Swihart v. Vazquez: The Value of Framing

[Savin Hillbilly]

Holy cannoli. Look, guys, I get that you are in love with Christian the Framing God. But being fascinated with Vazquez's run-prevention potential is one thing. Letting it lead you into revisionism on Swihart's run-prevention potential is quite another.

Swihart does not "profile as average defensively." He was already a league-average framer this year by the numbers, and that's a skill that we can count on a good athlete with a good work ethic to get better at. As far as everything else, here's mlb.com's take in naming Swihart the best catching prospect in the game over the 2014/15 offseason, according to this OTM article: "While his defense alone could make him a big league regular, Swihart offers offensive promise as well." (Note carefully the framing of that sentence.) Or here's what SoxProspects has had to say: "Consistent sub 2.0 pop times, typically between 1.8-1.9. Athletic behind the plate with quick feet and lateral movements. Frames well, and athleticism provides mobility for excellent blocking skills on balls in the dirt. Future plus defense with plus athleticism." Al Skorupa at BP, May 2015: "Plus defender." Chris Mellen at BP in July 2014 rated him a 55 for his glove and a 65 for his arm, which he described as "plus-to-better."

In short, you will have to look a while to find any experienced observers who looked at Swihart over his last year or so as a prospect and didn't think he was going to be a good-to-excellent defensive catcher. There's a reason why he was a consensus top-20 prospect heading into this season, and it's not just because he has a nice hit tool.

 

[dhappy42]

Can we avoid the straw man arguments about people saying Swihart sucks?

The conundrum (good problem to have) is that the Sox have two, very good, probably excellent, young catchers, who have different skill sets, one of them being better at the plate, the other better behind the plate.

Does the team keep them both? Which one starts at catcher this year? Can the one with the better offensive production and upside play another position? If keeping them both is a waste of value, which one do you trade? These aren't idle questions. They (and a few others I haven't mentioned or thought of) are probably the questions the Sox will ask and answer in spring training and the first half of the 2016 season.

It's not hard to argue that Swihart, because he may be the next Buster Posey, is the one the Sox shop to other teams. Why would anyone sane trade "the next Buster Posey?" Probably because such predictions usually don't come true. If you had a time machine, is there anyone here who would not be willing to trade Will Middlebrooks in the 2012-13 offseason for Dan Haren, Mark Burle, Derek Holland or even Luke Hochevar?

Edit: FWIW I'd like to keep both of them, work out Swihart at 1B and play him at both positions.

 

[themanwithoneredsock]

Swihart was flat out bad defensively as a rook, though, and while scouts have always talked about his defensive raw tools they've mostly always admitted he has yet to be very good defensively or in game calling yet.

I have to say i've always been a bit flummoxed by Swihart's prospect rankings. His hitting numbers have never been near good enough to justify those rankings (not the topline numbers, nor the underlying numbers), and his defensive game has only ever been talked about as potential, not as actual. And imo he's not near young enough, and his tools aren't near loud enough to justify that high rank based on upside. I mean he's a good prospect, top 100 calibre, but the top 20 rankings never smelled right to me.

 

[shaggydog2000]

Swihart was flat out bad defensively as a rook, though, and while scouts have always talked about his defensive raw tools they've mostly always admitted he has yet to be very good defensively or in game calling yet.

I have to say i've always been a bit flummoxed by Swihart's prospect rankings. His hitting numbers have never been near good enough to justify those rankings (not the topline numbers, nor the underlying numbers), and his defensive game has only ever been talked about as potential, not as actual. And imo he's not near young enough, and his tools aren't near loud enough to justify that high rank based on upside. I mean he's a good prospect, top 100 calibre, but the top 20 rankings never smelled right to me.

Swihart was pretty much average at framing and improved as the year went on, and the only balls he had an issue blocking were Knucklers that most every other catcher didn't have to deal with. His rSB was zero, so he was pretty much average at preventing stolen bases. Explain to me how he was so bad last year?

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

Swihart was flat out bad defensively as a rook, though

Can we avoid the straw man arguments about people saying Swihart sucks?

Evidently not.

The conundrum (good problem to have) is that the Sox have two, very good, probably excellent, young catchers, who have different skill sets, one of them being better at the plate, the other better behind the plate.

This is true, as far as it goes, but the problem is that it easily morphs into a zero-sum kind of thinking where Swihart can only be as good a defender as Vazquez is a hitter, and I think that's pretty clearly not true. (BTW, to themanwithoneredsock's point that "while scouts have always talked about his defensive raw tools they've mostly always admitted he has yet to be very good defensively or in game calling yet": this may have been true of early reports, but what I get from the 2014-15 BP evaluations I linked to is that he's already good, with the tools and makeup to get even better.)

