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 telson13 on Apr 15, 2016 21:22:36 GMT -5
How is pitch calling distinct from "manages a game"? The latter includes pixie dust? Well, in his defense there's knowing when to go out and talk to the pitcher, communicating positioning with INF, tempo, even subtle hints like throwing bullets back at the pitcher when he misses, or getting fired up when he makes a particularly good pitch. Chatting up the umps, little things like that.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Apr 15, 2016 21:26:38 GMT -5
Wouldn't this theoretically make him more valuable than prime Mickey Mantle? Please help me understand what in the world your talking about. I think he's saying this: Vazquez's framing is ostensibly worth about 3-4 WAR on the low end. So if his management is worth more (4+ WAR), and his defense is worth 2-3, you're talking about a 10-win player, with just middling offense.
|
|
|
Post by blizzards39 on Apr 15, 2016 21:49:46 GMT -5
Please help me understand what in the world your talking about. I think he's saying this: Vazquez's framing is ostensibly worth about 3-4 WAR on the low end. So if his management is worth more (4+ WAR), and his defense is worth 2-3, you're talking about a 10-win player, with just middling offense. Middling offence like when he banged that one high off the wall. Hahaha
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,942
|
Post by ericmvan on Apr 15, 2016 22:05:12 GMT -5
Please help me understand what in the world your talking about. I think he's saying this: Vazquez's framing is ostensibly worth about 3-4 WAR on the low end. So if his management is worth more (4+ WAR), and his defense is worth 2-3, you're talking about a 10-win player, with just middling offense. Game-calling is just about the hardest thing in baseball to measure. And attempts to measure it retroactively combine it with pitch-framing, unless you are attempting to estimate the latter by using ball and strike data. Even then, you would ideally want to have a pitch-type breakdown. Calling for most fastballs will improve a pitcher's strike percentage and be indistinguishable from doing better framing on an unchanged pitch mix. I'm relatively agnostic, therefore, about the size of pitch-calling effects. As a guess, +/- 2 wins sounds right. As for game management, if it's real it's probably a few tenths of a win. We can expect some regression on Vazquez's framing because umpires seem to be more aware of it. I projected him for 2.1 framing wins this year per 125 games. But keep in mind that's as conservative as all such projections; it's still the best in MLB, topping Grandal's 1.9.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Apr 15, 2016 22:08:31 GMT -5
“@jmastrodonato: Porcello: ”I can’t say enough about the job Christian did back there, blocking balls, calling the game — he was tremendous.“”
“@jmastrodonato: Porcello: ”The pick off was huge … I got on a roll after that. That’s a huge play. I know he’s got a great arm and that was proof.“”
“@jmastrodonato: Last one, Porcello on Vazquez: ”He’s captain on the field. That’s what that position calls for and he brings that.“”
|
|
|
Post by okin15 on Apr 15, 2016 22:09:28 GMT -5
Middling offence like when he banged that one high off the wall. Hahaha It's offensive to me that you keep misspelling offense. See what I did there? (My apologies for both the nitpicking and the bad jokes.)
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,942
|
Post by ericmvan on Apr 15, 2016 22:25:26 GMT -5
Here's a credible explanation for why Swihart's MLB defense has been such a disappointment.
Keep in mind that in AA he had great estimated pitch-framing numbers, great PB and WP allowed numbers, very good SB/CS numbers, and very favorable scouting reports. He wasn't an elite defender, but he looked like he had a solid chance of becoming one. He did win the award as ml defensive catcher of the year, based in large part on the PB, WP, SB, and CS stats being weighted more heavily than the scouting reports.
Now, he gets an emergency call-up, and what else does he suddenly have to do that he has never done in a game situation? That's right, absorb mountains of scouting data in order to call the best possible game. Something his mentor, Varitek, excelled at and has instilled in him as the most important part of his job.
We know that all that good plate-blocking and pitch-handling and throwing was something Swihart was working very hard on. It was apparently and very credibly not something that had yet become second nature, like it is for CV (who was apparently studying Pudge Rodriguez instruction videos at an age where Swihart had no thought of catching at all). It is very credible to me that when he put all of his attention to mastering this other thing, that he went backwards with the rest of the defense.
So I think that losing that final year of focusing on those skills, repeating everything so that he could do it without working at it, really hurt him. I think it's now clear that they overestimated his ability to learn on the job without it overloading him. You can add that to the list of Cherington mistakes, I think. (And this is not a second guess. When Hanigan got injured last year, I really wanted Cherington to trade for a defense-only catcher -- specifically, Martin Maldanado -- so that they could send Swihart back to AAA.)
