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 Chris Hatfield on Nov 12, 2012 8:59:50 GMT -5
I wanted to pass along this tidbit from BP, where Jason Churchill had a piece about scouting a player's makeup. You can check it out here: www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=18874Anyway, the quote: A short survey of scouts from six clubs returned a handful of names of players in the minors and majors who are where they are not because of their physical abilities, but because of their makeup. Those names include Evan Longoria, Dustin Pedroia, Buster Posey, New Derek Jeter, and prospects Nick Franklin of the Seattle Mariners, Blake Swihart of the Red Sox and Drew Vettleson of the Rays. Pedroia is old news on such lists, but nice to see Swihart mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by remember04 on Nov 12, 2012 9:04:19 GMT -5
Seems odd to see him mentioned for this reason though. I always liked his very good physical abilities and the only thing I heard about his makeup or mentality was that he switch hit regardless of who the pitcher was and whether he was lefty or righty. This definitely adds to him though. He was my early favorite for breakout player of the year next year.
|
|
|
Post by wskeleton76 on Nov 12, 2012 9:05:05 GMT -5
Really glad to hear that.
|
|
|
Post by kindasweaty on Nov 12, 2012 9:51:36 GMT -5
It hit my ear wrong also, the idea that he wasn't in Greenville because of his talent but because of his work ethic, but it makes sense. I suppose it wouldn't have shocked me to hear Swihart start out in Lowell considering he's a HS catcher, and being included in a list with Longoria, Posey, and Pedroia shows that it isn't a "makes the most out of the least talent" list.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Nov 12, 2012 10:53:51 GMT -5
I wanted to pass along this tidbit from BP, where Jason Churchill had a piece about scouting a player's makeup. You can check it out here: www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=18874Anyway, the quote: A short survey of scouts from six clubs returned a handful of names of players in the minors and majors who are where they are not because of their physical abilities, but because of their makeup.Those names include Evan Longoria, Dustin Pedroia, Buster Posey, New Derek Jeter, and prospects Nick Franklin of the Seattle Mariners, Blake Swihart of the Red Sox and Drew Vettleson of the Rays. Pedroia is old news on such lists, but nice to see Swihart mentioned. Hey, if you're going to make a list of guys who "are where they are" because of makeup, maybe come up with a group of guys who don't all have 70+ hit and/or power tools. Not that Pedroia, Longo, etc don't have great makeup, but that's not what defines them as players. They're defined by and extremely high level of baseball skill. Brad Ausmus and his .669 career OPS "is where he is" because of makeup. Not Derek Jeter and his once in a generation offensive abilities at shortstop or Pedroia and his freak-of-nature hand-eye coordination. Sorry, I know this isn't really the point of this post (yay Swihart), but that list is just insane.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Nov 12, 2012 11:10:32 GMT -5
I'll punch fenway's ticket, here. Watched Posey the year before he came up and he was far and away the best player on the field - although I didn't get to see how long it took him to apply his makeup. He was ridiculous with the bat, seemingly able to put the ball just about anywhere he wanted. I have a feeling that the writer probably meant to say something like "whatever their physical skills might be". Pedroia may have the best hand-eye coordination I've seen on a ballplayer.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Nov 12, 2012 11:13:20 GMT -5
I guess the way I read it was that he's like the opposite of an Almanzar, who has immense physical ability but is held back because of his attitude. It just means whatever he has will play up because of his baseball ability. I don't really think tools come into the equation here. Just means he's got great makeup. Perhaps the quote, out of context, means something else. Maybe this description of what they were talking about will add some context: That tool is “makeup,” a mix of maturity, desire and an advanced approach to the game. In some instances, it involves an extra gear of effort and can draw the "gamer" label. It's not uncommon for a player's makeup to be the deciding factor when clubs produce their final draft boards or ultimate evaluations.
|
|
nomar
Veteran
Posts: 10,903
Member is Online
|
Post by nomar on Nov 12, 2012 11:26:58 GMT -5
No need to get offended guys, this is definitely great to see. He wasn't calling Swihart a bad athlete; he just was saying it is makeup, not athleticism, that separates him from the average spec.
|
|
steveofbradenton
Veteran
Watching Spring Training, the FCL, and the Florida State League
Posts: 1,826
|
Post by steveofbradenton on Nov 12, 2012 12:23:48 GMT -5
After David Ross was signed, I was really excited. 2 years is perfect, and his defense will be greatly appreciated.
