Marco Hernandez and Christian Vazquez recalled, Swihart to AAA

Drek717

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 23, 2003
2,542
They did that because Hanigan has a tendency to fall off and/or get hurt if he's asked to play too often.

It doesn't count when Swihart is chosen over Hanigan for a job Hanigan literally cannot do.
You would have a point if that wasn't Hanigan's job following Vazquez' injury, that the team was in no rush to bring Swihart up then even in lieu of giving starts to Sandy Leon, and that it wasn't until after Swihart had a solid little sample of being the starter that they chose to stick with him over sending him down and returning to the Hanigan/Leon setup they had opened the season with.

Of all the forced narratives that have been propped up on SoSH over the years this one about how the FO is trying to sabotage a top 20 prospect in all of baseball, apparently just for kicks, is right up there for the most absurd.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
You're a smart guy. Nobody is saying they're trying tonsabtoge him. You also know that his 712 OPS was built on a ridiculously high BABIP in the second half.

The bottom line remains that Swiharts highest and best use in MLB is as a starting catcher. If you're not using him that way, then you can get better value by trading him than by keeping him. The economics of that is unassailable. Any other argument, that it give you flexibly, injury insurance, etc, while true, only makes it less bad of a decision. It doesn't get you back to equal value. If you think it does, you need to review your understanding of opportunity cost and recalibrate you expected injury frequency.

The other argument that makes no sense to me is this concern about the development of journeymen catchers at AA and AAA. There's no a prospect in the bunch. And even the one who are options for 4th catcher in the event of disaster in Boston are interchangeable sub-replacement level options. Keep the best one around and jettison the rest. If we want Dan Butler back in August he'll be available, trust me.

Final argument that baffles me is that playing LF won't interfere with his development as a catcher. Again, please review the concept of opportunity cost. If he's in LF, he's not charting pitches and picking the brain of veterans about why a particular pitch sequence was good or bad. That's a lost opportunity to get better at pitch calling. If he's taking fly balls in LF he's not working his footwork on throws to second or his technique for blocking pitches in the dirt or catching side sessions to improve his framing skills. Hours per day is finite. Time in LF is time not catching. Time not catching is time not developing his C. QED.

The one argument I buy is that there's no rush yet. We have time to make sure Vazquez isn't quite the black hole on offense he appears to be through his first 200 MLB PAs. We should know that soon enough though.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,423
Not here
Except that, only Vazquez will continue being groomed into potentially "a really good catcher" now.
I'm surprised nobody has commented on this yet. No. Just no. The idea that Swihart playing some left field means he's not going to develop as a catcher anymore is just absurd. He's not being moved to left field, he's expanding to left field. He's still going to get time behind the plate--more, I suspect than in left field--and he is still going to work with the catching instructors.
 

JimBoSox9

will you be my friend?
SoSH Member
Nov 1, 2005
16,667
Mid-surburbia
Is this supposed to be an intelligent critique? If so, you flunked.
Oh, I'd grade it about on the same level as this,

The bottom line remains that Swiharts highest and best use in MLB is as a starting catcher. If you're not using him that way, then you can get better value by trading him than by keeping him. The economics of that is unassailable. Any other argument, that it give you flexibly, injury insurance, etc, while true, only makes it less bad of a decision. It doesn't get you back to equal value. If you think it does, you need to review your understanding of opportunity cost and recalibrate you expected injury frequency.
only with less words. That's value, baby. It's a nice collection of words arranged in the right logical order, but it so massively misunderstands* how the FO might define 'value' to the team that it wouldn't be worth any less if you let WalletTrack play mad libs with it.




*It might be begging the question on value? I'm not totally sure, I didn't want to pull the trigger on unfirm ground.
 
Last edited:

Sprowl

mikey lowell of the sandbox
Dope
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2006
34,452
Haiku
It's too early yet to know whether both Vazquez and Swihart are healthy and competent major-league talents on offense and defense. Vazquez catching and batting 3/5 of the games, with Swihart catching 1/3 and batting 2/3, and Hanigan's remainder traded away at mid-season, is probably the optimal outcome for the 2016 Red Sox, which is what Dombrowski and Farrell should be working on now. That means finding Swihart another position to play, and Shaw's emergence means that 3B and 1B are already well covered. Holt will probably be needed at a middle infield position due to injury, and Young apparently can't hit RHP at all.

Swihart's trade value won't be maximized for a year at least, and is not the most immediate priority. If it were, then Swihart would probably be better allocated to Pawtucket to catch 2/3 of the games, and chart the rest while DH. I don't see that catching 2/3 of the games, while charting only 1/6 because he's trying the outfield in the other 1/6, is such a terrible long-term sacrifice of Swihart's developmental potential or trade value.