 

[themanwithoneredsock]

Swihart was pretty much average at framing and improved as the year went on, and the only balls he had an issue blocking were Knucklers that most every other catcher didn't have to deal with. His rSB was zero, so he was pretty much average at preventing stolen bases. Explain to me how he was so bad last year?

Well, he managed to put up the worst DRS (-9) of any catcher in baseball....in only half a season. That's not good. And that doesn't include game management, which most everybody admits he needs work on.

 

[iayork]

Well, he managed to put up the worst DRS (-9) of any catcher in baseball....in only half a season. That's not good. And that doesn't include game management, which most everybody admits he needs work on.

What's not good is anyone quoting a half-season's DRS as if it means anything:

"DRS isn’t going to work well in small sample sizes, especially a couple of months or less. ... defensive itself is quite variable so you need a good amount of data for the metrics to become particularly useful."

What's more, while I can't figure out what goes into catcher DRS, it looks as if they include pitch blocking in it, which -- as has been pointed out -- unfairly dings Swihart because of the Wright factor. Since DRS is a proprietary system based on non-public data and can't be reproduced, I can't tell how much the blocking influences Swihart's rating. (If you know more, please explain -- I'd love to know.)

Do you have any other evidence other than quoting a stat that you're specifically told not to use by its makers?

 

[themanwithoneredsock]

we knew from his scouting reports that his defense was a work in progress, to be generous. i think most of our eye tests confirmed that - not only did he have trouble receiving the ball, but more dissappointingly the one part of his defense we had expected to show plus (his pop times and arm allowing him to control the running game) just didn't look very impressive. His DRS showing poor is not a surprise imo, and while you're right to caveat it it's still tough to dismiss the worst mark in the league out of hand, ...just like i would have a hard time dismissing 100 league worst At Bats at the plate from a kid with question marks on his offensive game.

After all, nobody seems to want to ignore Vazquez' elite defensive numbers in his small sample. For (i hope) good reason.

 

[Darnell's Son]

Here's a scouting report from OTM in January:

While his defense alone could make him a big league regular, Swihart offers offensive promise as well. A switch-hitter proficient from both sides of the plate, he makes consistent hard contact and began to tap into what should become average power last season. He could develop into a .280 hitter with 15 homers per season, though he may not draw many walks because he puts that bat on the ball so easily.

Emphasis mine.

Edit: The scouting report is originally from MLB.com's Top 100 Prospect list.

Sox Prospects said:

Consistent sub 2.0 pop times, typically between 1.8-1.9. Athletic behind the plate with quick feet and lateral movements. Frames well, and athleticism provides mobility for excellent blocking skills on balls in the dirt. Future plus defense with plus athleticism.

Kiley McDaniel at Fangraphs:

His defense is solid-average for most scouts and a few pointed out that he’s closer to Christian Vazquez defensively than people think. Swihart has added 5-7 lbs. of muscle each year since siging and he now projects for 15-20 homers at maturity, with a high average and medium OBP.

John Sickels:

Glove is amazing: threw out 47 percent of runners while giving up zero passed balls in 96 games behind the plate. Mobile, athletic, extremely reliable.

 

[iayork]

we knew from his scouting reports that his defense was a work in progress, to be generous.

Which scouting reports are those?

His DRS showing poor is not a surprise imo, and while you're right to caveat it it's still tough to dismiss the worst mark in the league out of hand

If pitch blocking is a component of catcher DRS, then I think we have a very good reason to dismiss it out of hand for Swihart. In fact, I think any site or person who mentioned pitch blocking as a problem for Swihart can immediately be ignored, unless they specifically deal with the knuckleball problem.

 

[absintheofmalaise]

Swihart was flat out bad defensively as a rook, though, and while scouts have always talked about his defensive raw tools they've mostly always admitted he has yet to be very good defensively or in game calling yet.

I have to say i've always been a bit flummoxed by Swihart's prospect rankings. His hitting numbers have never been near good enough to justify those rankings (not the topline numbers, nor the underlying numbers), and his defensive game has only ever been talked about as potential, not as actual. And imo he's not near young enough, and his tools aren't near loud enough to justify that high rank based on upside. I mean he's a good prospect, top 100 calibre, but the top 20 rankings never smelled right to me.

