SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
|
Post by jchang on Jan 16, 2014 12:47:05 GMT -5
"The conjecture by scouts is that Vazquez is a full-time ML catcher" Ah, then that would change my conjecture. I was basing the platoon/backup assumption on his current grade of 4, corresponding to impactful backup. Then I would advocate that if Vazquez's projection of starter holds, his grade should change to 5, similar to the argument I made for Workman last year. No hurry, lets see how 2014 develops.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 16, 2014 12:48:49 GMT -5
I'm not sure if Vazquez can ever combine the low strikeout rate with much power. He doesn't have the quick wrists or raw batspeed to consistently drive pitches, and if he's focusing on making contact (as he appeared to do in 2013), it would seem tough for him to also hit for much power. Not that I'm complaining; if he continues to walk more than he strikes out, he'll easily be an above-average offensive catcher. But, considering his defense, he doesn't have to have both to become a first-division starter (see, e.g., A.J. Ellis or John Jaso).
|
|
|
Post by moonstone2 on Jan 16, 2014 13:06:29 GMT -5
I'm not sure if Vazquez can ever combine the low strikeout rate with much power. He doesn't have the quick wrists or raw batspeed to consistently drive pitches, and if he's focusing on making contact (as he appeared to do in 2013), it would seem tough for him to also hit for much power. Not that I'm complaining; if he continues to walk more than he strikes out, he'll easily be an above-average offensive catcher. But, considering his defense, he doesn't have to have both to become a first-division starter (see, e.g., A.J. Ellis or John Jaso). I was surprised to hear that some scouts think Vazquez is better defensively than Hedges who is supposed to be the gold standard.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jan 16, 2014 13:09:05 GMT -5
I'm not sure if Vazquez can ever combine the low strikeout rate with much power. He doesn't have the quick wrists or raw batspeed to consistently drive pitches, and if he's focusing on making contact (as he appeared to do in 2013), it would seem tough for him to also hit for much power. Not that I'm complaining; if he continues to walk more than he strikes out, he'll easily be an above-average offensive catcher. But, considering his defense, he doesn't have to have both to become a first-division starter (see, e.g., A.J. Ellis or John Jaso). I probably need to be clearer. I think he can get to, say 12 HR's and maybe 25-30 doubles. He's not going to slug .500, but he could poke it up over .425. Given his discipline - which he's shown all the way through the system - that could lead to an .800+ OPS. That's a fairly valuable asset given how good a defensive catcher he'll probably be.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 16, 2014 13:36:51 GMT -5
I'm skeptical that he'll ever slug .425, but he doesn't have to. As I've said often enough that people are probably sick of me saying it, OPS is very misleading - especially when it comes to high-OBP/low-SLG guys. A player with a .360 OBP and .380 SLG is much, much, much better than one with a .310 OBP and .430 SLG.
Here's what my question is with Vazquez. Several players with this sort of profile, with good plate discipline and patience but limited power do well in the minors but flame out in the majors, because major league pitchers have better stuff as well as the control to not walk players who can't consistently hurt them. Can Vazquez make consistent enough solid contact to keep pitchers honest enough that they won't just pound him with their best fastballs? If the answer is yes then he's a real shot at being a first division starter. If it's no, then he'll be a backup/platoon/journeyman type.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 16, 2014 13:46:21 GMT -5
There are only 5-6 catchers in MLB with an OPS > .800 on average. If Vazquez reached that, he'd be right up there with Posey and Molina as best catcher in baseball.
|
|
|
Post by jchang on Jan 16, 2014 13:57:06 GMT -5
I count 9 including those that alternate at DH and 1B with 80+ games Mauer, Navarro, Molina, Castro, Santana, Gomes, Posey, Salty and Rosario plus 3 more at 790. not sure how many are primarily catchers
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 16, 2014 14:08:32 GMT -5
It depends on where you cut it off. Navarro had 266 PA, Gomes had 322. I cut it off at 400. I also think it's tough to count Mauer because he has caught less than 50% games in last 3 years, which puts much less wear on your body and makes it easier to hit.
Typically, that's about how many catchers are over .800 per season. Even Varitek only did it 4 times (in full seasons).