Swihart's bat looks to be as good as advertised, and his high BABIP is not a fluke but a reflection of his 26.7% line drive rate, but his defensive technique is still below major-league standards. Vazquez' arm looks to have made a full recovery, but he still can't hit. Patience, patience...
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,480
Melrose, MA
Final argument that baffles me is that playing LF won't interfere with his development as a catcher. Again, please review the concept of opportunity cost. If he's in LF, he's not charting pitches and picking the brain of veterans about why a particular pitch sequence was good or bad. That's a lost opportunity to get better at pitch calling. If he's taking fly balls in LF he's not working his footwork on throws to second or his technique for blocking pitches in the dirt or catching side sessions to improve his framing skills. Hours per day is finite. Time in LF is time not catching. Time not catching is time not developing his C. QED.
While this was mostly a good post, I will just note that there might be a bit of a conflict between the "opportunity cost" argument and the "his offense won't play in LF" argument. A bit of a conflict. Maybe if he moves off catcher he'll be able to devote more of his limited practice time to developing his hitting. This LF experiment won't answer that question, of course, but it may not be correct to assume that he'll be the same hitter if he stays at catcher versus if he ends up moving off of the position.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
While this was mostly a good post, I will just note that there might be a bit of a conflict between the "opportunity cost" argument and the "his offense won't play in LF" argument. A bit of a conflict. Maybe if he moves off catcher he'll be able to devote more of his limited practice time to developing his hitting. This LF experiment won't answer that question, of course, but it may not be correct to assume that he'll be the same hitter if he stays at catcher versus if he ends up moving off of the position.
I agree. A permanent move to LF where he comes back up as the everyday LF and 3rd string catcher barring catastrophic injury to Vazquez would almost make more sense if that is the ultimate goal. Especially if they are concerned with JBJ's pumpkin having burst again and the lack of quality outfielders in the high minors (I.e. assuming Castillo's reported inability to hit off speed pitches can't be corrected). You could then move Betts back to CF and the Holt/Young platoon to RF.
 

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
13,024
Seattle, WA
There must be something to learn in comparison to other catchers. Let's take a quick look at 5.

Yadier Molina: Started catching full time at 22 years old. Caught 114, 129, 111, 124, 140 and 136 games in his first 6 full years. Had and outlier hitting year at ages 25-26 (OPS+ of 96/100). His other years (in order) were 70, 53, 85, (96), (100) and 84. Yadier's dWar was, however, outstanding: 1.8, 2.0, 2.1, 1.0, 1.9 and 2.9. Through age 27 he was clearly a defensive catcher with offensive potential.

Matt Wieters: Wieters started catching full time at 23 y.o. and caught 96, 130, 139, 144 and 148 games through age 27. His OPS+ during those years was 96, 90, 110, 107 and 90...clearly a better hitter than Molina. dWar in those same years was 0.7, 1.6, 2.7, 1.3 and -0.3. Balancing those two out through age 27 gives a slight edge to Wieters over the defensive-minded Molina.

Buster Posey
: Also started catching full time at age 23, but (obviously) not the next year. Games played through age 27 were 108, 45, 148, 148 and 147. His hitting was remarkable at: 133, (116), 171, 134 and 143. dWar not as much: 0.7, 0.6, 0.5, 1.0, 0.2 Obviously an offense-first catcher and a better overall contributor than Weiters.

The Red Sox Catchers:
Swihart started catching in the majors last year at age 23 when he played in 84 games. He had an OPS+ of 90 and a dWar of 1.4 during his short stay.. Molina didn't break 90 until age 25 (his 4th full year). Swihart's dWAR was a surprising 1.4, a figure that Wieters broke once and Posey never attained. Swihart's first year (age 23) compared favorably to Wieters (age 23). They both caught a similar number of games. Wieters out-OPS'd Swihart by only 6 points and was (theoretically) a worse defensive catcher. Neither of them could touch the hitting of Posey.

Vazquez caught 55 games at age 22 (Yadier was a year ahead, catching full time at that age). Christian's first OPS+ was 73 and Yadier's (similar number of games in his rookie season - 51) was 78. Yadier started hitting well at age 25 - his 4th year in the majors.

There are some comparisons to be made between Swihart and Wieters; Vazquez and Molina, although no one can predict whether Vazquez will ever turn on the hitting the way Molina did at age 28.

The analogy here could be that the Red Sox have both a 23 year old Molina and Wieters on the roster. What to do? Do you keep both? Catcher is a notoriously injury-prone position. Do you go for offense and decent defense (Orioles) or defense and decent offense (Cardinals) or offense and shitty defense (Giants)? What if you had both Molina and Wieters under control but Wieters could also play LF and 1B?

Some say trade one of them, others (like me) say keep both until someone makes you such a good offer that you literally can't refuse. Push the "problem" down the road and enjoy the wealth of riches.
 
