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.
Swihart vs. Vazquez vs. Hanigan
|
Post by Guidas on Feb 16, 2016 11:23:24 GMT -5
I get that Swihart could be an above average bat for his position but I've always thought if there is a choice to go with the superior defensive catcher who is a league average bat than a Posada-like "bat first" catcher, so I am really interested in seeing how this plays out.
Also, continuing conversations I had with a few college coaches I had last year, and watching him myself, I am convinced that Hanigan is a below average receiver who actually hurts this team and staff defensively. It's tough to measure even with the current metrics, and there is one unquantifiable that two college coaches told me independently - specifically that he calls a horrible game - but I wouldn't mind at all if he's dealt to the first team that really needs a catcher.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Feb 16, 2016 11:38:05 GMT -5
I get that Swihart could be an above average bat for his position but I've always thought if there is a choice to go with the superior defensive catcher who is a league average bat than a Posada-like "bat first" catcher, so I am really interested in seeing how this plays out. Also, continuing conversations I had with a few college coaches I had last year, and watching him myself, I am convinced that Hanigan is a below average receiver who actually hurts this team and staff defensively. It's tough to measure even with the current metrics, and there is one unquantifiable that two college coaches told me independently - specifically that he calls a horrible game - but I wouldn't mind at all if he's dealt to the first team that really needs a catcher. But the point is that Swihart can be an above-average bat who ALSO is at least league average if not better defensively. This isn't Ryan Lavarnway we're talking about here. That's the reason, imo, you give Swihart every chance to be the guy there. I'd prefer above-average offense and defense to below-average offense and all-world defense, in a general sense. Of course, the matter of degree is important in that comparison as well.
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Feb 16, 2016 11:41:01 GMT -5
I get that Swihart could be an above average bat for his position but I've always thought if there is a choice to go with the superior defensive catcher who is a league average bat than a Posada-like "bat first" catcher, so I am really interested in seeing how this plays out. Also, continuing conversations I had with a few college coaches I had last year, and watching him myself, I am convinced that Hanigan is a below average receiver who actually hurts this team and staff defensively. It's tough to measure even with the current metrics, and there is one unquantifiable that two college coaches told me independently - specifically that he calls a horrible game - but I wouldn't mind at all if he's dealt to the first team that really needs a catcher. If Vazquez indeed produced at a league average level offensively, and his arm rebounds fine from surgery, then yeah, that's a no-brainer. But if Vazquez is throwing up .240/.310/.330, 75 wRC+ type lines? It's a tougher question. Steamer predicts .261/.325/.377 with an 88 wRC+, which I'd be more than content with from an incredible defensive catcher. The Hanigan stuff is news to me. He's been lauded his whole career for his skills as a receiver and as a game-caller. There are many examples of this, included him working with Porcello and Kelly last season. Anything more that you can divulge on this, from either your own evaluations or what you've heard from these coaches?
