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 widewordofsport on May 6, 2013 12:31:27 GMT -5
Norm, thanks for the chart, though I have to respectfully disagree. While I do think there is a chance the numbers stabilize closer to where they are than where they aren't, part of the reason you suggest it is the steady/gradual improvement before AA. Looking at it from a mathematical and not a baseball perspective, I just don't see the trend you do, especially in reduced Ks. I see expected variance around a mean followed by a dramatic shift, with a sample n=1 for one variable, and an n=2 for the other, and a degree of freedom somewhere between 1 and 2, given the incomplete independence of the two variables. With the difficulties he could have at the next level, where cheating on a fastball will get you hammered on breaking stuff, I would guess the trend reverts if there's no real good reason why the shift occurred in the first place. Without a really good explanation, I'm not really a believe in those data (though I do really like CV and think he has a fringe-starter ceiling, because of the defense)
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on May 6, 2013 12:58:06 GMT -5
Thanks for the insight. I charted the two variables because it had been noted that there were changes in each this year. They're obviously not independent as you say. Walk more may just be related to strikeout less. Moreover, there should be some aggregation, and a discussion of how many PAa are involved.
The early (A- at Lowell) sample is only for 78 PAs. At the AA end, the two seasons could be aggregated since they're at the same level. Even then that's only 144 PAs. The A+ season is for 342 PAs, a little more robust. The aggregation of the A level, on the other hand, results in 743 PAs and that starts to get us onto solid ground. I'm going go aggregate that stuff, post the chart, and attach that and the spreadsheet also to another post. Feel free to grab that off and do some statistics on this.
|
|
|
Post by widewordofsport on May 6, 2013 13:51:43 GMT -5
I actually might not aggregate the two AA seasons though. Even if it's statistically valid to do so, Vazquez may have really improved bat speed, strength, xyz over the offseason, and you'd want the two data points separate to be able to see that difference. I'm not sure what to make of his initial stint in AA, where Ks plummeted, and walks stayed the same. It suggests he was putting more balls into play.
In Salem, 2012: BABIP = .326, the upper end of normal for good quality contact In Portland, 2012: BABIP = .231 could be a result of bad luck, but could also mean he replaced strikeouts with poor contact.
In that case, you'd see 2012 as pretty consistent with BB rates AND K/crappy contact rates. My interpretation is 2012 AA was normal, just a replacement of one out for another (hard to believe low K numbers with a plummeting BA). I would read Vazquez as having consistent stats for four years in A- to AA ball, then a big improvement this year only, with basically reversal of K and BB rates.
Question being is it legit? Where will they settle? I have no idea there.
|
|
|
Post by widewordofsport on May 6, 2013 13:55:05 GMT -5
The other problem with aggregation is that a player has basically aged a year, while average competition age stayed about the same. At 18-20 years old, thats a big deal. It's why I'm so perplexed at Jose Vinicio, who I thought would be in Salem by the end of the year.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on May 6, 2013 20:33:07 GMT -5
The other problem with aggregation is that a player has basically aged a year, while average competition age stayed about the same. At 18-20 years old, thats a big deal. It's why I'm so perplexed at Jose Vinicio, who I thought would be in Salem by the end of the year. Well, if you aggregate Vinicio's weight over his past two seasons, you've got like 270 total pounds. That might have something to do with it.
|
|
|
Post by widewordofsport on May 7, 2013 7:48:49 GMT -5
Seriously. Next SP fundraising efforts, can we add a special fund to FedEx the kid some cheeseburgers?
Though I assume he didn't LOSE weight since last season?
|
|
|
Post by jmei on May 15, 2013 17:39:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by wskeleton76 on May 23, 2013 4:12:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sibbysisti on May 23, 2013 8:23:24 GMT -5
Thanks. It's good to know there are posters here who have access to ML scouts. It gives us a perspective from other orgs.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on May 23, 2013 8:47:28 GMT -5
That's a cut and paste from BP not his wn write up.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2013 8:53:58 GMT -5
That's a cut and paste from BP not his wn write up. Can anyone independently confirm the change in swing mechanics?