Last edited:

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
The analogy here could be that the Red Sox have both a 23 year old Molina and Wieters on the roster. What to do? Do you keep both? Catcher is a notoriously injury-prone position. Do you go for offense and decent defense (Orioles) or defense and decent offense (Cardinals) or offense and shitty defense (Giants)? What if you had both Molina and Wieters under control but Wieters could also play LF and 1B?
Calling Posey's C defense "shitty" seems bizarre. Defensive metrics for catchers are notoriously problematic, but to the extent that we can rely on them at all, Posey looks OK. His low BBref dWARs in his earlier seasons come from lack of playing time due to injury (remember, dWAR is a cumulative stat, not a rate stat), and from playing part-time at 1B to keep his bat in the lineup. But his DRS (for what little that number is worth for catchers) has been above average every year but one (-3 in 2014), and as for framing, his numbers over at StatCorner has been consistently positive. Last year he ranked 4th in +Calls and 5th in PerGame out of 33 MLB catchers with at least 5000 framing chances. The last time he and Wieters both played full seasons (2013), he was a full 20 runs better at framing than Wieters was, and a full 10 runs better by DRS. He's not a Molina-level defensive savant by any means, but this is the first time I've heard anyone seriously suggest that Posey's not an average-or-better defensive catcher.
 

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
13,024
Seattle, WA
Thanks, I'm not sure I even understand dWar at all.

Do you think Swihart's future comps are closer to Weiters, Posey, or am I just wishfully thinking?
 

Toe Nash

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
5,600
02130
The PawSox have four catchers on their roster. Could you outline how you'd like to manage them all so that Swihart gets plenty of chances to hit while simultaneously playing full-time catcher?

Thanks.
Just how I said it. Swihart starts most days and when he's not starting he DHs and occasionally rests.

They have 4 catchers but one is Danny Bethea who is on the DL (I'm not sure what his injury is). So far this year Leon has played 7 games at catcher, Swihart 5, and Butler and Vazquez 4 each. All that this means is Sandy Leon loses DH ABs and Butler loses some catching time, and frankly I don't care about that. Butler is the definition of replacement player. Leon has defensive value but isn't anything special. You're not harming anything by sitting them on the bench.

Like, I'm amazed I actually have to write this out. You don't prioritize organizational filler over the best catching prospect in the game.
 

Toe Nash

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
5,600
02130
1. Why would it particularly mess with his catching development if he's still starting at catcher 5 out of 7 games?
I said it probably wouldn't make or break him as a player. But the downside is not worth the upside. During those other two games I want him sitting on the bench and watching the game and thinking about catching. Not standing out in left and thinking about which way he needs to lean to catch the next fliner.
 

whatittakes

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2016
215
Why, because versatility sucks and it's never a good idea to give a player more things he could possibly do to help the team?

Some of you guys belong in the overthinking-things Olympics. I've seen some masterclasses in obsessive triplethink in my short time on this forum.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
6,348
You're kind of a dick, y'know....?
That said, I don't see why it's overthinking at all to speculate on how adding additional tasks to Swihart's development might not be the best idea if the best idea is to have him develop better as a catcher. In theory it shouldn't.... but these guys are people, and crikey, they're mostly a bunch of kids who presumably have tons of other shit on their minds too.
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,423
Not here
You're kind of a dick, y'know....?
That said, I don't see why it's overthinking at all to speculate on how adding additional tasks to Swihart's development might not be the best idea if the best idea is to have him develop better as a catcher. In theory it shouldn't.... but these guys are people, and crikey, they're mostly a bunch of kids who presumably have tons of other shit on their minds too.
The best idea is the one that gets the Red Sox closer to the goal.

THE GOAL IS TO WIN THE WORLD SERIES AS MANY TIMES AS POSSIBLE BEFORE WE DIE.

The goal is not to maximize the value of any particular player or group of players.

Playing Swihart exclusively at catcher might get the most out of him, but we also have Christian Vazquez who is very talented and works hard and has a skill set that complements Swihart's. They make a great pair of catchers while providing the proverbial deep depth.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
12,680
And, to be brutally frank, given the LD%, I think that getting the most out of Swihart involves him being in the lineup daily. So I fail to see any downside to having him as the backup C that DHs, and plays a little LF and a little 1B.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
6,348
The best idea is the one that gets the Red Sox closer to the goal.

THE GOAL IS TO WIN THE WORLD SERIES AS MANY TIMES AS POSSIBLE BEFORE WE DIE.

The goal is not to maximize the value of any particular player or group of players.

Playing Swihart exclusively at catcher might get the most out of him, but we also have Christian Vazquez who is very talented and works hard and has a skill set that complements Swihart's. They make a great pair of catchers while providing the proverbial deep depth.
I don't disagree... But I'm not on board 100% either. I was responding to the prior post of overthinking. I don't find it to be an unreasonable idea that having him practice in LF could not get the best results out of him and therefore for the team as a whole.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
Playing Swihart exclusively at catcher might get the most out of him, but we also have Christian Vazquez who is very talented and works hard and has a skill set that complements Swihart's. They make a great pair of catchers while providing the proverbial deep depth.
Meanwhile, a guy with no power, little speed, and little experience is the everyday left fielder, and a guy who has an 86 mph fastball that he makes up for by commanding it really poorly is in the starting rotation.