You really need to do some research before you post things like this. And most of the links have been posted in this thread.

we knew from his scouting reports that his defense was a work in progress, to be generous. i think most of our eye tests confirmed that - not only did he have trouble receiving the ball, but more dissappointingly the one part of his defense we had expected to show plus (his pop times and arm allowing him to control the running game) just didn't look very impressive. His DRS showing poor is not a surprise imo, and while you're right to caveat it it's still tough to dismiss the worst mark in the league out of hand, ...just like i would have a hard time dismissing 100 league worst At Bats at the plate from a kid with question marks on his offensive game.

After all, nobody seems to want to ignore Vazquez' elite defensive numbers in his small sample. For (i hope) good reason.

Instead of relying on a stat like DRS, since no one knows how it is computed, you should go through his game logs. Discard the games that he caught Wright in. See how many passed balls he had in those games with "normal" pitchers and then compare those numbers to other catchers, allowing for games played of course. I'd do the same with stolen bases to see how his numbers match up. And before anyone uses the infamous "cherry picking", I'm only suggesting this so that we're comparing his numbers to catchers who caught "normal" pitchers. The uncertainty of the location of knuckleballs would contribute to not being able to get ready to make a throw to second. It's much easier to get your feet ready if you have a decent idea of pitch location. Of course, these samples will be small and will still have to be taken with a grain of salt.

 

[Plympton91]

Vazquez boosters are like Trump voters. There's no reasoning with them and all evidence just gets reinterpreted as favoring Vazquez.

For instance, it's been mentioned half a dozen times that Swihart was catching Wright a lot. It should be blindingly obvious that this is going to skew every one of his defensive metrics negatively from framing to base stealing. Yet. The Vazquez chorus just plows ahead and requotes Swihart's defensive numbers without so much as a passing acknowledgement of the Wright factor let alone any inquisitiveness into how large it might be.

Meanwhile, Vazquez is playing in the Puerto Rican league this winter. The pitching there profiles as, what, somewhere between Salem and Portland? He's got a BABIP heavy .311 OBP (only .026 from walks/HBP) and a .338 SLG. Vazquez was similarly overmatched offensively in his MLB debut.

To the point about not discounting 100 at bat samples from prospects with a questionable bat, I think scouts are way more skeptical that Vazquez will hit decently than they are that Swihart will be a plus defensive catcher.

Basically, Vazquez profiles as a rich man's Ryan Hannigan if everything breaks right for him. Even if he's fully recovered from TJS, that means he's already had his first, and a second usually ends careers. And, they were forced to waste a league minimum year on the DL, so he'll hit arbitration and free agency a year before Swihart as well, for a team with a half dozen $20 million contracts to manage.

If that.framing is really worth trading away the top catching prospect in the game, who has a much higher offensive ceiling and an extra year of control, then so be it. But you better be right. To me there's a Jeff Bagwell is to Scott Cooper as Swihart is to Vazquez analogy in the making.

 

[dhappy42]

If that.framing is really worth trading away the top catching prospect in the game, who has a much higher offensive ceiling and an extra year of control, then so be it. But you better be right. To me there's a Jeff Bagwell is to Scott Cooper as Swihart is to Vazquez analogy in the making.

The analogy that immediately occurs to me is Bogarts and Iglesias.

 

[dhappy42]

Vazquez boosters are like Trump voters. There's no reasoning with them and all evidence just gets reinterpreted as favoring Vazquez.

Just what we need, ad hominem political analogies.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

Just what we need, ad hominem political analogies.

Not to mention false dichotomies--the board is not divided between "Vazquez boosters" and people who think Swihart is likely to be the better player of the two; both/and is definitely an option.

Meanwhile, Vazquez is playing in the Puerto Rican league this winter. The pitching there profiles as, what, somewhere between Salem and Portland? He's got a BABIP heavy .311 OBP (only .026 from walks/HBP) and a .338 SLG. Vazquez was similarly overmatched offensively in his MLB debut.

Please tell me this is satire. You do realize you're talking about 15 winter-ball PA from a guy who just missed a whole season? I mean, for the love of all that's holy, Babe Ruth in 1921 had 15-PA stretches worse than that.

 

[PaulinMyrBch]

For instance, it's been mentioned half a dozen times that Swihart was catching Wright a lot. It should be blindingly obvious that this is going to skew every one of his defensive metrics negatively from framing to base stealing.

Blindingly obvious? Um OK. But for those of us that can see, I'll give you this. If you're not good with numbers, I'll make it simple. He's better at catching base stealers when catching Wright.

Swihart in 2015
CS 16, SB 41, Attempts 57
CS 28%
Runners go once every 12.1 innings

Swihart in 2015 when not catching Wright
CS 14, SB 38, Attempts 52
CS 27%
Runners go once every 11.9 innings
(Swihart gunned 2 of 5 attempted SB when Wright was pitching).