|
|
|
Post by sox fan in nc on Feb 16, 2016 13:26:27 GMT -5
I could easily see Hanigan flipped at the AS break as Vazquez should be ready. Just not sure if the RS don't want Vazquez to get a full year in Pawtucket. If Hanigan is traded, not sure how much they could get. Probably a low-A prospect, which would be ok (Logan Allen type). I do believe Hanigan could be a starter on a second division team which could bring more value. We'll see. Should be interesting to see this unfold.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,882
|
Post by ericmvan on Feb 16, 2016 16:00:45 GMT -5
I get that Swihart could be an above average bat for his position but I've always thought if there is a choice to go with the superior defensive catcher who is a league average bat than a Posada-like "bat first" catcher, so I am really interested in seeing how this plays out. Also, continuing conversations I had with a few college coaches I had last year, and watching him myself, I am convinced that Hanigan is a below average receiver who actually hurts this team and staff defensively. It's tough to measure even with the current metrics, and there is one unquantifiable that two college coaches told me independently - specifically that he calls a horrible game - but I wouldn't mind at all if he's dealt to the first team that really needs a catcher. If Vazquez indeed produced at a league average level offensively, and his arm rebounds fine from surgery, then yeah, that's a no-brainer. But if Vazquez is throwing up .240/.310/.330, 75 wRC+ type lines? It's a tougher question. Steamer predicts .261/.325/.377 with an 88 wRC+, which I'd be more than content with from an incredible defensive catcher. The Hanigan stuff is news to me. He's been lauded his whole career for his skills as a receiver and as a game-caller. There are many examples of this, included him working with Porcello and Kelly last season. Anything more that you can divulge on this, from either your own evaluations or what you've heard from these coaches? The Fielding Bible tries to measure pitch-calling, with a reasonable methodology. They have Hanigan at +14 runs career, which is +3 per 125 G. They also have him well below average in pitch-blocking and miscellaneous catcher skills, -10 career. Now, re the catcher situation ... it's very obvious that Vazquez, if healthy, is the better option. I actually think that unless there's a good argument that he needs to start in AAA, that he should open the season as the starting catcher, with Swihart going back to AAA. IOW, if CV shows obvious rust in ST, or the elbow needs coddling, sure, send him down. But don't send him down just because you planned to, because you thought you would have to. Now, assume that Vazquez doesn't need to be in AAA because he's still recovering, or has struggled in MLB to the point where he's going down and Swihart is coming up. At what point, then -- if any -- do you trade Hanigan and recall Swihart? There are three factors here: Swihart's performance in AAA, Hanigan's trade value, and our MLB needs, if any. Swihart might be so good that he's clearly a better backup option that Hanigan, and has nothing to gain from playing every day. That makes it an easy decision. You delay it as long as possible to reduce the odds that either Vazquez or Swihart suffers a major injury, in which case suddenly your backup catcher is Dan Butler or Sandy Leon (again) instead of Hanigan, and because the longer you wait, the likelier it is that Hanigan's trade value goes up. So it's inevitable, but when you pull the trigger is a judgment call. If Swihart in AAA is merely good enough that he represents a solid alternative to Hanigan, maybe a bit better, it's tougher. As an upgrade to some contender's backup catcher, Hanigan has little trade value. You're talking a fraction of a WAR. But if some team loses their starting catcher, it's a different story, because it's very likely that Hanigan is good enough to start for that team. Were two contending teams with lousy backup catchers to lose their starting catchers within days of each other, you might be shocked by how much you can get for him. (An actual prospect people have heard of!) And then there's our need. An injury to an OF, for instance, might put us in the market for a backup guy. But there are other scenarios where we need nothing. If we have no need to fill and Hanigan has little trade value, it's hard to justify the roster shuffle; all it does is reduce depth, and it probably slows Swihart's progress a bit as well. If Hanigan has significant trade value and we have needs to fill, it's easy to justify. Otherwise, it's a judgment call, and maybe a tricky or very tricky one. I think the likeliest situation is that Hanigan has some trade value, but not a lot, and not enough to get you anything you need. I can certainly see Swihart coming up at the deadline, or in August after a waiver deal, or not until 9/1. But of course there are also scenarios where Swihart is so good that he forces a trade in June (as well as the obvious ones where Vazquez never fully recovers, or struggles seriously).
