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 jimed14 on Mar 18, 2015 12:13:43 GMT -5
Not as dumb as this guy: "Adam Jones is a five-tool guy who comes to beat you every day and is a great leader," an NL GM said of the Orioles' center fielder. " I love Trout, but I just love Jones a little more." Good lord ... how does someone like that get to be a GM? OK, that's my choice for a RAJ quote.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxnh2014 on Mar 18, 2015 16:59:14 GMT -5
Thanks for the link, great read!
Just a different perspective on the same data, IF (and I mean IF; I'm not suggesting we do it!) we wanted to make that trade now would be the time, with Swihart at an all-time high in value and RAJ having just been kicked by the Cliff Lee situation.
The more we see of him though the more he seems like the next Varitek, just with slightly less power and better defense. True, Vazquez is great too but it's better to have two good young catchers than none.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,914
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 18, 2015 19:26:47 GMT -5
Thanks for the link, great read!
Just a different perspective on the same data, IF (and I mean IF; I'm not suggesting we do it!) we wanted to make that trade now would be the time, with Swihart at an all-time high in value and RAJ having just been kicked by the Cliff Lee situation.
The more we see of him though the more he seems like the next Varitek, just with slightly less power and better defense. True, Vazquez is great too but it's better to have two good young catchers than none.
I'm not sure how much stock to put in my comp list, but super-elite catching prospects seem to have an extraordinarily low bust rate. That's probably because ml defense translates much more predictably than offense, and catcher is the position where it's most important. Anyway, based on the average quality of the other top-20-in-MLB catching prospects, and what we know of Swihart's makeup and potential as a pitching-staff handler / leader, Swihart for Hamels straight-up, with Hamels fully subsidized, would be a bad deal.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Mar 18, 2015 20:23:30 GMT -5
Wow, a top of the rotation ,proven starter, paid for by another team, isn't worth Swihart. He's my binkie and I'd do that deal. Prospect love reaches a new low. Sadly, I'm sure many here agree.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Mar 18, 2015 20:24:33 GMT -5
Thanks for the link, great read!
Just a different perspective on the same data, IF (and I mean IF; I'm not suggesting we do it!) we wanted to make that trade now would be the time, with Swihart at an all-time high in value and RAJ having just been kicked by the Cliff Lee situation.
The more we see of him though the more he seems like the next Varitek, just with slightly less power and better defense. True, Vazquez is great too but it's better to have two good young catchers than none.
I'm not sure how much stock to put in my comp list, but super-elite catching prospects seem to have an extraordinarily low bust rate. That's probably because ml defense translates much more predictably than offense, and catcher is the position where it's most important. Anyway, based on the average quality of the other top-20-in-MLB catching prospects, and what we know of Swihart's makeup and potential as a pitching-staff handler / leader, Swihart for Hamels straight-up, with Hamels fully subsidized, would be a bad deal. It's funny, I've been thinking the same thing, partially spurred by your earlier post. I honestly think Swihart has less risk attached to him than Hamels does right now, probably significantly so. On the surface, that seems like a crazy statement (ace-level pitcher vs a prospect who has never played in MLB), but I feel like a little thought reveals it to be much less controversial than it seems.
|
|
|
Post by redsoxnh2014 on Mar 18, 2015 20:36:47 GMT -5
Wow, a top of the rotation ,proven starter, paid for by another team, isn't worth Swihart. He's my binkie and I'd do that deal. Prospect love reaches a new low. Sadly, I'm sure many here agree. Well yeah if indeed it was straight-up Hamels for Swihart and the Phillies totally covered the money, sure. But RAJ apparently wants Swihart+more AND he wants us to take the salary. That's why he's nuts.