Opportunity cost.
 

whatittakes

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2016
215
I don't disagree... But I'm not on board 100% either. I was responding to the prior post of overthinking. I don't find it to be an unreasonable idea that having him practice in LF could not get the best results out of him and therefore for the team as a whole.
Let Swihart's agent worry about maximizing his individual value.

if I saw that slam dunk trade that would allow you to trade Vazquez for the guy you needed in left, I'd say to pull the trigger, but I don't see that deal, at least not right now. In the absence of that trade you have to consider using Swihart himself in the position you need to maximize the team.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,100
Meanwhile, a guy with no power, little speed, and little experience is the everyday left fielder, and a guy who has an 86 mph fastball that he makes up for by commanding it really poorly is in the starting rotation.

Opportunity cost.
How is this at all relevant to Swihart's usage in AAA?

Getting Swihart at bats in AAA is not going to hurt his development. Having him play a bit of LF from time to time is not going to hurt his development either. There is no "opportunity cost" situation here.
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
His point is that You could acquire players at position of need instead of trying to square peg round hole the guys you have that play premium positions.
 

Buzzkill Pauley

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 30, 2006
10,569
Getting Swihart at bats in AAA is not going to hurt his development. Having him play a bit of LF from time to time is not going to hurt his development either. There is no "opportunity cost" situation here.
Of course there is an opportunity cost. The question that will soon be answered with his upcoming usage in AAA is "how much" opportunity cost it really is.

Swihart's bat already played well at the MLB level after the All-Star Break last season after he had time to adjust to MLB pitching. He isn't down in AAA to read spin out of the pitchers' hand or to learn when to lay off breaking pitches away. He doesn't need daily at-bats in Pawtucket, except insofar as doing so might help him lock in good habits he's already got and keep him from developing bad ones. Because he was already a credible MLB hitter as a rookie catcher last year.

He's in Pawtucket because the Sox believe he is not the best catcher for the 2016 team.

And no matter what he does in AAA, he won't be the best LF for the 2016 team either.

Swihart does not most help the Sox "WIN THE MOST WORLD SERIES BEFORE I DIE!!! RAWWWRR!!!" by getting one eighth-inning PH plate appearance for Chris Young who has been given one sixth-inning PH plate appearance for Travis Shaw. Or by being given one late-inning PR appearance for Ortiz or Hanigan. That's retarded. There are any number of better options for that sort of limited bench role out there, and they come really, really cheap. Like Mike Carp did in 2013. Or Bobby Kielty in 2007. Or Dave Roberts in 2004.

No. Swihart can help the Sox the most -- now, and in the future -- by refining his existing skills into a good-bat switch-hitting solid-defense full-time catcher. Whether he does so by providing that value directly to the Sox as an anchor in the 6-7-8 spots of the lineup for the next six years, or by getting traded as the headliner for a #2 pitcher, or by getting traded straight-up for a real LF, is immaterial at this point.

But yeah, I'd be willing to give the team the benefit of the doubt that the Sox have a plan to help Swihart develop into that player down in AAA....except that...you know...the President of Baseball Operations came right out and said he doesn't know what the try-Swihart-in-LF plan's endgame is supposed to be.

If Dave Dombrowski doesn't know that, then neither do I.
 

JimBoSox9

will you be my friend?
SoSH Member
Nov 1, 2005
16,667
Mid-surburbia
I'd also like to point out that the "most World Series before we die" is terribly ageist as a description. I mean, the goal is definitely to win as many World Series before I die, sure, but what if a member here is really old? If you're like, oh, 70 or above, I really don't think the goal is to win as many World Series as possible before you die - they're going to be doing at least a little thinking about saving one or two for after your dirt nap. In summary, I demand a 'safe zone' thread where our aged members can comfortably debate the Red Sox without having to be forced to confront their diminishing mortality. Thanks in advance.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
Getting Swihart at bats in AAA is not going to hurt his development. Having him play a bit of LF from time to time is not going to hurt his development either. There is no "opportunity cost" situation here.
Offensively - We don't know what this does to Swihart's psyche as everyone reacts differently to failure, demotion, and the accompanying confidence hit that it could take. He was hitting .161 entering last nights game in AAA so yes, AAA at bats could hurt his offensive development as he isn't getting his reps vs ML pitchers. He'll almost certainly be fine but it will likely take a few weeks to get over being in Pawtucket and regaining the proper motivation necessary to make improvements to hit offensive game.