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Feb 16, 2016 17:02:14 GMT -5
I get that Swihart could be an above average bat for his position but I've always thought if there is a choice to go with the superior defensive catcher who is a league average bat than a Posada-like "bat first" catcher, so I am really interested in seeing how this plays out. Also, continuing conversations I had with a few college coaches I had last year, and watching him myself, I am convinced that Hanigan is a below average receiver who actually hurts this team and staff defensively. It's tough to measure even with the current metrics, and there is one unquantifiable that two college coaches told me independently - specifically that he calls a horrible game - but I wouldn't mind at all if he's dealt to the first team that really needs a catcher. If Vazquez indeed produced at a league average level offensively, and his arm rebounds fine from surgery, then yeah, that's a no-brainer. But if Vazquez is throwing up .240/.310/.330, 75 wRC+ type lines? It's a tougher question. Steamer predicts .261/.325/.377 with an 88 wRC+, which I'd be more than content with from an incredible defensive catcher. The Hanigan stuff is news to me. He's been lauded his whole career for his skills as a receiver and as a game-caller. There are many examples of this, included him working with Porcello and Kelly last season. Anything more that you can divulge on this, from either your own evaluations or what you've heard from these coaches? And I should've clarified that I would take Vazquez as the starter if he is approximately league average for his position, which is, roughly .260/.321/.416 over 500+ PAs.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Feb 16, 2016 17:22:30 GMT -5
I get that Swihart could be an above average bat for his position but I've always thought if there is a choice to go with the superior defensive catcher who is a league average bat than a Posada-like "bat first" catcher, so I am really interested in seeing how this plays out. Also, continuing conversations I had with a few college coaches I had last year, and watching him myself, I am convinced that Hanigan is a below average receiver who actually hurts this team and staff defensively. It's tough to measure even with the current metrics, and there is one unquantifiable that two college coaches told me independently - specifically that he calls a horrible game - but I wouldn't mind at all if he's dealt to the first team that really needs a catcher. If Vazquez indeed produced at a league average level offensively, and his arm rebounds fine from surgery, then yeah, that's a no-brainer. But if Vazquez is throwing up .240/.310/.330, 75 wRC+ type lines? It's a tougher question. Steamer predicts .261/.325/.377 with an 88 wRC+, which I'd be more than content with from an incredible defensive catcher. The Hanigan stuff is news to me. He's been lauded his whole career for his skills as a receiver and as a game-caller. There are many examples of this, included him working with Porcello and Kelly last season. Anything more that you can divulge on this, from either your own evaluations or what you've heard from these coaches?I posted last year a few times that two of the three colleges head coaches I knew (one Div 1 the other Div III) both told me independently of the other that Hanigan called a bad game, and were especially critical of him calling for the same one or two pitches in succession, regardless of what was working for the pitcher. The D 1 coach added that Hanigan will call the same game for the same pitcher every time and refuses to get his pitchers to pitch backward second or third time through, or starting the next game agains the same team. They also said it was "obvious" that Hanigan didn't study the batters' proclivities at the plate and just went by "feel." I didn't spend any time trying to quantify this (i.e batter X has a .127 OBP on breaking pitches with two strikes etc), so I was going by their respective word on this. But given the amount of data and advanced scouting available, regardless of whether he does his homework or not, it seems like it should be part of the catcher's job to know the strengths and weaknesses by count of at least the opposing starting 9 every game day, as well as how the batter fares against your starting pitchers, similar pitchers, and how he's done over the last 10 days in general. The other comment was about "receiving the ball," which I had no feel or quantification for except they both told me he doesn't do it well for a veteran - part of it being glove position, presenting and holding the target, and footwork. It was all a bit arcane to me, but after they said it I did start to notice pitch sequencing being more or less accurate to what they had observed in that he doubled or tripled up a lot and rarely had pitchers pitch backwards (leading with a breaking pitch or his #2 or #3 pitch instead of a first pitch FB). Don't know if this is any more helpful, but I do trust the observations of both coaches. FWIW.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 16, 2016 17:31:13 GMT -5
guidas, there's no way that's league average for catchers. Only 5 catchers did that last year.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Feb 16, 2016 18:24:10 GMT -5