The wild card for us is that on virtually any other team Swihart is a guaranteed starter at catcher. However, we already have Vazquez there and while Vazquez certainly gives up some ground with the bat, he's actually even better defensively and has been getting rave reviews from what I've read as far as his ability to handle a staff. The difference between Swihart and Vazquez is certainly a lot less than the difference between Hamels and whoever your opinion is for the #1, the question though is if it's a $20,000,000+/year difference. Plus Hamels is the wrong side of 30 and will likely be declining. Three years from now we may have Barry Zito on our hands while Philly's got Buster Posey (extreme I know but it is possible).
|
|
|
Post by ancientsoxfogey on Mar 18, 2015 21:10:48 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but an ace pitches every 5th day. A stud catcher can have a lot more effect on team success than that. Think about it this way: What is the range of circumstances where having Hamels vs. not having him but having the assets that you released to get him makes a crucial difference in the success of the franchise over the set of years you'd have Hamels? There is such a range of circumstances, but I'll bet it isn't as wide as one might think, especially since, given the Sox's recent history, the only really "crucial" difference now is between winning a championship and not winning it. Does anyone really care, for example, if Hamels were to make the difference in a particular year between making the playoffs and losing the play-in game, versus, say, losing in the ALCS? I rather doubt it.
At this point I don't think I trade Swihart for ANYONE at least until I am certain that Vazquez can hit at least reasonably well. I still think there is the possibility that he could turn into a behind-the-plate current Jackie Bradley. And I'm not sure I'd do it even then -- I don't know if people appreciate the value of guaranteed top-notch catching given how scarce it is.
I still remember a line from the Ted Williams biography "My Turn at Bat" discussing why the Sox were not able to overcome the Yankees and win a championship during his career. A major explanation was that generally during that era, the Yankees "had superior pitching and FAR superior catching."
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Mar 18, 2015 21:25:01 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but an ace pitches every 5th day. I hear this argument every year when MVP voting comes along, and I hate it because the pitcher's impact on that game every fifth day is much, much greater than any position player's is in any one game. A pitcher can win a game essentially on his own - he can get all 27 outs. To get 27 plate appearances will take a position player six games, usually. David Price led baseball with 1,009 batters faced, while Ian Kinsler led with 726 plate appearances. Now, it is true that a position player can also change the game with his defense. But again, a great pitcher will minimize the necessity of his defense by striking batters out.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Mar 19, 2015 1:18:15 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but an ace pitches every 5th day. A stud catcher can have a lot more effect on team success than that. Think about it this way: What is the range of circumstances where having Hamels vs. not having him but having the assets that you released to get him makes a crucial difference in the success of the franchise over the set of years you'd have Hamels? There is such a range of circumstances, but I'll bet it isn't as wide as one might think, especially since, given the Sox's recent history, the only really "crucial" difference now is between winning a championship and not winning it. Does anyone really care, for example, if Hamels were to make the difference in a particular year between making the playoffs and losing the play-in game, versus, say, losing in the ALCS? I rather doubt it. At this point I don't think I trade Swihart for ANYONE at least until I am certain that Vazquez can hit at least reasonably well. I still think there is the possibility that he could turn into a behind-the-plate current Jackie Bradley. And I'm not sure I'd do it even then -- I don't know if people appreciate the value of guaranteed top-notch catching given how