In August 2014, Vazquez threw out 67% of runners that went, AND they went once every 18.3 innings. Basically word got out. He shuts down the running game. The only guys that go can fly. And if you think this is an apples for apples runner sample, go check out the guys who stole those 41 against Blake, not exactly burners.

 

[PaulinMyrBch]

Merry Christmas

 

[absintheofmalaise]

Watching his footwork is like watching a how to video on throwing runners out. As close to perfect as you can get.

 

[themanwithoneredsock]

http://www.baseballamerica.com/majors/expect-red-sox-c-blake-swihart/

"Behind the plate, Swihart has drawn praise for his athleticism andhas exhibited quick feet and a strong arm. But scouts say his pitch-calling is a work in progress."

Farrell this spring: "He knows he is getting closer to becoming a major league player. When that time comes, who knows? And I think there are some areas that we recognized he has to continue to develop, and that’s probably as much on the receiving side, some blocking."

Dombrowski last month: “He’s not a finished guy back there, but he continues to improve. He works hard. He works hard handling the pitching staff so he’s got a lot of tools but he improved and needs to continue to improve which everybody believes he will. He’s an athletic guy that’s a hard worker that’s conscientious so I think he’ll be fine.”

http://espn.go.com/blog/boston/red-sox/post/_/id/40848/soxprospects-com-top-10-red-sox-prospects

"Swihart’s defensive tools have made significant progress and now project as solid-average-to-plus. He has excellent reflexes, fluid actions, and moves well laterally with quick feet. He pops out of his crouch easily, and pairs that with a plus-to-better arm and smooth release. He has clocked sub-1.9 pop times in game action."

what we see in his scouting reports is pretty universal - praise for his pop times and general tools, but always with at least the caveat that he's "progressing" or "projects" to average+ defense, and even sometimes outright saying his defensive game needs work to become mlb calibre - like his manager and new general manager just pointed out.


As for you guys dismissing his DRS out of hand, coming up with unsubstantiated theories to explain it, and trolling through his game logs to take out the stats you don't like, come on now - that's just homer stuff.

 

[themanwithoneredsock]

Vazquez boosters are like Trump voters. There's no reasoning with them and all evidence just gets reinterpreted as favoring Vazquez.

For instance, it's been mentioned half a dozen times that Swihart was catching Wright a lot. It should be blindingly obvious that this is going to skew every one of his defensive metrics negatively from framing to base stealing. Yet. The Vazquez chorus just plows ahead and requotes Swihart's defensive numbers without so much as a passing acknowledgement of the Wright factor let alone any inquisitiveness into how large it might be.

.

this is backwards.

if you are going to make up theories as to why certain ugly stats should be dismissed for your favorite young hometown player, the burden of proof is on you to substantiate it.

Fact is Vazquez showed as a rookie that he can field the toughest position in baseball, and do it well. Swihart as a rook wasn't able to show any actual current mlb quality skill.

The Blakees are the Trumpettes here, not the Christianites.

 

[themanwithoneredsock]

what's interesting is that there's a much better argument that their offense is more comparable than their defense.

at same level and age only:

MLB

BS (23): 5.8bb%, 24.9k%, .359babip, .274avg, .118iso
CV (23): 9.5bb%, 16.4k%, .283babip, .240avg, .069iso

AAA

BS (22-23): 5.3bb%, 19.2k%, .354babip, .287avg, .076iso
CV (22-23): 8.0bb%, 19.0k%, .339babip, .278avg, .107iso

AA

BS (22): 7.5bb%, 17.3k%, .342babip, .302avg, .186iso
CV (22): 11.8bb%, 11.0k%, .316babip, .289avg, .105iso

A+

BS (21): 9.7bb%, 14.9k%, .350babip, .298avg, .130iso
CV (21): 11.7bb%, 20.5k%, .326babip, .266avg, .130iso

Blake with better contact, christian with better plate discipline. Power has been pretty comparable aside from that spike from Blake in AA.

 

[Rasputin]

As for you guys dismissing his DRS out of hand, coming up with unsubstantiated theories to explain it, and trolling through his game logs to take out the stats you don't like, come on now - that's just homer stuff.

No, the effect catching a knuckleballer has on things like passed balls and blocked balls is pretty well established. Catching a knuckleballer makes a catcher look worse than he really is.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

http://www.baseballamerica.com/majors/expect-red-sox-c-blake-swihart/

"Behind the plate, Swihart has drawn praise for his athleticism andhas exhibited quick feet and a strong arm. But scouts say his pitch-calling is a work in progress."

