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 malynn19 on Apr 16, 2016 13:10:01 GMT -5
Is that really any less "humiliating," though? I mean, his defensive shortcomings have been obvious to everyone, and by all accounts, he'll still get substantially all of his playing time behind the plate in Pawtucket. Plus, the really scary thing is that if Holt has to fill in at 2B/SS due to an injury, Swihart might actually be one of the better major-league-ready outfielders in the system versus RHP. His long-term future is not at OF, but in the short-term... He hasn't been that bad in the field imo. He failed to catch one wind blown foul ball with a SP going that doesn't like him, who folded like a house of cards (intentionally or not) instead of trying to pick-up his battery mate, after the foul pop was missed. In fact during the broadcast Remy was uncomfortable with his silence when O'Brien tried to pin the blame for Buchholz's inability to miss any bats in the 6th on Swihart's miscue. Later in the game Remy referred to it as "the Red Sox inability" to field that foul pop.
Swihart was vilified in the media for that miss (though a social media whisper campaign involving trusted media figures...I heard O'Brien et al talking up Christian and how close he was to returning, when he should still be rehabbing) and then was sent packing after 8 whole games and told to work on his D and while he was at it find a new position to play. If there is something being read into this that shouldn't it is because of the way the team handled this whole situation.
This. I think the Red Sox needed a Scapegoat and Blake was perfect. I am happy that CV is back, but to treat Blake like **** for all that went wrong with the staff and bullpen is sad. BS, just joined Devers and Owens as the official team pinatas. But hey CV is a 10 WAR player, I mean Pitch Framing alone gets him 4-5 WAR. So that should help us in the playoffs and World Series.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Apr 16, 2016 13:11:28 GMT -5
Pitch framing is for the most part a measurable skill. On the other hand Manfred brought up a point the other day when asked about automated systems that the technology isn't there yet. What he said is that the up and down limits on the display boxes are a fixed size but batter heights and stances vary to the point that there are significant differences batter to batter. He said that in studies where the zones were manually adjusted, the umpires were much closer than the statistics are showing. I am a believer in pitch framing value but that throws a giant monkey wrench into the equation. How well can they measure it though? A human calls the balls and strikes and they are in no way consistent. I understand they look at umpires history of calling strikes and compare. For me that only works if the umpires are very consistent and I don't think they are. A guy like Vazquez understands the game so well that he gets pitchers to adjust to Umpires balls/strikes calls on a daily basis. Umpire is calling the low outside corner pitches strikes today when he normally doesn't. Vazquez talks with pitcher and they attack this spot all game long. This would increase his pitch framing stats, when in reality it had nothing to do with pitch framing. It's always going to be a sketchy thing to evaluate. Like last night, everyone went bonkers about Vazquez. But Ted Barrett also had an idiotic strikezone. Vazquez was able to steal strikes outside the zone, but there were also 3-4 pitches at the top of the zone that were actual strikes, or closer to being strikes than some of the outside pitches he got called, that he couldn't get called.
|
|
|
Post by libertine on Apr 16, 2016 13:41:14 GMT -5
He hasn't been that bad in the field imo. He failed to catch one wind blown foul ball with a SP going that doesn't like him, who folded like a house of cards (intentionally or not) instead of trying to pick-up his battery mate, after the foul pop was missed. In fact during the broadcast Remy was uncomfortable with his silence when O'Brien tried to pin the blame for Buchholz's inability to miss any bats in the 6th on Swihart's miscue. Later in the game Remy referred to it as "the Red Sox inability" to field that foul pop.
Swihart was vilified in the media for that miss (though a social media whisper campaign involving trusted media figures...I heard O'Brien et al talking up Christian and how close he was to returning, when he should still be rehabbing) and then was sent packing after 8 whole games and told to work on his D and while he was at it find a new position to play. If there is something being read into this that shouldn't it is because of the way the team handled this whole situation.
This. I think the Red Sox needed a Scapegoat and Blake was perfect. I am happy that CV is back, but to treat Blake like shit for all that went wrong with the staff and bullpen is sad. BS, just joined Devers and Owens as the official team pinatas. But hey CV is a 10 WAR player, I mean Pitch Framing alone gets him 4-5 WAR. So that should help us in the playoffs and World Series. Thank you. I can now stop going on about it since I now know I am not the only person in the world who sees it this way.