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,912
|
Post by ericmvan on Jan 16, 2014 14:14:51 GMT -5
I'm skeptical that he'll ever slug .425, but he doesn't have to. As I've said often enough that people are probably sick of me saying it, OPS is very misleading - especially when it comes to high-OBP/low-SLG guys. A player with a .360 OBP and .380 SLG is much, much, much better than one with a .310 OBP and .430 SLG. Here's what my question is with Vazquez. Several players with this sort of profile, with good plate discipline and patience but limited power do well in the minors but flame out in the majors, because major league pitchers have better stuff as well as the control to not walk players who can't consistently hurt them. Can Vazquez make consistent enough solid contact to keep pitchers honest enough that they won't just pound him with their best fastballs? If the answer is yes then he's a real shot at being a first division starter. If it's no, then he'll be a backup/platoon/journeyman type. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. This assertion reflects a complete ignorance of how well catchers actually hit. Jose Molina hit .233 / .290 / .304 last year and was the 31st best catcher in MLB (WAR/G, minimum 250 PA) with +5 run defense per 135 games. Vazquez, with his probable +15 defense, could hit like that and be as good as Pierzynski (who ranked 24th). Crunching some numbers ... If he has +15 defense, Vazquez is good enough to start in MLB if he can top a .208 EqA (which is about a .275 OBP, .295 SA). Clay Davenport is projecting him for .245 to .258 the next six years (essentially average for an MLB catcher) and his Davenpecota has his 10th percentile this year at .221. Oliver and Steamer have him at .233 and .241, this year. Sure, anything can happen. But it seems as if the odds of Vazquez not hitting well enough to start for somebody in MLB are comparable to his having a career-ending injury. The bar is just insanely low. A guy with his GG-caliber defense projects as a backup only if he's been an inept hitter, and his last three wRC+s have been 133, 114, 119. Sure, he may lose a lot of that for the reasons you outline. But where's the scenario worth considering where he ends up in MLB at 45?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jan 16, 2014 14:22:21 GMT -5
I'm skeptical that he'll ever slug .425, but he doesn't have to. As I've said often enough that people are probably sick of me saying it, OPS is very misleading - especially when it comes to high-OBP/low-SLG guys. A player with a .360 OBP and .380 SLG is much, much, much better than one with a .310 OBP and .430 SLG. Here's what my question is with Vazquez. Several players with this sort of profile, with good plate discipline and patience but limited power do well in the minors but flame out in the majors, because major league pitchers have better stuff as well as the control to not walk players who can't consistently hurt them. Can Vazquez make consistent enough solid contact to keep pitchers honest enough that they won't just pound him with their best fastballs? If the answer is yes then he's a real shot at being a first division starter. If it's no, then he'll be a backup/platoon/journeyman type. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. This assertion reflects a complete ignorance of how well catchers actually hit. Jose Molina hit .233 / .290 / .304 last year and was the 31st best catcher in MLB (WAR/G, minimum 250 PA) with +5 run defense per 135 games. Vazquez, with his probable +15 defense, could hit like that and be as good as Pierzynski (who ranked 24th). Crunching some numbers ... If he has +15 defense, Vazquez is good enough to start in MLB if he can top a .208 EqA (which is about a .275 OBP, .295 SA). Clay Davenport is projecting him for .245 to .258 the next six years (essentially average for an MLB catcher) and his Davenpecota has his 10th percentile this year at .221. Oliver and Steamer have him at .233 and .241, this year. Sure, anything can happen. But it seems as if the odds of Vazquez not hitting well enough to start for somebody in MLB are comparable to his having a career-ending injury. The bar is just insanely low. A guy with his GG-caliber defense projects as a backup only if he's been an inept hitter, and his last three wRC+s have been 133, 114, 119. Sure, he may lose a lot of that for the reasons you outline. But where's the scenario worth considering where he ends up in MLB at 45? I agree with this. It's not like we're dealing with an Iglesias here. Either his defense is overrated or his floor seems to be a starting ML catcher. There are very few bats at the catcher position these days. Hell, with GG defense at SS or C, you can easily get away with a .700 OPS at either position and be a top 15 player.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 16, 2014 14:25:01 GMT -5
I'm not sure if +15 defense should be Vazquez's median projection, especially given the uncertainty around quantifying catcher defense in general. He's a great defender, but not even Yadier Molina puts up consistent +15 seasons (unless you include pitch-framing, which is still pretty new research and needs to at least be significantly regressed).