Four months of catching regularly in AAA, essentially picking up where he left off nearly a year ago honing his receiving skills, will hopefully do wonders for him. I think the goal is to have him take over the backup job in September, and do it so well that it fully re-establishes his trade value as a very likely top 5 to 10 MLB catcher, and very possible All-Star. And maybe helps us do some post-season damage in the process.
|
|
|
Post by blizzards39 on Apr 15, 2016 22:34:35 GMT -5
Middling offence like when he banged that one high off the wall. Hahaha It's offensive to me that you keep misspelling offense. See what I did there? (My apologies for both the nitpicking and the bad jokes.) The negative of posting on IPhone while at work. Dam spell check
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Apr 15, 2016 22:36:34 GMT -5
I think he's saying this: Vazquez's framing is ostensibly worth about 3-4 WAR on the low end. So if his management is worth more (4+ WAR), and his defense is worth 2-3, you're talking about a 10-win player, with just middling offense. Middling offence like when he banged that one high off the wall. Hahaha I think you missed my point. I like how he works counts, takes walks, and hits doubles. I was explaining the idea that the sum of his defense, based on another poster's assertion that his game management might be worth more than his framing, would put him around 10 WAR, **IF** he were just a 1-WAR offensive catcher. Heh heh...you might reconsider defending your outrage at an imaginary slight with a robust sample size of one, though. That can get you shanked in these forums. Regardless of my appreciation for Vazquez's underrated hitting, if he's somehow more than a middling (eg, MLB-average) hitter this year, I'll be surprised. I'd be happy with .270/.320/.380, which I think he's eminently capable of. Given the state of offensive output from catchers these days, he's certainly capable of at least solid-average...for a catcher.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Apr 15, 2016 22:48:47 GMT -5
I think he's saying this: Vazquez's framing is ostensibly worth about 3-4 WAR on the low end. So if his management is worth more (4+ WAR), and his defense is worth 2-3, you're talking about a 10-win player, with just middling offense. Game-calling is just about the hardest thing in baseball to measure. And attempts to measure it retroactively combine it with pitch-framing, unless you are attempting to estimate the latter by using ball and strike data. Even then, you would ideally want to have a pitch-type breakdown. Calling for most fastballs will improve a pitcher's strike percentage and be indistinguishable from doing better framing on an unchanged pitch mix. I'm relatively agnostic, therefore, about the size of pitch-calling effects. As a guess, +/- 2 wins sounds right. As for game management, if it's real it's probably a few tenths of a win. We can expect some regression on Vazquez's framing because umpires seem to be more aware of it. I projected him for 2.1 framing wins this year per 125 games. But keep in mind that's as conservative as all such projections; it's still the best in MLB, topping Grandal's 1.9. Yeah, if you combine "framing/management/everything else" you essentially get the repeatable staff ERA effect, and I tend to agree with your estimate of about 4 wins a year for an outstanding catcher. Of course, what all of this (those wins included) doesn't account for is fewer staff pitches overall, reduced workload, longer starts, less bullpen wear, theoretically fewer injuries due to fewer high-stress extended innings, etc. So there's a probably real but incredibly hard to quantify benefit that goes far beyond even that estimated win benefit, and into multi-year effects like pitcher durability, trade value (via deflated ERA/FIP/etc), young pitcher development, etc. There's probably what might be termed "organizational value" to an outstanding catcher, due to his positive, stabilizing effects on a staff as a whole. It gets very esoteric, I suppose, and insanely hard to measure, but that doesn't mean it isn't real.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Apr 16, 2016 1:21:28 GMT -5