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jul 10, 2014 10:43:34 GMT -5
Good background on Vazquez' ascent through the system, and the contrast with Pierzynski, from Baseball Prospectus (paywall, but the first few paragraphs are free). Here's a sample: BP has no problem with the notion that this is a plus move from the get-go. If last night was any indication, I'm down with that. In their discussion about Swihart, we may be seeing the emergence of an idea that's been thrown around on the board, that they'll be building a very flexible roster. I don't think we'll see any more Ortiz' class DHs. Instead, the paradigm that may be emerging is one where you've got quite a few players who can move around the diamond. In Bogaerts, Holt and Betts, they've already got a some of those playeres. It's easy to imagine fitting Swihart into that group in the future. I was also surprised to read that Vazquez has played both 3B and 2B in the low minors. I'd forgotten that.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Jul 10, 2014 11:13:04 GMT -5
That scouting report is excellent and definitely worth reading. Lots of really interesting details in their about his development and his future.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Jul 10, 2014 11:32:56 GMT -5
Loved this -
"Vazquez is a weapon behind the plate who completely shuts down the opposing team's running game. With a wave of his arm he turns the basepaths to quicksand."
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 10, 2014 12:50:30 GMT -5
Wait til he plays in games called by Hernandez, Bucknor, Diaz, Nelson, Culbreth, Guccione, Drekman, West, Meals, or Emmel. After standing in the box with those guys behind the plate, he'll not only question his knowledge of the strike zone, he'll question the existence of gravity and whether the sky is blue.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 10, 2014 12:52:58 GMT -5
Loved this - "Vazquez is a weapon behind the plate who completely shuts down the opposing team's running game. With a wave of his arm he turns the basepaths to quicksand." He needs to catch Lackey's next game to see if his skills can mitigate Lackey's slowness to the plate.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Jul 11, 2014 11:24:56 GMT -5
Nice background on Vazquez from Alex Speier, including this quote: The handful of times I've watched him do his thing behind the plate, I've come away thinking that he simply won't tolerate disruption on the basepaths, that he is genuinely upset about it. Now there may be a lot of guys who have the same feeling when they strap on the gear, but there are only a handful who can carry through with an action plan to put a stop to that disruption. He is definitely one of those guys. Beyond that, he knows what's happening on the field at all times. As we saw that first game, he's in the right position to make the plays, and ready to whack any baserunning mole. He is, and will stay, in control. This guy is as much a pleasure to watch as Pierzynski was a pain.
|
|
|
Post by maxwellsdemon on Jul 11, 2014 12:02:12 GMT -5
After reading that article it seems like if Vazquez does develop into that absolute topflight catcher (meaning his hitting continues to improve since his defense seems already there) it raises the question about what to do with Swihart. As an out of the box solution how about keeping both and also giving them time at 3B/LF. That way there is the potential to have to first rate catchers available instead of a typical backup and while you lose some SABRE value when Vazquez especially is in the field (at least in terms of power for the position) you may gain more in roster flexibility. Otherwise you either have to trade one of them or force a permanent change. Another plus is that you could split the catching duties fairly evenly which could keep them from wearing down. I know that Swihart still has more to prove (as does Vazquez to a lesser extent defensively) but it seems worth thinking about know.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 11, 2014 12:20:35 GMT -5
After reading that article it seems like if Vazquez does develop into that absolute topflight catcher (meaning his hitting continues to improve since his defense seems already there) it raises the question about what to do with Swihart. As an out of the box solution how about keeping both and also giving them time at 3B/LF. That way there is the potential to have to first rate catchers available instead of a typical backup and while you lose some SABRE value when Vazquez especially is in the field (at least in terms of power for the position) you may gain more in roster flexibility. Otherwise you either have to trade one of them or force a permanent change. Another plus is that you could split the catching duties fairly evenly which could keep them from wearing down. I know that Swihart still has more to prove (as does Vazquez to a lesser extent defensively) but it seems worth thinking about know. Keep in mind that by then, Papi will probably be retired and we won't need a full-time DH anymore so there are plenty of at bats to go around.
|
|
|
Post by theaveragefan88 on Jul 11, 2014 13:18:32 GMT -5
There is no point in worrying about where Swihart will play until Vazquez establishes himself as a major league catcher. Maybe we should wait more than one game before trying to figure that part out.