...Steamer predicts .261/.325/.377 with an 88 wRC+, which I'd be more than content with from an incredible defensive catcher. ... Vazquez came up in mid-July of 2014. He seemed to find his groove in late August and in September his numbers were .277/.351/.385. His time this off-season, in Santurce in the PR league (128 PAs), produced a .288/.365/.369 line, while his 2014 season in Pawtucket was .279/.336/.385. Over two leagues - AA/AAA - in 2013 he hit .287/.375/.391. There's a pattern here, one I'll bet he'll repeat in Boston given even a little time. He'll take a walk and, given that he has some pop and he understands pitch sequencing, he'll get those free passes. There will be rust, but he's obviously been intensely focused on getting his job back, what with the scrambling for a team to play for in Puerto Rico, and all the off-season work to get his throwing in working order. Given that he was an emergency call up, and that his defense is still a work in progress, I'd agree with Eric here. The player who needs extended AAA work is Swihart to hone his skills- that's if Vazquez is ready. He also has options the team can use to get him that work. He's a tremendous talent, with ridiculous athleticism. But his catching skills are not quite ready-for-prime-time in my estimation. If they were to get candid responses from the pitching staff, I'd bet they'd hear the same thing. All that said, he may very well end up as the starter if Vazquez needs time. I just don't see Hanigan as the work horse in this stable, and I expect he'll be moving on once all this is cleared up. That simply repeats what others have already pointed out.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Feb 16, 2016 20:22:57 GMT -5
I think Vazquez will end up hitting somewhere near Hanigan, maybe a little more.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,882
|
Post by ericmvan on Feb 17, 2016 2:15:31 GMT -5
BA just described the current catching prospect class as "Thin. Sparse. Barren. Pick your adjective. [There were only 2 catchers in the top 95 of their prospect list, Gary Sanchez at 36 and the Cubs' Wilson Contreras at 67. There were 3 more at 96 through 98.] There are a number of future big leaguers ... but there aren’t many catchers who project as long-term regulars."
That has to really amp Swihart's trade value. For 28 teams, if they don't have their catcher of the near future in the majors, they don't have it, period. I'm looking into who fits that description later.
But the first step, of course, was to spend all night trying to create the best possible predictor of pitch framing wins for 2015, in order to add to projections such as Steamer.
tl, dr version: a healthy CV projects to be the second best catcher in MLB according to Steamer and me. And there's no remotely credible scenario where he doesn't hit well enough to be one of the 10 best catchers in MLB, let alone keep an MLB job.
I took all the latest BP framing data, 2007-2015, and first determined that year-to-year correlations remain robust down to a minimum of 1000 framing chances, which is 15 or 16 games. It really does stabilize very quickly.
I derived a regression formula for predicting Year+1 based on Year. (I also devised a system for using the last two years of data, but the weight of the previous year was 3.6 times that of the 2 years ago, which made me completely uninterested in devising a formula based on career totals. And then I set this aside when I discovered that ...)
Age is a factor. Catchers who are 26 and younger tend to improve by 3.4 runs per 8000 chances (125 games), catcher who are 35 and older tend to decline by 2.1 runs, and guys who are 38 and older by 6.2. (That was determined first empirically, by looking at the relationship of age to prediction error for all the catchers in the year-to-year analysis, and then I added two age factors, young and old, to the regression; the "young" factor had p = .02 and the "old" factor had p = .07, good enough for me, considering that's a priori expected.)
I used that to derive a prediction formula. However, I'm well aware that last year, there was much more regression to the mean than usual, presumably because umpires are becoming aware. My gut feeling was that you should multiply the predicted framing runs (already regressed) by either .67 or .7 (and I put the latter in the spreadsheet).
I then realized that I could calculate this by simply comparing the formula's prediction to what had actually happened. It turns out that you want to multiply the prediction by .69.
So, CV projects to be worth 2.1 framing wins next year per 125 games. That's hardly crazy; he was worth 1.5 wins in 51 games as rookie, and he's getting nearly 0.4 wins of boost as a youngster.
Now, Steamer has CV ranked as the 8th best defensive catcher in baseball, behind, among others, Hanigan. For a stupid stat engine, that's reasonable, because they're taking his crazy SSS numbers and regressing the crap out of them. Steamer doesn't know that he's considered the only rival to Molina as the best defensive catcher in baseball by almost every scout. So does anyone think it's not correct to put Vazquez halfway between Molina and the current #2, Russel Martin? (Yeah, I'm assuming the elbow is OK. You have to start there.)