scarce it is. I still remember a line from the Ted Williams biography "My Turn at Bat" discussing why the Sox were not able to overcome the Yankees and win a championship during his career. A major explanation was that generally during that era, the Yankees "had superior pitching and FAR superior catching." For the majority of Ted's career, the Yankees had a hall of famer behind the dish. Dickey, Berra. Elston Howard wasn't too shabby either, maybe the greatest backup catcher in history. All were great two way catchers. I remember as a little kid thinking that the Yankees were carrying 3 catchers that were better than anything the RedSox had, Berra, Howard & Doc Blanchard. I also think that in terms of the 'rivalry', much of the normal advantage we had with Fisk and Tek was somewhat neutralized by Munson & Posada. Lesser catchers yes but they weren't slouches either. Our current situation is waaaaaaaaaaaay better than the Sox catching dark ages, Tillman, Nixon, Sullivan, Pagliaroni, etc. At one point, I was also looking forward to a Swihart/Sanchez rivalry but scratch half of that thought.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,914
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 19, 2015 3:13:28 GMT -5
Wow, a top of the rotation ,proven starter, paid for by another team, isn't worth Swihart. He's my binkie and I'd do that deal. Prospect love reaches a new low. Sadly, I'm sure many here agree. Here's the rub, though: Top-20-in-MLB catching prospects have been exactly as valuable, per season, in their ages 24 to 29 seasons as pitchers of Hamels' caliber (based on ages 28-30) have been in their ages 31 to 35. That's the starting point. The catchers have an extra year of control, a bit more potential value from extra PT (some spent time as backups), plus pitch framing, which is unmeasured here and which Swihart excels at. aWAR/yr Name 1.2 Sandy Alomar, Jr. 5.8 Ivan Rodriguez 2.2 Todd Hundley 2.6 Javy Lopez 3.1 Charles Johnson 0.6 Ben Davis 4.7 Joe Mauer 1.2 Jarrod Saltalamacchia 2.6 Matt Wieters (1 yr left) 4.9 Buster Posey (2 yrs left) There happen to have been 10 pitchers who had a WAR total within 1.0 of the 15.9 that Hamels had in his last 3, ages 28-30 seasons. Here's what they averaged over their next 5 (which is the length of course, of Hamels' contract including option year). 0.9 Bartolo Colon 5.5 David Cone 1.8 Roy Oswalt 1.9 John Smoltz 3.0 Charlie Leibrandt 3.4 Mark Buehrle 1.0 Johan Santana 2.3 Bob Welch 3.5 Mark Langston 5.2 Mike Mussina The kid catchers are 2.9 +/- 1.8, the ace starters are 2.9 +/- 1.6. The pitchers were a bit better per 32 starts than the catchers were per 120 games, but obviously they had more injuries as well. Swihart's pitch framing projects to pay for all of his salary in his first 6 years, several times over. So, yes, based on our best available comps, Swihart projects to have more excess value over the next 6 years than Hamels projects to have value, period. Easily. It's not close.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 19, 2015 9:24:45 GMT -5
So WAR total over a given period of time is now the new indicator that predicts future success? You're talking about a 10 pitcher sample and you're also ignoring other factors to draw a conclusion. Like that Smoltz was pretty much dominant during that period just a chunk of it was as a closer weighing his WAR total down. Colon also had 3 very good years just after that period so they don't fit into your evaluation.
Hamels for free is worth Swithart even though there is a chance the Sox lose that deal longterm. It shouldn't even be debated seriously by cherry picking numbers with such small samples they are meaningless. I've grown to love Swithart and I'm a prospect hoarder for the most part but that's just way too far. It's not a realistic scenario anyways so we don't have to worry about it. No I wouldn't trade Swithart for Hamels straight up and pay Hamels salary. If they did that type of deal I would probably still get over it rather quickly because of Vasquez and the only value we know we can count on from Swithart is stuff Vasquez actually does better.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Mar 19, 2015 9:27:16 GMT -5
Swihart's pitch framing projects to pay for all of his salary in his first 6 years, several times over. Do you have any evidence of Swihart's pitch framing ability?