Defensively - It isn't only about Swihart playing in games in LF it is all the physical practice time shagging fly balls, working on throws, timing, positioning for his new OF position while not even addressing the mental approach to the game changing. Time and mental preparation that is NOT spent on working on his throws, timing, game calling, and other intricacies that he would be getting from that time being spent on his catching skills. How you feel that there is no opportunity cost for him dedicating so much practice time in LF is kinda confusing.
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
One of the reasons for the cognitive dissonance is that people get enamored with prospects and like to prospect hoard - largely because you don't want to trade away the "wrong" guy. If the Sox had traded Scott Cooper for Larry Andersen noone would remember the trade. So, its easy to want to say "we have two great C prospects, you can't let them go, let's find a way to use both!" Whereas if Siwhart had simply been displaced by the Sox signing a defensive whiz FA journeyman catcher, more people would be wondering what is going on. Or, if the Sox had signed a decent bat C and then decided to give him reps in LF people might wonder why they didn't just sign the LF in the first place. Etc.

Now, on the other hand, the better argument against the "trade Swihart if you don't want him to catch" argument is that it presumes a trade partner that works and that you can actually capture the value difference.

There is also the chance that they are giving Vaz the sink or swim or showcase chance. Show he is healthy enough and isn't overmatched by MLB pitchers so potential trade partners get some assurance. For all we know DD tried to trade him this winter and was met with little interest before he showed his arm in game situations. Etc.

But, having Swihart take reps in LF to me is pretty baffling and indicates they don't know what they want to do. You can do all the other things in terms of depth and help by letting him catch and signing a journeyman to take those reps in LF and possible path to majors. There is very very little value to having a "third catcher" on the roster in terms of increasing Swihart's bench value. Sure, if you want to dump Hanigan and then have some situation where you have an "extra" bench player by virture of your backup catcher being used in other places - ok. Even still I don't really see it, and as much as I like Swihart's bat as a catcher, I don't love it as an OF and I'm not sure he actually does help win the World Series this year.
 
Last edited:

whatittakes

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2016
215
The Red Sox have always committed to Vazquez being their starting catcher, even when he was hurt ahd Swihart was doing the job.

The Red Sox have never committed to Blake Swihart being their everyday starting catcher. EVER. He's got the defensive tools to be a solid starter but CV has better tools and they're much more refined. Defense >>>>>> offense at the catching position. It's on Swihart to develop his catching proficicency in the minors, that's why he's there and he knows it, But even if he realized that potential he'd still have to hit a ton to overcome CV's defensive advantage and make the job his own.

So taking a guy with a refined offensive approach that's hurt by being raw at his position, and experimenting with whether he could take that refined offensive approach to another position, isn't particualrly foolish. If Swihart were anything close to a polished catcher I'd agree that hedging their bets was foolish due to the clear value he represents, but as polished catchers go, he very much isn't one. And it might take years to get there. Meanwhile his bat is ready NOW, or at least ready to develop on the job immediately, and left field is a position that could use a developing power hitter.

Is it better to retard his offensive development for at least a year, maybe more, until his catching catches up with it, or is it better to move him to a less challenging defensive position so his bat can develop? This is a question without an easy answer. And I'm pretty confident that that question is at the core of the reason why the Red Sox are hedging their betts with Swihart at the moment.
 

simplicio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2012
4,763
I have my doubts about Swihart coming back up this year anyway. I think barring injury needs he stays down- we've got Hanigan through next year so there's no need to rush his development any more. Let him figure out his catching defense and pick up a little LF on the side, sure.

And assuming we don't acquire a legit power left fielder, doesn't he make perfect sense part-timing out there? Young gets the lefties and Blake & Brock split the rest. We keep Blake's bat in the lineup for his non-catching days, and if someone else goes down or needs a rest Holt can move over to cover without needing to start Young against RHP. I think the real world positives of that scenario for the team outweigh the downside of Swihart studying a little less in AAA.
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
The Red Sox have always committed to Vazquez being their starting catcher, even when he was hurt ahd Swihart was doing the job.

The Red Sox have never committed to Blake Swihart being their everyday starting catcher. EVER. He's got the defensive tools to be a solid starter but CV has better tools and they're much more refined. Defense >>>>>> offense at the catching position. It's on Swihart to develop his catching proficicency in the minors, that's why he's there and he knows it, But even if he realized that potential he'd still have to hit a ton to overcome CV's defensive advantage and make the job his own.

So taking a guy with a refined offensive approach that's hurt by being raw at his position, and experimenting with whether he could take that refined offensive approach to another position, isn't particualrly foolish. If Swihart were anything close to a polished catcher I'd agree that hedging their bets was foolish due to the clear value he represents, but as polished catchers go, he very much isn't one. And it might take years to get there. Meanwhile his bat is ready NOW, or at least ready to develop on the job immediately, and left field is a position that could use a developing power hitter.

