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.
Move Blake Swihart off catcher?
|
|
Post by brendan98 on Jun 5, 2014 15:08:03 GMT -5
I posted several weeks ago in a different thread the idea of converting Blake Swihart to the outfield, at the time it was somewhat reliant on the development of Christian Vazquez, but since that time I’ve contemplated whether or not it would be a smart move regardless of Vazquez future projection.
Swihart’s performance in AA this year, has solidified for me the thought that he is our best hitting prospect, and by best hitting prospect I mean most complete hitting prospect. Mookie appears to have the potential to be a fantastic leadoff hitter, and Cecchini has a great approach that lends itself to a lot of solid contact and high OBP, but I don’t believe either of them fit the typical offensive profile of a 3/4/5 hitter, and the more I see of Swihart’s swing, the more I think he does have that kind of upside. That brings me back to the original topic of converting him to the outfield, as most of you know professional catchers put the majority of their practice time/preparation into the defensive and game calling aspects of their position, with whatever time is left over for the offensive side of the game. Knowing this, I am even more impressed by Swihart’s offensive development, because he has far less time to work on his hitting than his teammates. Throw on top of that, the fact that Swihart is a switch hitter, and that he has to split the time he has to work on his swing, to what really is two separate swings, and it really gets me wondering what kind of offensive leap this young man could make if so much of his time wasn’t tied up with the duties of being a catcher, and his work would be focused on being the best hitter he could be?
It was a move made by the Nationals with Harper, and while I am not suggesting Swihart’s offensive potential is quivalent to Harper’s, the Nats recognized that Harper could reach the big leagues faster as an OF, and surely must have, at the very least, considered that his offense would develop better not playing Catcher. There is a reason that Catchers are rarely in the conversation when talking about the better offensive players in the game, the Joe Mauer’s and Buster Posey’s are the exceptions at the position, most teams are thrilled to have a guy who can play strong defense at the position, call a good game, have good chemistry with the pitching staff, and not be a black hole at the plate.
I may have gone out on a limb a little, by stating that I think Swihart is our best or most complete hitting prospect, that does of course come with the caveat that I do not think he will ever reach his ceiling as a hitter if he continues playing catcher, but I’d be curious to know who everyone else considers our top hitters. I like the start that Devers is off to, and would love to see him develop into a middle of the order bat, but he’s 17 years old and doesn't factor in this conversation at this time.
|
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,827
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Jun 5, 2014 15:23:51 GMT -5
Even though my photo has Mookie, Swihart is my favorite prospect. His VALUE, for me, is actually multiplied by him staying behind the plate. I firmly believe he will be above average, not only as a hitter, but behind the plate. I can see your argument. Swihart has some intriguing tools. Of course, he has a strong arm, but his athleticism is quite impressive as he runs pretty well. Look at the amount of triples he has hit in hi short professional career. I have no doubt he'd be a solid right-fielder. It is a nice dilemma for us to have, but if he stays behind the plate.....he has the potential to be one of the top 5 catchers in the game. I certainly wouldn't mind him having a 2nd position he could play when he needs a day off from the rigors of catching. I just don't want him to slow down his progress behind the plate. He still has a lot to learn.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Jun 5, 2014 15:33:57 GMT -5
Moving a player from C to an OF corner loses 18 runs of value (per 150 games). Which is the equivalent of 33 points of OPS.
Essentially, all you have to do to have a better team by leaving Swihart at catcher is find an OF who hits a bit better than Vazquez.
I thought the decision to have Harper abandon catching entirely was awful. The idea of having him fast-tracked to MLB as an OF in order to take advantage of his bat was a good one, but he could have done that while still working on his catching.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jun 5, 2014 16:03:12 GMT -5
Moving a player from C to an OF corner loses 18 runs of value (per 150 games). Which is the equivalent of 33 points of OPS. Essentially, all you have to do to have a better team by leaving Swihart at catcher is find an OF who hits a bit better than Vazquez. I thought the decision to have Harper abandon catching entirely was awful. The idea of having him fast-tracked to MLB as an OF in order to take advantage of his bat was a good one, but he could have done that while still working on his catching. What do you think about Betts if JBJ figures it out? |
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Jun 5, 2014 16:32:29 GMT -5
Moving a player from C to an OF corner loses 18 runs of value (per 150 games). Which is the equivalent of 33 points of OPS. Essentially, all you have to do to have a better team by leaving Swihart at catcher is find an OF who hits a bit better than Vazquez. I thought the decision to have Harper abandon catching entirely was awful. The idea of having him fast-tracked to MLB as an OF in order to take advantage of his bat was a good one, but he could have done that while still working on his catching. What do you think about Betts if JBJ figures it out? I'd love to find a spot for him in the infield, either at 3B (scouts appear to be mixed as to whether he has the arm), SS with Bogaerts at 3B, or, most intriguingly, at 2B with Pedroia at 3B, which might save him some wear and tear. Failing that, I've opined that the loss in value of a move from 2B to LF -- 13 runs in theory, 9 runs actually, based on the weak current crop in LF -- can be ameliorated by having him also be the backup skill infielder. |
|
|
|
Post by wskeleton76 on Jun 5, 2014 16:34:28 GMT -5
Absolutely bad idea. Swihart becomes a really good defensive catcher. A great defensive catcher who can hit and run some is very hard to come by.