I realize I am never going to convince the people who think that Blake is a below average defender (I disagree) and will always be a below average defender (I also disagree). I fully acknowledge that CV is an elite defender behind the plate and hopefully will be part of many Red Sox championship teams. If he can hit .260-.280 with 10-15 HR per year, he might rightly be considered the best catcher in the game. But right now he is still recovering from TJ surgery and I worry that rushing him back to make Blake the scapegoat for an underperforming starting rotation (in a handful of cold weather starts when it is difficult to grip/have a good feel for the ball and a couple where the wind was blowing out in a gale) is very a risky gamble to take.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Apr 16, 2016 13:43:54 GMT -5
Is that really any less "humiliating," though? I mean, his defensive shortcomings have been obvious to everyone, and by all accounts, he'll still get substantially all of his playing time behind the plate in Pawtucket. Plus, the really scary thing is that if Holt has to fill in at 2B/SS due to an injury, Swihart might actually be one of the better major-league-ready outfielders in the system versus RHP. His long-term future is not at OF, but in the short-term... He hasn't been that bad in the field imo. He failed to catch one wind blown foul ball with a SP going that doesn't like him, who folded like a house of cards (intentionally or not) instead of trying to pick-up his battery mate, after the foul pop was missed. In fact during the broadcast Remy was uncomfortable with his silence when O'Brien tried to pin the blame for Buchholz's inability to miss any bats in the 6th on Swihart's miscue. Later in the game Remy referred to it as "the Red Sox inability" to field that foul pop.
Swihart was vilified in the media for that miss (though a social media whisper campaign involving trusted media figures...I heard O'Brien et al talking up Christian and how close he was to returning, when he should still be rehabbing) and then was sent packing after 8 whole games and told to work on his D and while he was at it find a new position to play. If there is something being read into this that shouldn't it is because of the way the team handled this whole situation.
See, this is exactly what I mean. You're reading a lot into the media noise, which only very tenuously related to what this front office and other front offices actually think. The Red Sox (and many folks here, including myself) think that Vazquez is better than Swihart, so they promoted one and demoted the other. That does not mean that they or other teams think Swihart is suddenly a bad player.
|
|
|
Post by libertine on Apr 16, 2016 13:56:34 GMT -5
He hasn't been that bad in the field imo. He failed to catch one wind blown foul ball with a SP going that doesn't like him, who folded like a house of cards (intentionally or not) instead of trying to pick-up his battery mate, after the foul pop was missed. In fact during the broadcast Remy was uncomfortable with his silence when O'Brien tried to pin the blame for Buchholz's inability to miss any bats in the 6th on Swihart's miscue. Later in the game Remy referred to it as "the Red Sox inability" to field that foul pop.
Swihart was vilified in the media for that miss (though a social media whisper campaign involving trusted media figures...I heard O'Brien et al talking up Christian and how close he was to returning, when he should still be rehabbing) and then was sent packing after 8 whole games and told to work on his D and while he was at it find a new position to play. If there is something being read into this that shouldn't it is because of the way the team handled this whole situation.
See, this is exactly what I mean. You're reading a lot into the media noise, which only very tenuously related to what this front office and other front offices actually think. The Red Sox (and many folks here, including myself) think that Vazquez is better than Swihart, so they promoted one and demoted the other. That does not mean that they or other teams think Swihart is suddenly a bad player. Believing that all of these media types saying independently and at the same time that CV was close to being recalled was pure coincidence? Interesting...
Anyhoo like I said in my previous comment I am going to cease going on about this since I am never going to convince the people who think that Blake will never develop into a good enough defensive catcher, to go along with his bat, to displace CV from the job. Reasonable people can disagree. I am hoping the best for both of them, unfortunately I am thinking I will have to be doing that with Blake on a different team. I think for many years to come each of them will be perennial all-star candidates behind the plate...