Is it better to retard his offensive development for at least a year, maybe more, until his catching catches up with it, or is it better to move him to a less challenging defensive position so his bat can develop? This is a question without an easy answer. And I'm pretty confident that that question is at the core of the reason why the Red Sox are hedging their betts with Swihart at the moment.
Not to compare Swihart to a Hall of Famer, but Craig Biggio is a reasonable comparison in terms of how his positional arc played out.
Biggio was called up as a catcher midway through the 1988 season, having batted .344 in his minor league career. In 1989, his first full season, Biggio became the Astros' starting catcher. He won the Silver Slugger Award in 1989. He was a very speedy runner, and an adept base stealer. Astros' management, in an attempt to keep the rigors of catching from sapping Biggio's speed, tried him in the outfield part-time in 1990, as he had played 18 games there in the minors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Biggio#Early_career:_Conversion_from_catcher_to_second_base
 

daveuk

¡el ticos son estúpidos!
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
219
Jolly ol' England
The Red Sox have always committed to Vazquez being their starting catcher, even when he was hurt ahd Swihart was doing the job.

The Red Sox have never committed to Blake Swihart being their everyday starting catcher. EVER. He's got the defensive tools to be a solid starter but CV has better tools and they're much more refined. Defense >>>>>> offense at the catching position. It's on Swihart to develop his catching proficicency in the minors, that's why he's there and he knows it, But even if he realized that potential he'd still have to hit a ton to overcome CV's defensive advantage and make the job his own.

So taking a guy with a refined offensive approach that's hurt by being raw at his position, and experimenting with whether he could take that refined offensive approach to another position, isn't particualrly foolish. If Swihart were anything close to a polished catcher I'd agree that hedging their bets was foolish due to the clear value he represents, but as polished catchers go, he very much isn't one. And it might take years to get there. Meanwhile his bat is ready NOW, or at least ready to develop on the job immediately, and left field is a position that could use a developing power hitter.

Is it better to retard his offensive development for at least a year, maybe more, until his catching catches up with it, or is it better to move him to a less challenging defensive position so his bat can develop? This is a question without an easy answer. And I'm pretty confident that that question is at the core of the reason why the Red Sox are hedging their betts with Swihart at the moment.
How's Swihart going to improve his catching of the knuckleball at AAA? And do we know that the CV can handle the knuckler? He seems to be protected from having to catch Wright's starts.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,100
In terms of development: Swihart did acquit himself well at the plate at the ML level for half a season. He also struck out in 27% of his at bats. So getting him some more development at the AAA level is hardly the worst thing for him. If his psyche is that fragile that the demotion destroys his ability to hit, then he's simply not that good of a player, and is not someone we would want on the team anyway. Personally, I doubt that this is the case, as he's had all of 35 at bats for Pawtucket this season, so I think we can safely ignore his 0.611 OPS.

Vazquez is a defensive whiz who has also had 50 more games behind the plate in the AA/AAA level. So I don't see the downside of getting Swihart more reps at the catcher position in AAA either.

As for LF, I see it as an experiment with low cost. If it doesn't work out in Pawtucket, who cares? Let him go back to catching full time. If it works out, then we have a future Mike Napoli or Victor Martinez type player that can play multiple positions. I fail to see how such a move is representative of an organization that does not know what they're doing.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,245
How's Swihart going to improve his catching of the knuckleball at AAA? And do we know that the CV can handle the knuckler? He seems to be protected from having to catch Wright's starts.

If this organization makes even ONE decision about Swihart based on "improving his catching of the knuckleball," then everyone should be fired.
 

In my lifetime

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
959
Connecticut
I am a Swihart fan as a potentially ++ hitting, adequate defensive C, but his demotion was the best choice the RS had as far as the information we have at our disposal. Vazquez is clearly a superior defender, the pitching staff was having issue, Swihart to my eye looked only adequate at best behind the plate and as far as we know there were no trade offers that were acceptable to the RS. Hanigan has a 2017 team option for 3.75 , which certainly will be exercised (at which point he will be 36), while Swihart and Vazquez are under team control for at least 2020. All have significant value, which is of course maximized by playing catcher. Clearly Hanigan has the least value by a substantial margin.

So assuming there were no trade offers for any of the 3 worth jumping on, the RS looking to help their pitching staff brought up Vazquez. They certainly can't keep 3 catchers on the roster, so Swihart was sent down. There is really not much to quibble about in that decision. The RS roster is certainly far from perfect, and trading from a place of excess (catcher) where very few teams have excess puts then in a good position to make a trade within the next months to years. If I was another GM who needed a catcher, my first call would be to the RS regarding availability of one of the 3 catchers. If no trade is pulled off and all 3 catchers are healthy for the next 2 years, Hanigan leaves during free agency then the argument could and should be made that the RS did not make the best use of their assets. But we are not at that point yet.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
Thanks, I'm not sure I even understand dWar at all.

