically some will be traded. We just don't have enough spaces to put everybody AND we have a gaping hole in the front of our starting rotation.

I know one thing, he cannot hurt his trade value by continuing to kill it in AAA and neither can Cowser for that matter. I am comfortable with the reality that some things are not going to clear themselves up until the trade deadline window. And then some things are not even going to be settled until next year.

Yes, I would love for a more productive/more consistent hitter in the cleanup spot than Mountcastle. But that might not happen until next year when Gunnar has fully adjusted to the big leagues AND we can bring up Holliday and Kjerstad. Or even trade somebody(s) who are consistently getting ABs now.

[Bemorewins]

11 minutes ago, maybenxtyr said:

He and others have to come up at some point. Obviously this is a good team, but there's several holes that can potentially be addressed from the system. 

Oh and the BIGGEST hole on this team by far cannot be filled by Jordan Westburg and we do not have anyone in the system who is capable of filling it either... It's a frontline starting pitcher.

[btdart20]

56 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I don't think he needs to be cut at the moment. 

I was referencing a poster that thinks a player being "replacement level" is unacceptable.

Gotcha.  Agreed.  Raise the bar where you can, but Mateo has skills that can fill a team need.

[maybenxtyr]

4 minutes ago, Bemorewins said:

Oh and the BIGGEST hole on this team by far cannot be filled by Jordan Westburg and we do not have anyone in the system who is capable of filling it either... It's a frontline starting pitcher.

And that's most likely not happening either. I think they'll trade for a starter at some point, either the deadline or off season, but I don't think Elias burned everything to the ground to just build a system to trade from. I agree that some sacrifices will have to be made, but I think a lot of the upper tier players will find their way into Baltimore.

[Moshagge3]

1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

 

You say you are not claiming to be able to diagnose the problem yet you diagnosed him as having a problem?

We don't actually know these guys.  We don't know what makes them tick what other factors are in play or how they react to various stimuli.  I can seeing it's in his head, it's got to be effecting him mentally, he's pouting.  It's all speculation.

Do you think Elias and Co don't allocate resources to that aspect of play?

Saying that a batting slump is partly mental is not any kind of a diagnostic leap. Every baseball player I've ever heard speak on the subject of slumping has talked about the mental aspect of it. I was responding to a poster who was speculating that pitchers had simply learned how to pitch to Mateo through better scouting reports or something, which made no sense to me and doesn't track with what we're actually seeing.

The other explanations for Mateo's season would be that this is completely random distribution, which would be a hell of a weird curve, or that he's injured, in which case, please IL him immediately.

Hitting is process, timing, routine. Things happen in the brain that disrupt this. This is not playing armchair psychologist, this is common sense. I'm trying to learn to play the piano. Sometimes my brain allows me to play what I'm practicing perfectly. Sometimes it doesn't and I need to step away before I get too frustrated. I'm not "diagnosing" myself with anything to say this.

[forphase1]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

Let’s say you had two players with a .650 OPS.  One guy alternates back and forth between streaks of 1.000 and .300 OPS; you never really know when those streaks are going to begin and end.  The other guy just fluctuates a modest amount; he’s always hovering around .650.  And let’s assume both are superb fielders, the kind who are good enough that you’ll tolerate some subpar offense.  Which of these players would you rather have?

For me, I’d take the steady .650 guy.   I’d rather know what I’m getting in a given week or month, rather than having to guess which version of the player is going to show up.  

Yup, I'd MUCH rather have the consistent guy versus one who gets incredibly hot and then incredibly cold.  Give me the steady guy any day.