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Jul 11, 2014 14:03:13 GMT -5
After reading that article it seems like if Vazquez does develop into that absolute topflight catcher (meaning his hitting continues to improve since his defense seems already there) it raises the question about what to do with Swihart. As an out of the box solution how about keeping both and also giving them time at 3B/LF. That way there is the potential to have to first rate catchers available instead of a typical backup and while you lose some SABRE value when Vazquez especially is in the field (at least in terms of power for the position) you may gain more in roster flexibility. Otherwise you either have to trade one of them or force a permanent change. Another plus is that you could split the catching duties fairly evenly which could keep them from wearing down. I know that Swihart still has more to prove (as does Vazquez to a lesser extent defensively) but it seems worth thinking about know. Between Vazquez's outstanding skills behind the plate, the unlikelihood of him being a good defender at any other position, and his merely decent-projecting bat, he seems like the type of guy you strictly want to keep behind the plate whenever he's in the game, whether he's playing 30% or 75% of the time. Swihart is intriguing, as he certainly seems athletic enough to develop into an acceptable defender at all four corner positions. I'd love to see him get comfortable at a second position for a couple of reasons: a) it will allow him to stay fresh without having to miss many games (a la Posey), which will be quite beneficial considering his offensive potential, and b) it will get a top grade defensive catcher with more than tolerable hitting skills into the lineup as well. With such a luxury, you could conceivably imagine Swihart playing in 80-90% of the games with Vazquez still manning the plate around 40% of the time. One scenario to keep in mind, considering the propensity of both players to mash lefties, is Swihart consistently playing a non-C position over a left-handed bat (likely LF or 1B) against southpaws.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Jul 11, 2014 14:17:38 GMT -5
With Ortiz gone in a couple years (or 2030) they may have a rotating DH. That might am option for Swihart from time to time as well, depending on the rest of the lineup. They may want to rotate other guys through the DH spot too.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Jul 11, 2014 14:55:25 GMT -5
If both Vazquez and Swihart develop into MLB starters at catcher, one is gone. Catching is too scarce in today's MLB to waste perfectly good defensive catchers at other positions, unless you're doing it to prolong a great hitter's career like Mauer.
The most likely way you get to a Swihart/Vazquez tandem for longer than a year or two is if one, likely Vazquez, turns into a guy who doesn't quite hit enough to start. But that said, I can't see some team with a deficiency at catcher not coming around to give him a shot at that point.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Jul 11, 2014 15:01:19 GMT -5
If both Vazquez and Swihart develop into MLB starters at catcher, one is gone. Catching is too scarce in today's MLB to waste perfectly good defensive catchers at other positions, unless you're doing it to prolong a great hitter's career like Mauer. The most likely way you get to a Swihart/Vazquez tandem for longer than a year or two is if one, likely Vazquez, turns into a guy who doesn't quite hit enough to start. But that said, I can't see some team with a deficiency at catcher not coming around to give him a shot at that point. Or Bryce Harper, et - not saying Swihart is either of these guys, but if you think the bat will play elsewhere, both are above average at C and one Vazquez is plus-plus at D and proved to be ave/sightly above average for Cs offensively, then that has to figure into the calculus over declaratives like "one is gone," right?
|
|
|
Post by mattpicard on Jul 11, 2014 15:10:21 GMT -5
If both Vazquez and Swihart develop into MLB starters at catcher, one is gone. Catching is too scarce in today's MLB to waste perfectly good defensive catchers at other positions, unless you're doing it to prolong a great hitter's career like Mauer. The most likely way you get to a Swihart/Vazquez tandem for longer than a year or two is if one, likely Vazquez, turns into a guy who doesn't quite hit enough to start. But that said, I can't see some team with a deficiency at catcher not coming around to give him a shot at that point. Yeah -- it'll be interesting to see just how well Vazquez needs to hit for other teams to come knocking with attractive returns. The defense is going to be plus-plus, so what's the offensive threshold needed for teams to come hunting after him as a starter while offering a package the Sox will find worth taking as they employ him as a part-timer? The 2013-14 MLB catcher OPS is .698 and the wRC+ is at 93. If Vazquez is a .245/.290/.365, 80 wRC+ guy, do the Sox get an appealing enough offer to move a guy who's extremely valuable to them playing part time? Now if he develops his power a bit, has his plate discipline hold up, and is a .270/.330/.400+ guy, which is extremely possible, then it's going to be mighty tough indeed to keep both players for several years if Swihart remains primarily a catcher.
|
|
|