You're right, actually. I found this one, too:

His quick feet didn't always translate to good blocking and lateral movement. The tools and athleticism have always been there, but for whatever reason he exhibited some sloppy actions...[he would] at times sandbag his pitcher by calling for too many fastballs with runners on base....None of this is unusual to see in a catcher honing his craft in the minors.

Oh, wait, that's Vazquez....at the time of his 2014 call-up, when he was already older than Blake Swihart is as we speak.

True, I left out the parts where the report says that he had fixed most of these problems. But it appears that he had only just recently fixed some of them--the article also says "the rest of Vazquez’s defensive game has emerged as plus over the last year"--and that was after almost twice as many AAA starts and over half again as many overall milb starts as Swihart got.

Point being, scouts very rarely talk about prospects as if they have no weaknesses, and that goes double for catching prospects. So the fact that scouts said Swihart's pitch-calling was a work in progress doesn't mean they didn't think he was ready to hold his own. (In fact, the article you quoted specifically says "he should be able to hold his own." Imagine that.)

Of course he still has room to get better. But that doesn't mean he isn't already pretty good, still less that he's some kind of tools-heavy, skills-light special project who's still far from ready for prime time.

As for you guys dismissing his DRS out of hand, coming up with unsubstantiated theories to explain it, and trolling through his game logs to take out the stats you don't like, come on now - that's just homer stuff.

iayork gave clear, rational, and specific reasons for being skeptical of the use of catcher DRS in this discussion. "Unsubstantiated theories" is a pretty weak-sauce response. And pointing out that you can't treat knuckleballer games like other games when it comes to passed balls and controlling the running game is just common sense.

 

[nighthob]

if you are going to make up theories as to why certain ugly stats should be dismissed for your favorite young hometown player, the burden of proof is on you to substantiate it.

"The other thing to remember is that DRS isn’t going to work well in small sample sizes, especially a couple of months or less. Once you get to one and three-year samples, it’s a relatively solid metric but defensive itself is quite variable so you need a good amount of data for the metrics to become particularly useful." Fangraphs

Apparently even the people responsible for DRS say that you're doing it wrong. So the problem just may be you looking for data to support your conclusion rather than reasoning things properly. As for comparing the repeat numbers of a guy with six years of minor league service time for the first time numbers of one with a little over three years of service time that's a losing proposition. The proper comparison would be the first time through a level of the minors rather than by strict age.

 

[threecy]

Watching his footwork is like watching a how to video on throwing runners out. As close to perfect as you can get.

One thing that struck me in that video was how violent his arm motion is; in hindsight, it's not surprising that he needed Tommy John. Is there any intel as to how his throws are post-surgery?

 

[Plympton91]

Please tell me this is satire. You do realize you're talking about 15 winter-ball PA from a guy who just missed a whole season? I mean, for the love of all that's holy, Babe Ruth in 1921 had 15-PA stretches worse than that.

Yeah, whoops. I saw the line quoted in an article on over the monster and assumed he'd been playing down there all fall.

One thing that struck me in that video was how violent his arm motion is; in hindsight, it's not surprising that he needed Tommy John. Is there any intel as to how his throws are post-surgery?

I wonder if they'll try to correct the delivery and if that will affect his arm strength, or if they don't correct that motion does that make him disproportionately prone to another tear in the repaired joint.

I don't know which of Swihart or Vazquez is going to be more valuable in 2016. But, I know Swihart is not already down one TJS. I know Swihart has one more year of control left. Those two unassailable facts have to have value. I also think that once the team names one of them the starting catcher, the trade value of the other one gets schlonged.

 

[terrisus]

I also think that once the team names one of them the starting catcher, the trade value of the other one gets schlonged.

Yes, because young starting catchers are available in such abundance, and teams who might want one would just low-ball the Red Sox on one they have available, who the Red Sox are under no obligation whatsoever to trade, and could just give another season in Pawtucket/keep around in case something happened, but instead are going to be trading for dimes because they can't possibly do anything with him and have to trade him, but no one's really in need of a young starting catcher, and so no one's going to trade anything worthwhile if they know he isn't going to be starting the season for the Red Sox.

But, yes, please tell us why "the trade value of the other one gets schlonged."

 

[EricFeczko]

Yeah, whoops. I saw the line quoted in an article on over the monster and assumed he'd been playing down there all fall.


I wonder if they'll try to correct the delivery and if that will affect his arm strength, or if they don't correct that motion does that make him disproportionately prone to another tear in the repaired joint.

I don't know which of Swihart or Vazquez is going to be more valuable in 2016. But, I know Swihart is not already down one TJS. I know Swihart has one more year of control left. Those two unassailable facts have to have value. I also think that once the team names one of them the starting catcher, the trade value of the other one gets schlonged.