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Jan 16, 2014 15:05:07 GMT -5
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. This assertion reflects a complete ignorance of how well catchers actually hit. Jose Molina hit .233 / .290 / .304 last year and was the 31st best catcher in MLB (WAR/G, minimum 250 PA) with +5 run defense per 135 games. Vazquez, with his probable +15 defense, could hit like that and be as good as Pierzynski (who ranked 24th). Crunching some numbers ... If he has +15 defense, Vazquez is good enough to start in MLB if he can top a .208 EqA (which is about a .275 OBP, .295 SA). Clay Davenport is projecting him for .245 to .258 the next six years (essentially average for an MLB catcher) and his Davenpecota has his 10th percentile this year at .221. Oliver and Steamer have him at .233 and .241, this year. Sure, anything can happen. But it seems as if the odds of Vazquez not hitting well enough to start for somebody in MLB are comparable to his having a career-ending injury. The bar is just insanely low. A guy with his GG-caliber defense projects as a backup only if he's been an inept hitter, and his last three wRC+s have been 133, 114, 119. Sure, he may lose a lot of that for the reasons you outline. But where's the scenario worth considering where he ends up in MLB at 45? Our disagreement is about his defense, not his offense. If his defense is Molina-good, then yes he's an MLB starter.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jan 16, 2014 17:22:51 GMT -5
Again with more clarity: not over his entire career, but as he peaks, I could easily see him approaching a .280/.370/.430 line. Keeping in mind how young he is, and how consistently he's advanced, there's a bit of room for continued growth. Of course he won't start there, it would be silly to expect that. Let's see how AAA plays out. I do see him as a likely late season call up unless he tanks completely, but I don't see that happening.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jan 16, 2014 17:36:23 GMT -5
Again, if that's his peak, he has MVP-type upside, which I don't think is a realistic projection. Buster Posey hit .294/.371/.450 last year while Yadier Molina hit .319/.359/.477.
Frankly, if he hits .260/.350/.360, we should be thrilled, because that would make him a top-10 starting catcher considering his defense (he would basically be Russell Martin with more OBP).
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jan 16, 2014 23:08:58 GMT -5
I count 9 including those that alternate at DH and 1B with 80+ games Mauer, Navarro, Molina, Castro, Santana, Gomes, Posey, Salty and Rosario plus 3 more at 790. not sure how many are primarily catchers Catchers: Molina, Castro, Salty, Rosario Mauer is moving off the position Santana and Posey play a good deal of 1B, and the former is re-learning 3B this offseason Gomes is a C but that line is in large part due to SSS
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jan 16, 2014 23:51:42 GMT -5
Again, if that's his peak, he has MVP-type upside, which I don't think is a realistic projection. Buster Posey hit .294/.371/.450 last year while Yadier Molina hit .319/.359/.477. Frankly, if he hits .260/.350/.360, we should be thrilled, because that would make him a top-10 starting catcher considering his defense (he would basically be Russell Martin with more OBP). Posey is at .862 for his 5 year career. Molina's last three years, largely driven by a 50 point increase in average, and a 100 point upsurge in his slugging, work out to .842. No, I don't think that Vazquez is either of those guys. But yes, I do think that he can have a few years when he's at or over .800.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,912
|
Post by ericmvan on Jan 17, 2014 1:22:03 GMT -5
Our disagreement is about his defense, not his offense. If his defense is Molina-good, then yes he's an MLB starter. Since your entire post was about his offense, that wasn't precisely clear. Re +15 runs per 135 games being a high mark for catchers, there were actually 7 guys who matched or topped that last year, according to FanGraphs (Martin +24, Wellington Castillo +18, Gomes +18, Yadier Molina +16, Hundley and Stewart +15). So I thought +15 was a decent estimate. But maybe it was a good year.
|
|
|
Post by ancientsoxfogey on Jan 17, 2014 23:12:34 GMT -5
I think we are too early to be having this discussion, because I don't think these guys are close enough to actual performance in the majors yet. It's nice to have 2 guys like this, but with the attrition rate of prospects, aren't we still at the point where the highest probability outcome is that only one of the two develops into a bonafide starter? It's nice not to have a gem sitting out there all alone (Matt Wieters, anyone?), but rather have two shots at the next generation catcher, because your chances are approximately twice as good of striking gold. But hoping for two gold nuggets at catcher and agonizing over which one to go with at this point is no more than a nice philosophical exercise.