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 19, 2015 9:38:19 GMT -5
Here's a workable comp list for Swihart: 1) Best catching prospect in baseball, according to BA 2) Among the top 20 prospects overall, ditto 3) Not thought likely to end up at another position (i.e., Carlos Delgado and Jesus Montero). Sandy Alomar Ivan Rodriguez Todd Hundley Javy Lopez Charles Johnson Ben Davis Joe Mauer Jarrod Saltalamacchia Matt Wieters Buster Posey Devin Mesoraco Mike Zunino Nine All-Stars and 3 MVPs out of 11 or 12 guys (too soon to count out Zunino). This list isn't nearly as impressive as the numbers at the bottom make it seem. Posey is an obvious stud and so is Sandy Alomar Jr. Lopez, Hundley and Ivan were steroid era guys and Rodriguez was clearly a juice guy. And surprise surprise Hundley had two outlier years in 97 and 97.... Now I don't believe is just calling a guy out as a steroid guy bc he played in that era but the era calls enough question that using those players are predictors for how someone now would just be foolhardy. Joe Mauer is maybe the most over-rated player of the past decade. He had one amazing year at the plate and a couple other batting average years. Then he got moved off catcher to save his legs and stop him from getting injured and now he's an over paid light hitting 1b who doesn't even hit for the soft average he used to. Wieters has been a disappointment. Hasn't been nearly the hitter people expected. Basically I could turn it around and make it seem likely that a catcher will only put up a couple top notch years b it's harder to sustain it at that position so they are exactly the type of top prep spect you should trade for a pitcher who you only expect a couple top years from. Eye for and eye
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 19, 2015 9:41:07 GMT -5
Swihart's pitch framing projects to pay for all of his salary in his first 6 years, several times over. Do you have any evidence of Swihart's pitch framing ability? Also how hard of a skill is it to replace? We start getting into questions of is all WAR of equal value? If one component of WAR is more abundant and easier to find then it's not worth as much and you're going to be hard pressed to convince me that pitch framing is all that difficult a skill to learn if its deemed that valuable.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Mar 19, 2015 9:44:26 GMT -5
Here's the rub, though: Top-20-in-MLB catching prospects have been exactly as valuable, per season, in their ages 24 to 29 seasons as pitchers of Hamels' caliber (based on ages 28-30) have been in their ages 31 to 35. That's the starting point. The catchers have an extra year of control, a bit more potential value from extra PT (some spent time as backups), plus pitch framing, which is unmeasured here and which Swihart excels at. aWAR/yr Name 1.2 Sandy Alomar, Jr. 5.8 Ivan Rodriguez 2.2 Todd Hundley 2.6 Javy Lopez 3.1 Charles Johnson 0.6 Ben Davis 4.7 Joe Mauer 1.2 Jarrod Saltalamacchia 2.6 Matt Wieters (1 yr left) 4.9 Buster Posey (2 yrs left) Here's one problem with this analysis: you used pitchers with +/- 1 WAR of Hamels' total, but then did not give the same treatment to Swihart's comps. Not all top-20 catchers are comparable, and you shouldn't be comparing Swihart to guys who were ranked the top prospect in baseball like Mauer and Wieters (going off memory here, but I think that's right-- someone correct me if I'm wrong). Swihart was ranked 17th by BA, so you should really be looking at catchers ranked 7th through 27th, not 1st through 20th. That cuts off a lot of the better names in your sample above (Wieters and Mauer definitely fall into that category, and I think Posey does as well) and adds in some guys with a little worse of a pedigree. I suspect that bumps down this comp group's average WAR by a decent clip.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Mar 19, 2015 9:47:55 GMT -5
Do you have any evidence of Swihart's pitch framing ability? Also how hard of a skill is it to replace? We start getting into questions of is all WAR of equal value? If one component of WAR is more abundant and easier to find then it's not worth as much and you're going to be hard pressed to convince me that pitch framing is all that difficult a skill to learn if its deemed that valuable. All the metrics that try to value pitch framing value adjust to the league-average, so this is not a real concern. In other words, players like Vazquez who are rated as adding a ton of value through framing add a ton of value because they're that much better than the league-average framer, which essentially adjusts for the abundance or scarcity of that skill.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 19, 2015 9:52:29 GMT -5
Also how hard of a skill is it to replace? We start getting into questions of is all WAR of equal value? If one component of WAR is more abundant and easier to find then it's not worth as much and you're going to be hard pressed to convince me that pitch framing is all that difficult a skill to learn if its deemed that valuable. All the metrics that try to value pitch framing value adjust to the league-average, so this is not a real concern. In other words, players like Vazquez who are rated as adding a ton of value through framing add a ton of value because they're that much better than the league-average framer, which essentially adjusts for the abundance or scarcity of that skill. Is it adjusted to league average or replacement-level? WAR gets murky here. It's not Wins Above Average.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Mar 19, 2015 9:55:50 GMT -5
Joe Mauer is maybe the most over-rated player of the past decade. He had one amazing year at the plate and a couple other batting average years. Then he got moved off catcher to save his legs and stop him from getting injured and now he's an over paid light hitting 1b who doesn't even hit for the soft average he used to. This is demonstrably false. Over the first six full seasons of his career, Joe Mauer hit .328/.409/.478, good for a 135 wRC+, while also contributing above-average defense with an average of 115 games caught per year and lots of additional time at 1B/DH. That averaged out to 5.2 fWAR per season over that stretch, which made him one of the best players in the league over that stretch. It wasn't just one big year propping that up, either-- his fWARs were 3.4, 6.2, 3.1, 5.9, 7.7, and 5.2. No, he did not age well, but he was fantastic in his prime.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Mar 19, 2015 9:59:35 GMT -5
All the metrics that try to value pitch framing value adjust to the league-average, so this is not a real concern. In other words, players like Vazquez who are rated as adding a ton of value through framing add a ton of value because they're that much better than the league-average framer, which essentially adjusts for the abundance or scarcity of that skill. Is it adjusted to league average or replacement-level? WAR gets murky here. It's not Wins Above Average. WAR is just WAA with a replacement-level adjusted added in, so there's no issue here.