Make that adjustment to his defensive projection, and you have the following leader board for Projected WAR/125, Steamer plus my pitch-framing:
5.2 Posey 4.8 Vazquez 4.7 Grandal 4.4 d'Arnaud 4.0 Martin 3.4 Molina 3.4 Montero 3.3 Iannetta 3.3 Cervelli 2.5 Norris 2.5 Perez 2.4 Castro
Those 11 guys (excluding CV) are 8 of the 10 playoff catchers from last year, plus the WS winner from the year before.
The next question is, how low could Vazquez's projected 88 wRC+ go and still allow him to be one of the 10 best catchers in MLB? Since there's a huge gap between 9 and 10 there, let's split the difference and figure out what his wRC+ would have to be to have a 2.9 WAR.
53. Jeff Mathis is projected at 53, with .201 / .258 / .312.
Is there a credible scenario where he's healthy but struggles that badly? No. And even if he does, he's still a first division catcher. How low can he go and still be average, as good as Yan Gomes and J.R. Murphy at 2.1 WAR? 39. That's like .188 / .239 / .276. How low can he go before he's not better than Swihart's projection at 1.4? I don't think I have to bother.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Feb 17, 2016 3:15:52 GMT -5
This really is the question of the season really. A question that the front office doesn't even know yet. We can probably take Hanigan out of the equation by July unless there's injuries, that's a safe bet.
I really am at a complex of which catcher I would prefer this year getting the most at bats and most of the playing time with Vasquez and Swihart.
I look at Vasquez and I see a more advanced player and a leader really in many facets of the game. This is the guy I want in a perfect world.
Then I look at this lineup with Castillo and JBJ at the bottom of the lineup striking out and hitting a ton of groundball outs and I see a definite need for a better offensive catcher at the bottom of the lineup to lengthen it out. That's where I would want Swihart to come in. I drew up a scenario where Swihart could see some time in LF but that has a 25% chance of happening.
I imagine they will be splitting a lot of time down the stretch by July on. The long-term question will be: Which player will the Sox hang their hat on going forward. At some point they probably need to pick one of Swihart or Vasquez to take the everyday role and use the other to fill a team need. Both of these guys are everyday players.
|
|
|
Post by costpet on Feb 17, 2016 8:20:42 GMT -5
Don't be surprised if you see Swihart working out at First in ST.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,442
|
Post by nomar on Feb 17, 2016 10:33:01 GMT -5
Don't be surprised if you see Swihart working out at First in ST. He doesn't have the bat for 1B.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Feb 17, 2016 13:14:41 GMT -5
Don't be surprised if Swihart does nothing but catch (and maybe DH) in spring training. If he can develop as a solid defensive catcher (and by all accounts he has the tools) then he could be an all-star catcher. But he still has a lot of needed development behind the plate. They aren't going to mess with that at this point. He's a catcher. He has a great bat for a catcher. He might have an ok bat for LF and below avg bat for 1B. For the love of god, let's give him a chance to develop as a catcher.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Feb 17, 2016 16:27:47 GMT -5
I think Vazquez will end up hitting somewhere near Hanigan, maybe a little more. If Vazquez can have Hanigan's MLB OPB alone he'd be a hands down starter in my opinion. The league ave I used for catcher was average over the last 3 years of starting catchers with at least 500 PAs, which I took to be true starters rather than platoon catchers. Fewer and fewer of those (I found 9 and ran an average of them) so maybe that is not realistic.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Feb 17, 2016 18:30:33 GMT -5
I will also go out on the same limb by saying that if Christian Vazquez can put up a .352 OBP, he'll be a major league starter.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Feb 17, 2016 18:38:15 GMT -5
I will also go out on the same limb by saying that if Christian Vazquez can put up a .352 OBP, he'll be a major league starter. That's a very sturdy limb!