|
|
|
|
Post by redsox1534 on Jun 5, 2014 16:57:23 GMT -5
Moving a player from C to an OF corner loses 18 runs of value (per 150 games). Which is the equivalent of 33 points of OPS. Essentially, all you have to do to have a better team by leaving Swihart at catcher is find an OF who hits a bit better than Vazquez. I thought the decision to have Harper abandon catching entirely was awful. The idea of having him fast-tracked to MLB as an OF in order to take advantage of his bat was a good one, but he could have done that while still working on his catching. What do you think about Betts if JBJ figures it out? Listen I think Basing the idea of not moving Swihart to the OF because his OPS drops in ridiculously the dumbest thing i have heard. So what. And while were on the subject its a little bit of a overrated stat but thats another discussion on another day. You move him there because he C is blocked by a better player, it benifits the team and the player, etc, etc. Harper wasnt ment to be a catcher. Great arm but terrible ability to call a game and his body wouldnt hold up as long and would be more prone to injury and to break down as a catcher a once in a decade talent like him needs to move off of catcher and focus on offense. Thats an easy choice. Cant even argue that. Betts is awsome I love the kid. He doesnt everything I want a hitter to do, other hit for more power. He should hit for good power tho considering his size and stuff. JBJ is gonna take time to be a good player be patient. Lots of players with his size and or profile/talent take time sometimes a couple years of full playing time to start producing. Carlos Gomez, Bourn come to my mind real quick. JBJ is gonna continue to have ups and downs this year and needs to keep plugging away playing and come offseason work hard and hope he starts playing better next season anuff so to continue to be our starting CF and give us anuff hope that by 2016 hes looking like the once top prospect. Realisticly JBJ is gonna hit a little better next year and the next before he reaches that potential. |
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871 
|
Post by danr on Jun 5, 2014 16:59:49 GMT -5
I would DFA Ross, but keep him as a coach, and bring Vasquez up as the backup. Then Swihart could be promoted to Pawtucket. He has to show he can handle AAA pitching as a hitter and a catcher. I wouldn't consider moving him to another position until he shows what he can do at AAA and Vasquez shows what he can do in the show.
|
|
|
|
Post by ancientsoxfogey on Jun 5, 2014 17:09:54 GMT -5
To me, there are two reasons for moving Swihart away from catching: (1) He is such an elite hitting talent that you have to move him to get the expected extra 5 or so years of offense out of his career; or (2) He starts to show physical effects of catching that are red flags that his career might be cut very short by staying behind the plate.
Neither of those reasons exist today. Swihart is a very good, but not elite, offensive talent, and he appears to be growing into a very appropriate catcher's body with no injuries or nagging physical issues that we know of. Leave him right where he is.
|
|
|
|
Post by terriblehondo on Jun 5, 2014 17:11:02 GMT -5
You would move the guy who was the Red Sox minor league defensive player of the year off the position he plays? I think that is nuts. Hopefully both Vasquez and Swihart develop into studs but that remains to be seen. Develop them both as Catchers if they both develop trade one.
|
|
|
|
Post by suttree on Jun 5, 2014 17:44:20 GMT -5
Swihart has been hitting just fine, I wouldn't be in a rush. He looks legit.