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Apr 16, 2016 14:34:39 GMT -5
I think he'll hit for more power than he showed in 2015. His Steamer-projected "marginally higher ISO" is all of .003 points higher than his .118 mark last year, but I think he has a decent shot at league-average (.140 or so). Fair enough - I expect him to get there eventually but I find it too optimistic to predict that it will happen at age 24. Anyway, .020 points of ISO is definitely not going to compensate for the difference in defense between Vazquez and Swihart.
|
|
|
Post by benogliviesbrother on Apr 16, 2016 15:16:08 GMT -5
... He failed to catch one wind blown foul ball with a SP going that doesn't like him, who folded like a house of cards (intentionally or not) ... Thank you for that bit of silliness. That's the funniest thing I've read on the inter webs today.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Apr 16, 2016 15:20:07 GMT -5
I think he'll hit for more power than he showed in 2015. His Steamer-projected "marginally higher ISO" is all of .003 points higher than his .118 mark last year, but I think he has a decent shot at league-average (.140 or so). Fair enough - I expect him to get there eventually but I find it too optimistic to predict that it will happen at age 24. Anyway, .020 points of ISO is definitely not going to compensate for the difference in defense between Vazquez and Swihart. Remember, this conversation is in the context of whether it's a good idea to have Vazquez and Swihart split reps 50/50. I think Vazquez is better than Swihart, but the gap isn't big enough for me that taking a few games away from Vazquez and giving them to Swihart while the former ramps up after surgery seems particularly objectionable. I am also bearish on Vazquez's Steamer projection.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Apr 16, 2016 15:20:54 GMT -5
... He failed to catch one wind blown foul ball with a SP going that doesn't like him, who folded like a house of cards (intentionally or not) ... Thank you for that bit of silliness. That's the funniest thing I've read on the inter webs today. It's really difficult to take anything he says seriously after that and several other over the top comments. No one is humiliating Swihart. Vazquez is better and they're trying to win games. No other analysis is that necessary.
|
|
|
Post by libertine on Apr 16, 2016 16:00:26 GMT -5
... He failed to catch one wind blown foul ball with a SP going that doesn't like him, who folded like a house of cards (intentionally or not) ... Thank you for that bit of silliness. That's the funniest thing I've read on the inter webs today. So I will definitely put you in the "or not" column because he did collapse after that foul pop wasn't caught. Glad you find that humorous, I guess. I don't...
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Apr 16, 2016 16:07:24 GMT -5
Thank you for that bit of silliness. That's the funniest thing I've read on the inter webs today. So I will definitely put you in the "or not" column because he did collapse after that foul pop wasn't caught. Glad you find that humorous, I guess. I don't... Are you really doubling down on this? You think Buchholz might have lost the game on purpose just to spite the catcher?
|
|
|
Post by libertine on Apr 16, 2016 16:15:11 GMT -5
So I will definitely put you in the "or not" column because he did collapse after that foul pop wasn't caught. Glad you find that humorous, I guess. I don't... Are you really doubling down on this? You think Buchholz might have lost the game on purpose just to spite the catcher? I am not doubling down on anything else other than Clay did collapse after that pop foul wasn't handled. He wasn't able to record another out...
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Apr 16, 2016 16:16:22 GMT -5
Are you really doubling down on this? You think Buchholz might have lost the game on purpose just to spite the catcher? I am not doubling down on anything else other than Clay did collapse after that pop foul wasn't handled. He wasn't able to record another out...
And you suggest he may have done poorly on purpose to spite Swihart. That's what the word intentional means in that sentence.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Apr 16, 2016 16:21:31 GMT -5
... I am going to cease going on about this since I am never going to convince the people who think that Blake will never develop into a good enough defensive catcher, to go along with his bat, to displace CV from the job. ... You're making stuff. There are no comments at all about Swihart never moving forward with his catching skills, none.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Apr 16, 2016 16:24:29 GMT -5
Thank you for that bit of silliness. That's the funniest thing I've read on the inter webs today. So I will definitely put you in the "or not" column because he did collapse after that foul pop wasn't caught. Glad you find that humorous, I guess. I don't... Add me to or not. I didn't want the Sox to pick up his option. But health , not effort is the problem. He didn't collapse. He got beat.
|
|
|
Post by libertine on Apr 16, 2016 16:28:10 GMT -5
I am not doubling down on anything else other than Clay did collapse after that pop foul wasn't handled. He wasn't able to record another out...