Do you think Swihart's future comps are closer to Weiters, Posey, or am I just wishfully thinking?
It's hard to feel optimistic about Swihart/Posey comps when you look at their minor league numbers. Posey was basically better than Swihart at everything in the minors, and a *lot* better at plate discipline and power.

Wieters is probably a better rational-optimist comp in terms of overall offensive value, but a very different kind of hitter: more flyballs, more power, less BABIP. Swihart looks like he's going to be a kind of hitter that you more typically find in the outfield: a high-BABIP, average-contact, average-power, fringe-discipline hitter with good speed, like an Aaron Rowand or a young Marlon Byrd.
 
Last edited:

The Gray Eagle

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2001
16,725
They certainly can't keep 3 catchers on the roster
If Swihart can become a decent defensive LF, then they can keep 3 catchers on the roster. Right now, they have 13 pitchers, with a 3-man bench. If Swihart came up to replace the extra pitcher, they would have this bench:
Whoever isn't catching (Vazquez/Hanigan) whoever isn't in LF (2 of Swihart/Young/Holt) and Rutledge. You could even add another position player and send down Rutledge, with Holt backing up the infield positions.
If Swihart could handle LF and hit like he did after July 20 last year (303/353/452) that would greatly help the team this year. With all 3 catchers on the roster, you could also pinch hit for Hanigan or Vazquez in any big late situation.

Swihart was an outfielder for his first 2 seasons of high school ball and was an outfielder for the US U-18 national team. He hasn't played there in 5 or 6 years or so, but it's not like the position is totally foreign to him, like it was to Hanley Ramirez.
 

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
13,024
Seattle, WA
3 catcher stuff:
Cubs carrying three catchers? Don't buy it
Maddon mentioned the 2005 Angels as an example of a team that used three catchers -- Bengie and Jose Molina along with Josh Paul -- and went to the playoffs. The only problem with the comparison is that all three were in the lineup at different times as designated hitters while Jose and Paul played some games at other positions as well.
Tigers not likely to keep 3 catchers on 25-man roster
"It's hard that you like both, and at some point a decision is going to have to be made," Avila said. "We've even kicked around where maybe we keep all three catchers. But that would be very difficult to do, so don't write that we're going to keep three catchers because at this point that would be a very hard thing to do."
How increased roster flexibility would help baseball
...back in the 1970s and even into the 1980s, teams usually carried three catchers, allowing a manager to pinch-hit for his starting catcher with a better bench option, knowing he had two backups in reserve. Now, managers are afraid to hit for their catcher and burn their only backup (let alone, you rarely have the flexibility to use a pinch hitter and then bring in a reserve).
Toronto was in a small pickle last year when Thole was the only guy who could catch Dickey, while Martin and Navarro were on the roster.
 

koufax37

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
2,472
I think that Swihart has a long way to go in increasing is offensive value to catch Vazquez in the total value category, and I think Vazquez has a lock on the position until that hypothetical is realized.

Catcher defensive value is a hugely complex and not accurately measured category, including throwing out runners, deterring runners, blocking pitches, calling a game, building pitcher confidence, and pitch framing. It is really rare to see these things come together in the total defensive package so early in a career (Ivan Rodriguez was a famously frustrating pitch caller early in his career before improving), and the more I see him play, the more I understand that Vazquez's pop time is less important to this team than his other qualities, and his bat would have to really fall under projections to make his net value questionable.

Given that Swihart is now effectively blocked organizationally as a starting catcher, he needs to gain positional versatility and continue improving as a catcher and hitter while doing so. As a young offensive player, he can't just take Hannigan's role and not get consistent ABs, so he needs to find a way to be a #2 catcher AND some combination of LF/3B/1B which pretty clearly starts with LF and getting his offense to a point where he can steal ABs from Brock Holt, or from Shaw when Holt is at 3B or from whoever else Holt is letting rest. This seems to be the conventional wisdom right now.

However, I'm not sure if his value over Hannigan/Holt makes his callup any time soon logical for the 2016 team, or for his development as a 2017+ player, so I don't have any problem with him spending the entire season in AAA, and having callups as needed by unforseen DL situations down the road. If that delays his free agent clock a year in the process, we get more value in 2016 and 2022 or whatever.

Then if his offense forces the issue in the meantime, that is a good problem to have to solve. But who these two catchers are right now and the rest of our lineup construction, Vazquez is the major league starter and Swihart is the minor league prospect working on developing as a player. He has a much shorter path to overtaking a healthy Hannigan/Holt lineup slot than Vazquez's in both the short run and likely the long run.
 

FanSinceBoggs

seantwo
SoSH Member
Jan 12, 2009
937
New York
I think it makes more sense to continue developing Swihart as a C and use him as a trade chip for a starting pitcher this year. I don't see a long term spot for Swihart as an OF with Benintendi in the minors making his way to the big league club.