|
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Jun 5, 2014 19:18:56 GMT -5
To me, there are two reasons for moving Swihart away from catching: (1) He is such an elite hitting talent that you have to move him to get the expected extra 5 or so years of offense out of his career; or (2) He starts to show physical effects of catching that are red flags that his career might be cut very short by staying behind the plate. Neither of those reasons exist today. Swihart is a very good, but not elite, offensive talent, and he appears to be growing into a very appropriate catcher's body with no injuries or nagging physical issues that we know of. Leave him right where he is. I don't mean to be cynical or crass, but that's not really relevant for the Red Sox. Catching won't harm the first 7-8 years of his major league career, and that's the timeframe of a team's real control, so ... I mean, there could be other reasons to move him (I don't think there are), but that ain't one of them, if I'm running a team. Just to be explicit, though: a good hitting catcher is pure gold. I wouldn't move Swihart anywhere. |
|
|
|
Post by wcsoxfan on Jun 5, 2014 19:34:36 GMT -5
Moving a player from C to an OF corner loses 18 runs of value (per 150 games). Which is the equivalent of 33 points of OPS. Essentially, all you have to do to have a better team by leaving Swihart at catcher is find an OF who hits a bit better than Vazquez. I thought the decision to have Harper abandon catching entirely was awful. The idea of having him fast-tracked to MLB as an OF in order to take advantage of his bat was a good one, but he could have done that while still working on his catching. Agree on Swihart. It's not like Vazquez is expected to hit especially well and if he hits well enough, then you can always platoon the two and play Swihart at DH, 1B, LF, etc. with little training. But I think the Harper decision was as much to avoid the wear-and-tear on his body as anything. Just being able to keep Harper on the field more often is a big plus. Have you seen any stats comparing how well players hit when catching as opposed to not catching? What about how well a player improves or suffers after being switched off of catcher to another position full-time? |
|
|
|
Post by ancientsoxfogey on Jun 5, 2014 19:57:02 GMT -5
To me, there are two reasons for moving Swihart away from catching: (1) He is such an elite hitting talent that you have to move him to get the expected extra 5 or so years of offense out of his career; or (2) He starts to show physical effects of catching that are red flags that his career might be cut very short by staying behind the plate. Neither of those reasons exist today. Swihart is a very good, but not elite, offensive talent, and he appears to be growing into a very appropriate catcher's body with no injuries or nagging physical issues that we know of. Leave him right where he is. I don't mean to be cynical or crass, but that's not really relevant for the Red Sox. Catching won't harm the first 7-8 years of his major league career, and that's the timeframe of a team's real control, so ... I mean, there could be other reasons to move him (I don't think there are), but that ain't one of them, if I'm running a team. Just to be explicit, though: a good hitting catcher is pure gold. I wouldn't move Swihart anywhere. It's relevant if the talent is elite enough level that the organization would want to keep the player around a franchise cornerstone and an icon, because the franchise has the financial wherewithal to keep the player throughout his career if he wants to stay. If Swihart turned out to be THAT good, then there is a legitimate question raised, but Swihart has shown no indication yet that he is that good. |
|
|
|
Post by taftreign on Jun 5, 2014 22:02:02 GMT -5
He has made too much improvement defensively to make a full time move off of catcher. The bat will be plus at C and maybe slightly above average at LF/RF. I have brought up one idea. IF Vazquez is the superior defensive catcher as in top 5 or 10 MLB defensive good with anything close to an average bat then I would be fine with a future Vazquez Swihart catching duo giving Swihart 3/5s of the starts and Vazquez 2/5s. Pair them up with certain starters. During his non catching days I'd be fine putting Swihart's bat at DH, 1B, LF or RF. That is the reason I'd consider teaching Swihart another position in Pawtucket. Vazquez can be the kind of backup catcher that deserves more than the ordinary work load. It also gives Swihart a chance to rest his legs more often.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jun 5, 2014 23:18:07 GMT -5
No reason at all to do this.
You move a good hitting prospect when they're in, say, A-ball to speed their ascent to the majors. They've already invested in building him from the ground up as a catcher, basically, given that he barely caught before getting drafted.
That'd almost be like getting Brian Johnson to Double-A as a pitcher, then moving him back to playing first base now because you're afraid he'll have to get Tommy John someday.
If Swihart has to move off catcher later in his career, a la Joe Mauer, then fine. But there's no reason to do it now.