|
|
|
Post by ethanbein on Mar 19, 2015 10:00:54 GMT -5
Is it adjusted to league average or replacement-level? WAR gets murky here. It's not Wins Above Average. Runs above replacement = Batting runs above average + Baserunning runs above average + Defensive runs above average + RAA for any other skills + positional adjustment + replacement runs (difference between an average player and a replacement level one). Pitch framing fits right into the existing framework. Basically, there is no such thing as replacement level offense or defense or pitch framing, only replacement level overall value.
|
|
|
Post by ethanbein on Mar 19, 2015 10:08:32 GMT -5
Swihart's pitch framing projects to pay for all of his salary in his first 6 years, several times over. Do you have any evidence of Swihart's pitch framing ability? BP's newest model has Swihart at +20 runs in AA last year. www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=25514
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 19, 2015 10:12:45 GMT -5
Is it adjusted to league average or replacement-level? WAR gets murky here. It's not Wins Above Average. Runs above replacement = Batting runs above average + Baserunning runs above average + Defensive runs above average + RAA for any other skills + positional adjustment + replacement runs (difference between an average player and a replacement level one). Pitch framing fits right into the existing framework. Basically, there is no such thing as replacement level offense or defense or pitch framing, only replacement level overall value. I view a 0 WAR player as being bad, not average. But an average pitch framer with a 0 WAR adjustment for pitch framing is better than bad if I'm understanding it right.
|
|
|
Post by ethanbein on Mar 19, 2015 10:24:23 GMT -5
Runs above replacement = Batting runs above average + Baserunning runs above average + Defensive runs above average + RAA for any other skills + positional adjustment + replacement runs (difference between an average player and a replacement level one). Pitch framing fits right into the existing framework. Basically, there is no such thing as replacement level offense or defense or pitch framing, only replacement level overall value. I view a 0 WAR player as being bad, not average. But an average pitch framer with a 0 WAR adjustment for pitch framing is better than bad if I'm understanding it right. If that average pitch framer is a bad hitter and sucks at throwing out runners and blocking pitches, such that he's 0 WAR if you ignore pitch framing, he's bad either way.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 19, 2015 10:32:51 GMT -5
I view a 0 WAR player as being bad, not average. But an average pitch framer with a 0 WAR adjustment for pitch framing is better than bad if I'm understanding it right. If that average pitch framer is a bad hitter and sucks at throwing out runners and blocking pitches, such that he's 0 WAR if you ignore pitch framing, he's bad either way. But am I wrong to assume WAR to be consistent no matter what it's measuring vs. replacement level? A catcher with average defense and average hitting and average framing is more than a 0 WAR player. A replacement level catcher (considering only offense and defense) with average pitch framing skills should be worth something more than 0 WAR because replacement level is not average. Why are we using a different scale for pitch framing?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 19, 2015 10:40:26 GMT -5
Also keep in mind that Swihart's baserunning should be quite a bump over the typical awful baserunning by most catchers. And surprisingly, the guy he's compared to - Buster Posey is one of the worst baserunners in the league, including catchers. That should add to Swihart's WAR by a non-negligible amount.
|
|
|