I think he's saying this: Vazquez's framing is ostensibly worth about 3-4 WAR on the low end. So if his management is worth more (4+ WAR), and his defense is worth 2-3, you're talking about a 10-win player, with just middling offense. Game-calling is just about the hardest thing in baseball to measure. And attempts to measure it retroactively combine it with pitch-framing, unless you are attempting to estimate the latter by using ball and strike data. Even then, you would ideally want to have a pitch-type breakdown. Calling for most fastballs will improve a pitcher's strike percentage and be indistinguishable from doing better framing on an unchanged pitch mix. I'm relatively agnostic, therefore, about the size of pitch-calling effects. As a guess, +/- 2 wins sounds right. As for game management, if it's real it's probably a few tenths of a win. We can expect some regression on Vazquez's framing because umpires seem to be more aware of it. I projected him for 2.1 framing wins this year per 125 games. But keep in mind that's as conservative as all such projections; it's still the best in MLB, topping Grandal's 1.9. I agree with Vazquez D being worth 3-4 war total, heck maybe slightly more. I don't agree that over 50% of that comes from pitch framing though. I think pitch framing is very overrated. Game management, like calming a pitcher down and limiting/preventing those bad innings will have a much bigger effect over a full season then getting a few close calls a game. I also think good pitch calling and game management lead to better results and more strikes, which I think people take to mean he's great at framing pitches.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Apr 16, 2016 5:21:38 GMT -5
Game-calling is just about the hardest thing in baseball to measure. And attempts to measure it retroactively combine it with pitch-framing, unless you are attempting to estimate the latter by using ball and strike data. Even then, you would ideally want to have a pitch-type breakdown. Calling for most fastballs will improve a pitcher's strike percentage and be indistinguishable from doing better framing on an unchanged pitch mix. I'm relatively agnostic, therefore, about the size of pitch-calling effects. As a guess, +/- 2 wins sounds right. As for game management, if it's real it's probably a few tenths of a win. We can expect some regression on Vazquez's framing because umpires seem to be more aware of it. I projected him for 2.1 framing wins this year per 125 games. But keep in mind that's as conservative as all such projections; it's still the best in MLB, topping Grandal's 1.9. I agree with Vazquez D being worth 3-4 war total, heck maybe slightly more. I don't agree that over 50% of that comes from pitch framing though. I think pitch framing is very overrated. Game management, like calming a pitcher down and limiting/preventing those bad innings will have a much bigger effect over a full season then getting a few close calls a game. I also think good pitch calling and game management lead to better results and more strikes, which I think people take to mean he's great at framing pitches. 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.
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Apr 16, 2016 6:58:57 GMT -5
I agree with Vazquez D being worth 3-4 war total, heck maybe slightly more. I don't agree that over 50% of that comes from pitch framing though. I think pitch framing is very overrated. Game management, like calming a pitcher down and limiting/preventing those bad innings will have a much bigger effect over a full season then getting a few close calls a game. I also think good pitch calling and game management lead to better results and more strikes, which I think people take to mean he's great at framing pitches. 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. Well, they could let the umpire call high/low and give him a technological aid to determine inside/away. But of course I hope they don't do so as long as we have CVaz.
|
|
danr
Veteran
Posts: 1,871
|
Post by danr on Apr 16, 2016 8:58:09 GMT -5
The Sox looked like a different team last night with Vazquez behind the plate. While it is nice to have a good-hitting catcher, it is better to have a great defensive catcher. And it seems reasonably possible that in Vazquez the Sox might have both. If that is the case then Swihart is expendable. And if this becomes the case, the Sox will be in a great position to acquire a really good SP, or OF, depending on the need, at the trade deadline.
|
|
|
Post by libertine on Apr 16, 2016 11:15:33 GMT -5
I strongly doubt that Swihart will bring a "good" SP in a trade. Not in a straight up trade at least. We will not get the proper value in return for him. Like I said on the other thread announcing his demotion, I just hope it is more than Larry Anderson this time. And with the humiliating way this was handled (imo at least), barring an injury to CV or Hanigan, I think we've seen Swihart in a Red Sox uniform for the last time...
|
|
|
Post by mgoetze on Apr 16, 2016 11:24:42 GMT -5
I think Swihart will hit better [...] than [his] Steamer projections. I'm curious why you think this. The Steamer projection already seems charitable, it thinks Swihart will cut his strikeouts by quite a bit, walk more and have a marginally higher ISO than 2015 while crediting almost half the difference between his 2015 BABIP and league average to talent. Which part of this seems pessimistic to you?