|
|
|
|
Post by widewordofsport on Jun 5, 2014 23:24:41 GMT -5
I like Swihart at catcher, especially paired with a guy (Vazquez) who seems like a perfect backup catcher. Gotta keep in mind, Papi is probably the last great DH in the game. DH is a good way to get a guy like Swihart 90-100 games at catcher, but keep his bat in the lineup 130+ games a year.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Jun 5, 2014 23:39:33 GMT -5
Moving a player from C to an OF corner loses 18 runs of value (per 150 games). Which is the equivalent of 33 points of OPS. Essentially, all you have to do to have a better team by leaving Swihart at catcher is find an OF who hits a bit better than Vazquez. I thought the decision to have Harper abandon catching entirely was awful. The idea of having him fast-tracked to MLB as an OF in order to take advantage of his bat was a good one, but he could have done that while still working on his catching. Agree on Swihart. It's not like Vazquez is expected to hit especially well and if he hits well enough, then you can always platoon the two and play Swihart at DH, 1B, LF, etc. with little training. But I think the Harper decision was as much to avoid the wear-and-tear on his body as anything. Just being able to keep Harper on the field more often is a big plus. Have you seen any stats comparing how well players hit when catching as opposed to not catching? What about how well a player improves or suffers after being switched off of catcher to another position full-time?I haven't, and the reason the study hasn't been done is that the sample size is small, and the reason the sample size is small is that it's usually a dumb idea. There are guys who were moved from catcher because they couldn't catch -- Dale Murphy, Carlos Delgado (at age 23 in AAA). Craig Biggio had essentially the same batting line his first year at 2B as he did his last year catching. B.J. Surhoff was used as a C / 3B from the start, and was moved off C when he started putting up much better numbers when playing elsewhere. But Joe Mauer has moved to 1B this year and is having the worst year of his career. Essentially, it's something you do when and only when you see that the wear and tear of catching is causing injuries that are substantially reducing a guy's hitting performance. Deciding in advance that Harper would have that problem seems to have been unwise to me. Even if he plays his career as a backup catcher who starts in the OF the other days, that means you get an OF bat in the lineup instead of a backup catcher bat, 40 times a year, and that has real value. And catching every few days, wearing down would be very unlikely, and that would preserve the option of having him catch 120 games and play 30 in the OF rather than 40 and 110, where his value might go off the charts. |
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Jun 6, 2014 5:28:06 GMT -5
Somewhat related:
Mike (Florida)
Do you see Chavis staying at 3B? Would you try him at C, 2B, or OF?
Klaw (2:06 PM)
SS now. Most likely 2b. Think he could catch and no one will want to risk the bat there.
This was before the draft, agreed on the catcher part for the Sox, particularly since we have Swihart/Vazquez.
|
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Jun 6, 2014 6:14:21 GMT -5
I would DFA Ross, but keep him as a coach, does David Ross have a say in this? |
|
|
|
Post by brendan98 on Jun 6, 2014 8:55:18 GMT -5
I understand the sentiment that if Swihart hits at a certain level as a catcher, that he is more valuable than if he hit at the same level as a corner OF, and I agree with it to a certain extent, however I quite frankly don’t believe that he would hit at the same level at another position. Someone brought up Mauer hitting worse since he moved off of catcher, but Mauer was moved off of catcher because the wear and tear from catching had already impacted him as a player, and I believe that is what has caused his decline not the fact that he has changed positions.
I guess what I am wondering, is what is Swihart’s ceiling as a hitter, if you take him for what he is right now (there are 22 year olds being drafted yesterday and today), and allow him to focus on his offensive development, and what would be the likelihood of him reaching that ceiling in that scenario. Swihart has made nice offensive strides each year of his professional career, there are two ways you can look at that:
1) The time he has to devote to his catching, is not hindering his offensive development
or
2) Swihart has great aptitude as a hitter, and if he were able to devote more time his offensive ceiling could be a middle of the order MLB hitter
My feelings are that #2 is likely more accurate than #1, although the truth probably lies in the middle somewhere.
I believe, having Swihart catch, has slowed his development offensively, has and will limit his ultimate ceiling offensively, will dampen his athleticism from the wear and tear of the position over time, shorten both his peak and his overall career, limit the number of games he plays and at-bats he gets, and dramtically increase the possibility of injury over his career.
I realize that Swihart has put a lot of work into becoming a good catcher, as have the Red Sox, and it would undoubtedly be difficult to pull the plug on all of that, but there would be a tipping point in which the Red Sox, and anyone else would have to say that it would be worth doing, and since we don’t have anyway to know what Swihart will become as a catcher vs and what he could become at another position, the chances are slim that Swihart moves, unless Vazquez proves to be a viable offensive player to go along with his defense.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Jun 6, 2014 20:27:37 GMT -5
I believe, having Swihart catch, has slowed his development offensively The one age-and-level-adjusted metric we have is Clay Davenport's Peak (Projected) Translations. A player making ordinary progress moves up the ladder while keeping the same projection each year. A guy who is making better than normal progress has his projection go up from year to year. Swihart has gone .241, .262, .269. Between his first and second years, while moving from low-A to high-A, he added .036 / .058 / .033 to his slash line. Now he's jumped from high-A to AA and, though his BB rate is down, he's increased his HR / Contact from .006 to .039. In fact, the most impressive thing about Swihart has been that he's made dramatic improvements both offensively and defensively. If your argument were correct, there would be no reason to ever leave a great hitter at catcher, which would depress the average hitting at catcher even further, which would make guys being left at catcher all the more valuable, which would make teams start to leave great hitters at catcher after all ... in other words, there is a built-in market force when it comes to such a position switch, such that teams gravitate to an equilibrium situation where the switches happen at an optimum rate (which has been very low). You really have to see evidence that catching is hurting a catcher's hitting, rather than guessing that it's so, and right now the evidence isn't there at all. |
|
|