Not to nitpick, but the usage of "schlonged" here is ambiguous. Does the trade value become comically huge?

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

Not to nitpick, but the usage of "schlonged" here is ambiguous. Does the trade value become comically huge?

We know what happens to the trade value. We don't want to talk about it. It's disgusting.

But seriously folks, to suggest that one guy's trade value goes down when the other guy gets named the starting catcher seems silly to me. I mean, it's not as if the only source of information any other teams have about Vazquez' or Swihart's value is the Sox' decision about which one is the 2016 starter.

 

[terrisus]

We know what happens to the trade value. We don't want to talk about it. It's disgusting.

It shrinks when it gets cold?

But seriously folks, to suggest that one guy's trade value goes down when the other guy gets named the starting catcher seems silly to me.

I would hope that it seems silly to everyone.

Sure, there may be a marginal change.
And, sure, if it was at a position where there was more supply than demand, that would be something else.
But it's not like the Red Sox having a surplus of young catching possibilities suddenly means that other teams don't have that need.
Or that naming one "the starter" over the other means that the Red Sox are in a position where they have to trade off the other one.

I assume there's only one person here who thought that saying that was a good idea.

 

[Plympton91]

I would hope that it seems silly to everyone.

Sure, there may be a marginal change.
And, sure, if it was at a position where there was more supply than demand, that would be something else.
But it's not like the Red Sox having a surplus of young catching possibilities suddenly means that other teams don't have that need.
Or that naming one "the starter" over the other means that the Red Sox are in a position where they have to trade off the other one.

I assume there's only one person here who thought that saying that was a good idea.

I am basing my statement on years of empirical evidence. It may sound irrational to everyone, but it is true. Teams trading a backup never get full value.

But even if you don't agree, it has to be true that "if returned to AAA, Blake Swihart's value can only go down". If he does well, then so what, he's already done well in the major leagues. If he does poorly though, then maybe that success in the majors was a fluke.

And, one thing I left off is that "Blake Swihart. First Baseman" << "Blake Swihart, Catcher"

As soon as they're convinced Vazquez is healthy and has shaken off the rust, the Red Sox need to decide who they want to catch for them for the next half decade, and immediately upon reaching that conclusion make the other player the centerpiece of a trade for something they need much more urgently than a AAA All Star.

I'm supremely confident Dave Dombrowski understands this, even if the prospect hoarders on SOSH don't.

 

[pantsparty]

I am basing my statement on years of empirical evidence. It may sound irrational to everyone, but it is true. Teams trading a backup never get full value.

What empirical evidence are you referring to? "Backup players have their trade value go down" is a statement that sounds like an "old school baseball truism" that doesn't hold up when actually examined. Backup players are almost always backup players for a reason - they suck.

 

[Rasputin]

I am basing my statement on years of empirical evidence. It may sound irrational to everyone, but it is true. Teams trading a backup never get full value.

I'm supremely confident Dave Dombrowski understands this, even if the prospect hoarders on SOSH don't.

Yeah, this is pretty clearly bullshit. Putting a precise value on players is hard. Judging trades that are often about potential value v present value is hard. Neither of them are accurate or precise enough to allow the kind of study you're suggesting.

Also, you haven't presented your empirical evidence, so I have just as much empirical evidence pointing the opposite way.

Also, by your logic, the Sox could extract some value from a trade partner just by refusing to name a starter or backup until a trade is consummated, which is ludicrous.

Two talent evaluators will have two opinions on the worth of a player in the context of their own teams. If there is some overlap, there might be a deal.

I will continue to maintain that keeping both of them is the wisest path.

 

[iayork]

Is a half-year actually that small a sample for framing, though? A half-year for a starting catcher is roughly 60 games * league average of 145 pitches per game = over 8,000 pitches. Assuming a swing rate in the 50% range that's 4,000-ish called pitches. That seems like a lot of events. I don't know if the fact that the events accumulate over a relatively short time frame matters that much. I'd be curious to hear what our statistical gurus have to say.

I know this was a while ago, but I looked at this question over at the .com. A fairly simplistic random-sampling approach suggests that "by the time a player has caught 40-50 games – about half a season – then his framing numbers are likely to be a reasonable estimate of his full-season averages".

 

[doctorogres]

I know this was a while ago, but I looked at this question over at the .com. A fairly simplistic random-sampling approach suggests that "by the time a player has caught 40-50 games – about half a season – then his framing numbers are likely to be a reasonable estimate of his full-season averages".