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Apr 16, 2016 11:29:47 GMT -5
I strongly doubt that Swihart will bring a "good" SP in a trade. Not in a straight up trade at least. We will not get the proper value in return for him. Like I said on the other thread announcing his demotion, I just hope it is more than Larry Anderson this time. And with the humiliating way this was handled (imo at least), barring an injury to CV or Hanigan, I think we've seen Swihart in a Red Sox uniform for the last time...If that were the case I don't think they'd be giving him time in LF. His trade value is as a catcher. His value to the Red Sox is papering over their miserable OF depth.
|
|
|
Post by libertine on Apr 16, 2016 11:42:17 GMT -5
I strongly doubt that Swihart will bring a "good" SP in a trade. Not in a straight up trade at least. We will not get the proper value in return for him. Like I said on the other thread announcing his demotion, I just hope it is more than Larry Anderson this time. And with the humiliating way this was handled (imo at least), barring an injury to CV or Hanigan, I think we've seen Swihart in a Red Sox uniform for the last time...If that were the case I don't think they'd be giving him time in LF. His trade value is as a catcher. His value to the Red Sox is papering over their miserable OF depth. To me the Sox suggesting that Swihart find a new position to play is what I was talking about when I mentioned humiliating him. The Sox just said to him, and all potential trading partners, that he does not have the skills needed to be a MLB caliber C and should find a new position to play.
And as far as "papering over" our organizational shortcomings in the OF I think that is selling Benintendi waaaaaaaaaay too short. Moncada also projects as an OF or 3B in the majors. And as underwhelming as he has been Castillo is at AAA still.
I agree that with the trade that sent Margot to SD we are not as deep in the OF as we once were. But I think that there is a belief in the organization that we will be seeing a Benintendi-Bradley-Betts OF (the new Killer B's?) as soon as 2017...so where does that leave Swihart?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Apr 16, 2016 11:42:25 GMT -5
I think Swihart will hit better [...] than [his] Steamer projections. I'm curious why you think this. The Steamer projection already seems charitable, it thinks Swihart will cut his strikeouts by quite a bit, walk more and have a marginally higher ISO than 2015 while crediting almost half the difference between his 2015 BABIP and league average to talent. Which part of this seems pessimistic to you? 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).
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Apr 16, 2016 11:53:11 GMT -5
If that were the case I don't think they'd be giving him time in LF. His trade value is as a catcher. His value to the Red Sox is papering over their miserable OF depth. To me the Sox suggesting that Swihart find a new position to play is what I was talking about when I mentioned humiliating him. The Sox just said to him, and all potential trading partners, that he does not have the skills needed to be a MLB caliber C and should find a new position to play.
And as far as "papering over" our organizational shortcomings in the OF I think that is selling Benintendi waaaaaaaaaay too short. Moncada also projects as an OF or 3B in the majors. And as underwhelming as he has been Castillo is at AAA still.
I agree that with the trade that sent Margot to SD we are not as deep in the OF as we once were. But I think that there is a belief in the organization that we will be seeing a Benintendi-Bradley-Betts OF (the new Killer B's?) as soon as 2017...so where does that leave Swihart?
I think you're reading too much into it. They aren't moving him to LF full-time, and preferring Vazquez over him is no indication that they think he's unplayable defensively at catcher. They have options down the line, but it seems clear that they have a significant need for a left-handed-hitting corner outfielder this year and have no internal candidates to fill that need.
|
|
|
Post by libertine on Apr 16, 2016 11:58:43 GMT -5
If they thought he was a ML caliber C they should have just left it at "go down to AAA to work on your defense a bit more". His future in the ML, at least with the Red Sox, is not in the OF...
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Apr 16, 2016 12:05:15 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...
|
|
|
Post by libertine on Apr 16, 2016 12:20:47 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.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Apr 16, 2016 12:58:18 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... I think this is definitely about Swihart being the best OF option versus RHP. The move to get him work in left is pretty much a move solely based on him helping the club THIS year. Not sure that's the best thing for the prospect, but if you take a look at Pawtucket, you have a whole mess of righty bats outside Boesch (who can only hit fastballs). Farrell and DD probably really value the familiarity that Swihart gives them as well, as opposed to someone like Sam Travis (who can hit righties) but hasn't had the ML experience. So it makes sense in that regard. But from a player development aspect, I'm not a huge fan. Hopefully this is a big non issue later and Vazquez and Swihart both get reps at catcher and Swihart plays a few games elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Apr 16, 2016 13:06:37 GMT -5
I agree with Vazquez D being worth 3-4 war total, heck maybe slightly more. I don't agree that over 50% of that comes from pitch framing though. I think pitch framing is very overrated. Game management, like calming a pitcher down and limiting/preventing those bad innings will have a much bigger effect over a full season then getting a few close calls a game. I also think good pitch calling and game management lead to better results and more strikes, which I think people take to mean he's great at framing pitches. 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.
|
|
|