After 2 years, it is my hope we have an in-house replacement. A guy who can add great defense and some pop offensively. Chistian Vasquez is a nice possibility, but I believe Blake Swihart is going to come fast.
Excited to see what kind of year he puts up in Salem this season. He really made some nice adjustments after the 1st 6 weeks. He now has his 1st full season of pro ball behind him. You can't under-state the importance of having that behind him.
It may sound crazy, but he could be close in 2015. Like his offensive skills.....but love even more the athletisim he brings to the catcher position.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Nov 12, 2012 12:57:00 GMT -5
I guess the way I read it was that he's like the opposite of an Almanzar, who has immense physical ability but is held back because of his attitude. It just means whatever he has will play up because of his baseball ability.
I don't really think tools come into the equation here. Just means he's got great makeup. Perhaps the quote, out of context, means something else. Maybe this description of what they were talking about will add some context: That tool is “makeup,” a mix of maturity, desire and an advanced approach to the game. In some instances, it involves an extra gear of effort and can draw the "gamer" label. It's not uncommon for a player's makeup to be the deciding factor when clubs produce their final draft boards or ultimate evaluations. That's fine and I'm not taking issue with makeup as a concept. I'm just kind of astonished that he picked not just bad examples, but literally the worst possible examples for what he's trying to say. It's pretty well established that with enough baseball talent you can be an absolute jerkstore and no one will care (Miguel Cabrera, anyone)? It's nice that Derek Jeter says all the right things and works hard, but he could have been lazy, seen his career sputter out at 35 or whatever, and still waltzed into the HOF. Would Dustin Pedroia even be considered a good makeup guy if he was a replacement level middle infielder? He'd probably be considered a loudmouthed jerk who selfishly demands too much playing time...
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on Nov 12, 2012 13:02:47 GMT -5
Thanks for the link, Chris.
I saw Swihart at Greenville this summer and he rewarded my trip with a line drive homer to right. He looked good behind the plate, too. Looking forward to seeing him with Salen next season.
|
|
|
Post by larrycook on Nov 12, 2012 14:33:32 GMT -5
Thanks for the link, Chris. I saw Swihart at Greenville this summer and he rewarded my trip with a line drive homer to right. He looked good behind the plate, too. Looking forward to seeing him with Salen next season. I saw Swilhart this year as well, but thought it was really hard to project him. Maybe in a 16 months or so when he gets to Portland, we'll have a much better idea of how he projects.
|
|
|
Post by jioh on Nov 12, 2012 14:40:47 GMT -5
Hmm what do those seven players who get by on their makeup and not their physical abilities have in common?
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Nov 12, 2012 14:58:08 GMT -5
Hmm what do those seven players who get by on their makeup and not their physical abilities have in common? Poor complexions? For real though, it seems clear that the list intends players whose superior makeup has added or is likely to add the most to their existing physical abilities.The players are all various levels of talented; they have successfully (or are likely to in future) raise their performance a level by virtue of their makeup.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Nov 12, 2012 15:52:29 GMT -5
The players are all various levels of talented; they have successfully (or are likely to in future) raise their performance a level by virtue of their makeup. I still wonder about the chicken-and-egg issue here. Remember when Kalish had amazing makeup? Or Iglesias? You don't hear much hype about makeup once the performance dries up. And again, there's issues of perception. If A-Rod made the "laser show" comment, wouldn't he immediately have been trashed for being an arrogant jerk? But Pedroia's arrogance is a good thing because he's a hobbit-sized white guy scrappy player.
|
|
|
Post by elguapo on Nov 12, 2012 16:08:24 GMT -5
You don't hear much hype about makeup once the performance dries up. Why would you? Makeup can help a player get the most out of his physical talent, contribute to a player keeping in shape, but it can't guarantee success or health. You don't hear much about Kalish these days because he hasn't been healthy even when he's been on the field - what's there to say? You hear quite a bit about Iglesias but his limited hitting ability is the question - does he have potential, not does he have the drive to live up to his potential.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on May 10, 2013 5:27:06 GMT -5
There is very little data so far with Swihart but the early returns seem to indicate a few things:
1) He is getting better defensively faster than we probably could have hoped and might even end up being a better defensive player than he is as an offensive player. Correct me if you who have seen him think this is just wrong but he seems to be throwing out runners well and have excellent athleticism and quickness behind the plate to me. I bet he continues to improve defensively at a rapid pace.