Great article, and thanks for all the interesting work on this. Has anyone looked at pitchers' effect on catcher framing (I.E. Kershaw is more likely to get borderline calls than Kelly)?

 

[nvalvo]

Great article, and thanks for all the interesting work on this. Has anyone looked at pitchers' effect on catcher framing (I.E. Kershaw is more likely to get borderline calls than Kelly)?

Yes.

 

[koufax37]

I'm a big Vazquez fan, and have to preface anything I say with that, since I probably overvalue him and give him every benefit of the doubt.

However, I think that just as we are scratching the surface of the pitch framing value and analysis, it is also VERY likely to shift as a direct result. I've said this a few times in the past, but pitch framing is effectively either duping umpires, or assisting them in ill-conceived intentional failures.

I think as data and analysis continues to happen and it becomes common knowledge conceptually and also statistically how large an impact this trickery has on the game, and the presentation of the umpire failure happens in real time to the whole audience, there will start to be more pressure on umpires to call the strike zone correctly, not to be induced to make mistakes, and the value of this skill will CHANGE just as we are wrapping our heads around it.

I don't think robot umpires will happen soon, but that is obviously the apocalypse for the pitch framing skill. But the lesser steps of location data evaluation of individual umpire performances and accuracy by MLB I think will contribute to the directive to call the strike zone more accurately, and we have seen over the years, centrally mandated directions for umpires often have significant impact (losing the Eric Gregg wide strikezone, calling the high strike, enforcing the no set balk), both in enforcement, and in resulting player actions.

How quickly or significantly this happens remains to be seen, but I will take the over on current conventional wisdom, and think in the coming years what we (broadly, not in this forum) are attempting to quantify will be diminished by our very attempts to do so.

I'm not sure how much that nudges the needle of Vazquez vs Swihart 2016, but I think will reduce the likely pitch framing advantage Vazquez might currently project to have over the next five or six years, and make Swihart's superior offense more important in the final decision.

Personally I don't think we should have robot umpires, but I think we should have human umpires who strive for robot accuracy independently of what happens to the pitch after it crosses the plate and the catcher becomes involved.

 

[phenweigh]

I'm skeptical that the measuring of pitch framing will result in the diminished impact of the skill. The existence of pitch framing and its subjective value has been well known for years. It seems like a stretch to me that the ability to measure the skill in an objective way is going to make umpires better at not being influenced by the skill. I think an analogy is slight of hand by a skilled magician ... just because we know he's not really changing the laws of physics doesn't make it more likely that we'll catch him palming a coin.

 

[Hoodie Sleeves]

I'm skeptical that the measuring of pitch framing will result in the diminished impact of the skill. The existence of pitch framing and its subjective value has been well known for years. It seems like a stretch to me that the ability to measure the skill in an objective way is going to make umpires better at not being influenced by the skill. I think an analogy is slight of hand by a skilled magician ... just because we know he's not really changing the laws of physics doesn't make it more likely that we'll catch him palming a coin.

Over the last couple of years, as MLB has started providing umpires with grades, the effective strike zone has become closer to the rule strike zone. This means that less balls are being called strikes and less strikes being called balls - the value of pitch framing is already being limited. As the umpires get better/get replaced, the margins will get smaller, and there will be less wiggle room to pull balls into the strike zone.

Like you said - its not going to disappear, but if umpires are getting punished because somebody like Vazquez is fooling them, they're going to be watching the ball path a lot more than they're watching his hands - if they don't just start calling anything close a ball because they're worried about him fooling them.

So I agree with Koufax - it's an extremely valuable skill right now, but its going to be significantly less valuable at some point - how far off? Who knows?

 

[phenweigh]

I think the point where our opinions differ is the idea that the umpires are getting better. IMO the impact of grading umpires has increased the consistency among umpires, and that has changed the line where balls and strikes are called (which could be argued as umpiring is getting better in a general sense, and I agree with that). But increased consistency is a different thing than umpires being better able to correctly identify if a borderline pitch is a ball or a strike, or if the framing skill of catchers will have more or less effect on their calls. The fact remains that correctly identifying a borderline ball or a strike is a challenging human endeavor when pitches are travelling 90+ MPH with movement.