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Feb 17, 2016 19:22:58 GMT -5
I think Vazquez will end up hitting somewhere near Hanigan, maybe a little more. If Vazquez can have Hanigan's MLB OPB alone he'd be a hands down starter in my opinion. The league ave I used for catcher was average over the last 3 years of starting catchers with at least 500 PAs, which I took to be true starters rather than platoon catchers. Fewer and fewer of those (I found 9 and ran an average of them) so maybe that is not realistic. 500 PAs is a decent chunk more playing time than the average starter gets these days. If you're getting that much playing time, it means you're either so valuable that your team in loathe to sit you (which usually means he's a good hitter) or you're good enough offensively to also get playing time at 1B/DH. In either case, it skews your sample.
|
|
|
Post by GyIantosca on Feb 17, 2016 20:01:29 GMT -5
To me to have two young good catchers is unheard of. I would keep Swihart and Vazquez and deal Hanigan only when I feel the first two are ready and both are healthy. Just think at the deadline you might get something helpful for the bullpen or somewhere else. Plus Hanigan didn't work well with E-rod last year. Where as Swihart did a better job. I really hope Farrell is gonna be a little more loose with the young kids. He has a little Claude Julien in him. Tends to favor the veterans. How much longer were we gonna watch Hanley butcher left field last year.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Feb 18, 2016 9:49:12 GMT -5
I will also go out on the same limb by saying that if Christian Vazquez can put up a .352 OBP, he'll be a major league starter. Agreed, but I think even at a .320 OBP as a threshold and little else offensively, with his defensive skill set he's well worth a starting job. This position and SS are where I am always willing to accept positional league average offensive performance if there is plus (or in Vazquez's case, plus-plus) defense - especially in a league with a DH.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,882
|
Post by ericmvan on Feb 18, 2016 10:24:05 GMT -5
I will also go out on the same limb by saying that if Christian Vazquez can put up a .352 OBP, he'll be a major league starter. Agreed, but I think even at a .320 OBP as a threshold and little else offensively, with his defensive skill set he's well worth a starting job. This position and SS are where I am always willing to accept positional league average offensive performance if there is plus (or in Vazquez's case, plus-plus) defense - especially in a league with a DH. The OBP threshold is about .240. More specifically, a 40 wRC+. His defense and a 40 wRC+ makes him league-average. Any offense he supplies above a 40 wRC+ is contributing to his being above average. There are about 1 or 2 guys a year who are that bad, on average. There is no special additional effect of having a black hole in one offensive lineup spot. If that guy is saving you even more runs on defense than he's costing you on offense, and so much so that he's an above-average overall player, it simply doesn't matter how bad he hits. He's still a good player. (In fact, in the post-season, he'll have more value than a player with the opposite profile.) Look at the Orioles with Mark Belanger.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Feb 18, 2016 10:34:00 GMT -5
I'm not sure I feel totally comfortable with hard declarations of future value based on pitch-framing right now. To me, some of the best evidence for pitch-framing as a real skill is that the correlations were always really robust. Catchers who were good at it tended to remain good at it, and ones who were bad remained bad. But there's some evidence that is less true in the last couple of years, especially last year. www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-beginning-of-the-end-for-pitch-framing/Seems too early to make any declarative statements to the contrary, also, but it at least gives me a little pause.
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Feb 18, 2016 12:09:42 GMT -5
We don't want an average catcher though, at least not on average. It's fine if one of these younger guys is average in 2016, and we could set that as a floor, but we're hoping for a catcher that could help us win the WS, and for that you need more than average. That's why Swihart is so attractive. The hope is he can hit AND play defense. Still, I'm all for playing a little bit of service time game with one or both catchers this year and hanging onto Hannigan for the duration. This is not a position where we have a lot of depth beyond these three, so the Sox will use their options as needed to maintain what depth they have.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,442
|
Post by nomar on Feb 18, 2016 12:12:48 GMT -5
I'm going to wait and see what a full season of MLB CV's defense looks like before I extrapolate his 2014 numbers over a full season and accept them as fact.
|
|
|