Actually, the real upside of this situation MAY be that one player translates, especially offensively, to the majors and the other one significantly less so. In that case, if they pan out defensively the way that is anticipated, they would then slot naturally into the starter and backup roles, and the Sox would have catching completely covered for the next decade, other than in case of injury.
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Jan 18, 2014 1:33:06 GMT -5
I think we are too early to be having this discussion, because I don't think these guys are close enough to actual performance in the majors yet. It's nice to have 2 guys like this, but with the attrition rate of prospects, aren't we still at the point where the highest probability outcome is that only one of the two develops into a bonafide starter? It's nice not to have a gem sitting out there all alone (Matt Wieters, anyone?), but rather have two shots at the next generation catcher, because your chances are approximately twice as good of striking gold. But hoping for two gold nuggets at catcher and agonizing over which one to go with at this point is no more than a nice philosophical exercise. Actually, the real upside of this situation MAY be that one player translates, especially offensively, to the majors and the other one significantly less so. In that case, if they pan out defensively the way that is anticipated, they would then slot naturally into the starter and backup roles, and the Sox would have catching completely covered for the next decade, other than in case of injury. I think we should just enshrine em in Canton already. I mean, this is the best group of catching prospects I've seen since Saltalamacchia, Teagarden and Max Ramirez.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jan 18, 2014 3:48:13 GMT -5
I think we are too early to be having this discussion, because I don't think these guys are close enough to actual performance in the majors yet. It's nice to have 2 guys like this, but with the attrition rate of prospects, aren't we still at the point where the highest probability outcome is that only one of the two develops into a bonafide starter? It's nice not to have a gem sitting out there all alone (Matt Wieters, anyone?), but rather have two shots at the next generation catcher, because your chances are approximately twice as good of striking gold. But hoping for two gold nuggets at catcher and agonizing over which one to go with at this point is no more than a nice philosophical exercise. Actually, the real upside of this situation MAY be that one player translates, especially offensively, to the majors and the other one significantly less so. In that case, if they pan out defensively the way that is anticipated, they would then slot naturally into the starter and backup roles, and the Sox would have catching completely covered for the next decade, other than in case of injury. I think we should just enshrine em in Canton already. I mean, this is the best group of catching prospects I've seen since Saltalamacchia, Teagarden and Max Ramirez. I'm sensing 5 Hour Energy spokesmen potential here.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Jan 18, 2014 9:04:11 GMT -5
I think we are too early to be having this discussion, because I don't think these guys are close enough to actual performance in the majors yet. It's nice to have 2 guys like this, but with the attrition rate of prospects, aren't we still at the point where the highest probability outcome is that only one of the two develops into a bonafide starter? It's nice not to have a gem sitting out there all alone (Matt Wieters, anyone?), but rather have two shots at the next generation catcher, because your chances are approximately twice as good of striking gold. But hoping for two gold nuggets at catcher and agonizing over which one to go with at this point is no more than a nice philosophical exercise. Actually, the real upside of this situation MAY be that one player translates, especially offensively, to the majors and the other one significantly less so. In that case, if they pan out defensively the way that is anticipated, they would then slot naturally into the starter and backup roles, and the Sox would have catching completely covered for the next decade, other than in case of injury. I think we should just enshrine em in Canton already. I mean, this is the best group of catching prospects I've seen since Saltalamacchia, Teagarden and Max Ramirez. Don't forget Montero, Romine, and Sanchez.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,962
|
Post by jimoh on Jan 18, 2014 9:09:51 GMT -5
|
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,823
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Jan 18, 2014 10:47:41 GMT -5
THAT was a great article!! Swihart is as exciting as any prospect we have currently. He could be a real corner stone for us for years. Can't wait to see how he produces in AA.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jan 18, 2014 12:03:51 GMT -5
Great stuff. The Sox minor league system is so absurd at this point it's hard to know where to start. I know they won't all make it but, as the ancient one wrote, it has to increase the odds. This guy does not run or move like a catcher. The fact that he is, that he threw out 43% of runners last year (even though it was just A+), that he has a good stroke from either side of the plate, all of that make him... the fifth ranked prospect! Ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by jchang on Jan 18, 2014 18:01:49 GMT -5
The Speier article on WEEI cited Swihart's line against LH versus RH L .367/.419/.519 R .279/.352/.404 Does anyone have a guess as to whether this is true L/R split? or is this more a matter of batting R against LH pitching versus L against RH pitching?
|
|
|