The Red Sox are going to have to trade away a valuable asset this year to upgrade the pitching staff. We don't want to trade away guys like Moncada, Benintendi, or Espinoza. Swihart makes the most sense as a trade chip but the Red Sox do need to find a trade partner that needs/wants a young catcher.
 

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
13,024
Seattle, WA
My concern about premature tradiation is that catchers are so susceptible to injury. Similar to starting pitching, an over-abundance of catchers may prove to be a short lived.
 

whatittakes

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2016
215
Agreed. Swihart is valuable for depth alone. the last thing we want is for Dan Butler or Sandy Leon to wind up catching any serious number of innings in a Red Sox uniform
 

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,423
Not here
No. Swihart can help the Sox the most -- now, and in the future -- by refining his existing skills into a good-bat switch-hitting solid-defense full-time catcher. Whether he does so by providing that value directly to the Sox as an anchor in the 6-7-8 spots of the lineup for the next six years, or by getting traded as the headliner for a #2 pitcher, or by getting traded straight-up for a real LF, is immaterial at this point.
You're stating that with far more confidence than it can possibly deserve.

If he's traded, you get whatever value you get from the guys he brings back.

If he stays here, you get whatever value he provides.

Either way, you gain or lose the difference between the two depending on which is higher. You can't possibly know which one is going to be higher considering how it depends on the health of Vazquez, who the other backup catcher would be, who would get the ABs at left or third or wherever, and whatever value you place on knowing that if your starter gets a big injury, you're not stuck starting a complete scrub.

Also, the RAWR thing was cute.
 

PaulinMyrBch

Don't touch his dog food
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2003
8,316
MYRTLE BEACH!!!!
I've got a question for those more versed in stats than me. Is there a catching stat that translates runs saved by a catcher based on steals and caught stealing that includes how often runners go? .

For instance, with available sample sizes for the youngsters.

Vazquez has a CS % of 52% and runners go once every 15.8 innings. (538 innings, total MLB innings)
Swihart has a CS% of 28% and runners go once every 12.75 innings. (674 innings, total MLB innings)
Someone we know is horrible, A.J. P. (for 2015) had a CS% of 24% and runners go once every 10.3 innings. (909 innings, 2015 season)

So not only does CV catch runners at a higher rate, but they attempt a steal less often. So his skill and reputation contribute to limiting the running game. Plus it means he's probably catching faster base runners at a higher rate.

Based on quick monkey math at my end,
Per 100 innings:
CV allows 3 total bases due to steal attempts
BS allows 5.6 total bases
AJ allows 7.4 total bases

I'm just not sure how that translates into Runs Saved or WAR or the advanced stats. But I thought the attempt per inning was an interesting starting point to consider.
 
Last edited:

Gubanich Plague

New Member
Jul 14, 2005
63
Based on quick monkey math at my end,
Per 100 innings:
CV allows 3 total bases due to steal attempts
BS allows 5.6 total bases
AJ allows 7.4 total bases

I'm just not sure how that translates into Runs Saved or WAR or the advanced stats. But I thought the attempt per inning was an interesting starting point to consider.
Good stuff.

Does your quick math take into account that runners thrown out, in effect, lose bases? For example, if CV throws out a runner trying to steal second, do you count that as 0 bases allowed, or -1 bases allowed? Similarly, if he cuts down a runner trying for third, do you count that as -2 bases allowed (runner on second is gone)?
 

PaulinMyrBch

Don't touch his dog food
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2003
8,316
MYRTLE BEACH!!!!
No it doesn't. And it also does not take into account that when a runner is thrown out, the outs in the inning increase +1 or remain the same if the steal is successful.

It's really just an extra bag at this point.

I don't have the expertise or the time to do a deep dive. Hoping something out there already looks at this.
 

RetractableRoof

tolerates intolerance
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
3,836
Quincy, MA
Good stuff.

Does your quick math take into account that runners thrown out, in effect, lose bases? For example, if CV throws out a runner trying to steal second, do you count that as 0 bases allowed, or -1 bases allowed? Similarly, if he cuts down a runner trying for third, do you count that as -2 bases allowed (runner on second is gone)?
And for a bit more 'monkey math' if he cuts down a runner does he get the MLB average pitch per AB as a credit? What is the value of saving a pitcher X pitches? If he picks the runner off first hasn't he saved Porcello 5 pitches or something like that?

Separately, is there a team/player stat that nets the outs saved versus cost? AJP drops a popup he's cost his team an out. Outfield assist saves an out. Maybe it is too crude a way to look at it.

ETA: Finally, when pitch framing/presentation stats get more mature it will likely contribute to saved pitch counts.
 
Last edited:

Gubanich Plague

New Member
Jul 14, 2005
63
I'm wondering if the simplest, most effective approach would be to total up the changes in run expectancy resulting from the stolen base or caught stealing (e.g., run expectancy of man on 1st, no outs to that of man on second, no outs or bases empty, one out).