2) He seems to start off a little slow but gradually improve over the course of the year as he acclimates to each level, which is of course normal to a degree but perhaps is a little more pronounced with Swihart. It might take him a hair more time to assimulate each level but when he does his athleticism will enable him to achieve excellence and mastery at some point.
3) He has cut down his strikeout to walk ratio dramatically so far this year. An excellent indicator going forward. He has hit over 300 in his last 10 games but his strikeout figures are dropping rapidly this year in SSS.
4) Regarding his "makeup", this guy seems pretty positive from his interviews and able to take a punch without letting it get to him too much. He appears flexible and coachable. I would project him as being capable of adjusting well with his swing mechanics going forward and very able to develop over a long time frame. I don't think the pressure will get to this young man.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on May 10, 2013 6:05:03 GMT -5
One note on the "improving" point: If you drop the 0-for-7 at the start of the year, his numbers jump to .289/.379/.461. Drop his first five games and you get .308/.400/.477. He's been hitting pretty well all year to be honest.
That said, he's hitting much better from the right side than from the left: .348/.423/.522 as a RHB vs. .233/.324/.383 from the left. Still very much in the realm of SSS though.
|
|
|
Post by hammerhead on May 10, 2013 7:46:22 GMT -5
Swihart to me looks like he still has a huge amount of physical and mental maturation to do. He just looks young and raw, even younger than the 21 YO he is. The fact that he is in Salem, and holding his own with above average (for a catcher) numbers speaks volumes. It does say a lot about his make-up. He just needs experience behind the plate and tons of AB's, and I think once that happens he'll be a star. Imagine Buster Posey without college..... I think he'll slowly get better and better, he is so consistent already.
|
|
|
Post by wskeleton76 on May 10, 2013 7:49:25 GMT -5
What I like about him is his improving patience at the plate. (BB% 6.9% -> 11.6%) Approach was only concern about his hitting. Now it looks much better. I believe that he should be above average both offensively and defensively. Also he can run some. Extremely hard to get that kind of catcher in the market.
|
|
|
Post by raftsox on May 10, 2013 9:06:14 GMT -5
One note on the "improving" point: If you drop the 0-for-7 at the start of the year, his numbers jump to .289/.379/.461. Drop his first five games and you get .308/.400/.477. He's been hitting pretty well all year to be honest. That said, he's hitting much better from the right side than from the left: .348/.423/.522 as a RHB vs. .233/.324/.383 from the left. Still very much in the realm of SSS though. I remember an interview with Chipper Jones where he said he was much worse from the left side in the low minors and wanted to scrap switch hitting, but one of his coaches told him to stick with it and he would be better off for it in the long run. Hopefully Blake is able to "figure out" both sides, too. But it's probably not going to be easy.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on May 10, 2013 9:54:37 GMT -5
The real question is how much better, if any, he'd hit left handed against LHP? I wonder if the Oracle can help with that? Maybe she can just let us know now if Blake is The One.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on May 10, 2013 10:00:25 GMT -5
When I first saw an interview of him and some early video years ago he actually reminded me of Chipper Jones. Very easy going. This guy hasn't been on the radar that much but he appears to be developing well. As noted above, the walks are going up. the strikeouts down. He got better during the year last year and he is getting better this year. They have Tek working with him a lot. He's throwing runners out. I think he will be well rounded.
Finally, they drafted a great athlete in the catcher spot.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on May 10, 2013 13:36:16 GMT -5
One note on the "improving" point: If you drop the 0-for-7 at the start of the year, his numbers jump to .289/.379/.461. Drop his first five games and you get .308/.400/.477. He's been hitting pretty well all year to be honest. That said, he's hitting much better from the right side than from the left: .348/.423/.522 as a RHB vs. .233/.324/.383 from the left. Still very much in the realm of SSS though. Also, it's mostly just a difference in batting average: as RHB: .075 isoD, .174 isoP as LHB: .091 isoD, .150 isoP Not that we can assume the batting average thing is a fluke, but he's showing decent power and patience from both sides.
|
|
|
Post by godot on May 10, 2013 18:06:08 GMT -5
This kid is interesting in that he seems to be extremely small, especially for a catcher. But this impression is just from seeing him on MLB during a spring training game. From all accounts he is a good athlete and has head on straight. Just what is his height and build. It certainly is not what is posted. I am not saying that he is not a prospect if he is in fact very small. Yogi was very much on the short side. Just curious. Thanks in advance.
|
|
|