And you suggest he may have done poorly on purpose to spite Swihart. That's what the word intentional means in that sentence. I never said it was intentional, though I indicated it could've been. I never "suggested" anything other than the possibilities, I can't read the man's mind. The one thing we know for sure, and he is on the record about it, is he really doesn't like pitching to Swihart. I think it is more about Clay being emotionally fragile in competition. I have seen many pitchers exhibit that level of fragility and collapse when a mistake is made behind them.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Apr 16, 2016 16:29:41 GMT -5
And you suggest he may have done poorly on purpose to spite Swihart. That's what the word intentional means in that sentence. I never said it was intentional, though I indicated it could've been. I never "suggested" anything other than the possibilities, I can't read the man's mind. The one thing we know for sure, and he is on the record about it, is he really doesn't like pitching to Swihart. I think it is more about Clay being emotionally fragile in competition. I have seen many pitchers exhibit that level of fragility and collapse when a mistake is made behind them. And you were called out on the fact that you suggested that Buchholz may have intentionally lost the game on purpose. That's pretty insulting and patently absurd. You really think there's a chance that any major league pitcher ever intentionally pitches badly?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Apr 16, 2016 16:31:22 GMT -5
The one thing we know for sure, and he is on the record about it, is he really doesn't like pitching to Swihart. If you have a link that supports this, I'd love to see it.
|
|
|
Post by libertine on Apr 16, 2016 16:32:04 GMT -5
... I am going to cease going on about this since I am never going to convince the people who think that Blake will never develop into a good enough defensive catcher, to go along with his bat, to displace CV from the job. ... You're making stuff. There are no comments at all about Swihart never moving forward with his catching skills, none. I am saying moving forward enough to displace CV from the job. I never said that anyone here said that he wouldn't improve defensively. I am really not into people twisting my words around, not into at all...
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Apr 16, 2016 16:38:32 GMT -5
Those aren't anybody's words but yours. Read what you wrote.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Apr 16, 2016 16:47:55 GMT -5
You're making stuff. There are no comments at all about Swihart never moving forward with his catching skills, none. I am saying moving forward enough to displace CV from the job. I never said that anyone here said that he wouldn't improve defensively. I am really not into people twisting my words around, not into at all... You took a cheap shot at the guy and tried to cover yourself. I've taking plenty of shots at him, but stand behind them.
|
|
|
Post by libertine on Apr 16, 2016 16:48:38 GMT -5
Look at what you quoted! Are you kidding me? You quoted me saying "to displace CV". Are you for real?
|
|
|
Post by libertine on Apr 16, 2016 16:52:46 GMT -5
I am saying moving forward enough to displace CV from the job. I never said that anyone here said that he wouldn't improve defensively. I am really not into people twisting my words around, not into at all... You took a cheap shot at the guy and tried to cover yourself. I've taking plenty of shots at him, but stand behind them. For the love of God! He quoted me saying he (Swihart) would not improve enough to displace CV. And then claims I said something else (that people were saying Blake would never improve defensively). Somewhere Orwell is smiling at all of this...
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Apr 16, 2016 16:59:13 GMT -5
You took a cheap shot at the guy and tried to cover yourself. I've taking plenty of shots at him, but stand behind them. For the love of God! He quoted me saying he (Swihart) would not improve enough to displace CV. And then claims I said something else (that people were saying Blake would never improve defensively). Somewhere Orwell is smiling at all of this... Find a quote by one person that says Swihart can never improve enough to displace Vazquez. I looked and didn't find one. That is certainly not the consensus opinion. The consensus at this time is that Vazquez is currently a better catcher and that Swihart can improve defensively in AAA. Why do you find that sentiment so unreasonable? No one would be arguing with you if you didn't come up with ridiculous comments like "He failed to catch one wind blown foul ball with a SP going that doesn't like him, who folded like a house of cards (intentionally or not)". I'd expect that you are the only person on this board that thinks that Buchholz might have intentionally pitched badly because he didn't like pitching to Swihart or for any other reason.
|
|
|
Post by benogliviesbrother on Apr 16, 2016 19:54:27 GMT -5
The one thing we know for sure, and he is on the record about it, is he really doesn't like pitching to Swihart. If you have a link that supports this, I'd love to see it. Me too.
|
|
|