 

[PaulinMyrBch]

Keep in mind pitch framing is also about framing a strike where the ball may be moving from in to out of the zone crossing the black. A good catcher beats the ball to the spot and sticks it on the black, keeping it in the zone. A bad catcher gets his glove there just in time and the momentum of the late movement keeps the glove moving out of the zone and when he stops his mitt, he's clearly out of the zone creating the illusion the ball was there all the time. In my opinion, its that type of strike that is the essential difference between good framers and bad.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

Keep in mind pitch framing is also about framing a strike where the ball may be moving from in to out of the zone crossing the black. A good catcher beats the ball to the spot and sticks it on the black, keeping it in the zone. A bad catcher gets his glove there just in time and the momentum of the late movement keeps the glove moving out of the zone and when he stops his mitt, he's clearly out of the zone creating the illusion the ball was there all the time. In my opinion, its that type of strike that is the essential difference between good framers and bad.

Good point. We often talk as if framing is all about fooling the umpire into making a mistake, but it's just as likely to involve helping the umpire avoid a mistake. Either way, it's basically salesmanship. And a good salesman is useful in selling good products just as much as bad ones.

 

[Darnell's Son]

I'm a big Vazquez fan, and have to preface anything I say with that, since I probably overvalue him and give him every benefit of the doubt.

However, I think that just as we are scratching the surface of the pitch framing value and analysis, it is also VERY likely to shift as a direct result. I've said this a few times in the past, but pitch framing is effectively either duping umpires, or assisting them in ill-conceived intentional failures.

I think as data and analysis continues to happen and it becomes common knowledge conceptually and also statistically how large an impact this trickery has on the game, and the presentation of the umpire failure happens in real time to the whole audience, there will start to be more pressure on umpires to call the strike zone correctly, not to be induced to make mistakes, and the value of this skill will CHANGE just as we are wrapping our heads around it.

I don't think robot umpires will happen soon, but that is obviously the apocalypse for the pitch framing skill. But the lesser steps of location data evaluation of individual umpire performances and accuracy by MLB I think will contribute to the directive to call the strike zone more accurately, and we have seen over the years, centrally mandated directions for umpires often have significant impact (losing the Eric Gregg wide strikezone, calling the high strike, enforcing the no set balk), both in enforcement, and in resulting player actions.

How quickly or significantly this happens remains to be seen, but I will take the over on current conventional wisdom, and think in the coming years what we (broadly, not in this forum) are attempting to quantify will be diminished by our very attempts to do so.

I'm not sure how much that nudges the needle of Vazquez vs Swihart 2016, but I think will reduce the likely pitch framing advantage Vazquez might currently project to have over the next five or six years, and make Swihart's superior offense more important in the final decision.

Personally I don't think we should have robot umpires, but I think we should have human umpires who strive for robot accuracy independently of what happens to the pitch after it crosses the plate and the catcher becomes involved.

iayork looked at the possibility of framing becoming a thing of the past on the .com

 

[czar]

iayork looked at the possibility of framing becoming a thing of the past on the .com

FWIW, this follows a recent piece on the same subject by Jeff Sullivan here.

 

[In my lifetime]

So the umpires have improved their accuracy by 30% and there is also less of a spread between the best and the worst framers. I don't think this is an unexpected result of the publicity of the value of framing and the use of current technology to grade umpires. However, I am having a hard time understanding IAYork's conclusion that it's hard to say the value of framing has decreased. Instead, I would think the value has been shown to decrease, but it is possible or likely that some of the decrease is the result of poor framers no longer being catchers. If umpires continue to improve and become almost robot like making only 1% (not that this will happen just to elucidate my point) then there naturally would be yet fewer calls in the denominator and the value of framing would necessarily tend to decrease.

 

[ALiveH]

There must be some benefit to framing that will never go away (unless the umpire over-adjusts based on his perception of the catcher's framing skill) just because of the limits of human perception / optical illusion and the fact that the umpire's vision is partially blocked.

 

[OfTheCarmen]

AliveH - That's one swing of the pendulum I've been thinking about since the whole framing thing really gained momentum. If catchers are, to some degree, making umpires look back...would those umpires start to adjust their zone to some degree? Intentionally or perhaps even subconsciously?

Kind of along the "this kid hasnt earned that outer edge of the black yet", or some other homerism about an experienced hitter knowing the zone better than an ump and getting more benefit of the doubt on close calls, etc.

I'm not saying it's going to become a detractor, but if the attention on this gets too hot I could maybe see some kind of negative connotation to being a good framer.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Since umpires started being tracked the zone has gotten larger overall, though that is mostly through expanding at the bottom and compressing at the edges. The more recent strike zone is more accurate than the old one, so irrespective of framing, it appears that PITCHf/x has pushed umpires toward greater accuracy. It's possible we'll see individual umpires react to things like a young catcher with a great rep for framing versus a respected veteran with a rep for knowing the strike zone, but if tracking strike zones has led to umpires improving their accuracy, I'm guessing that trend will drown out any individual instances like that.

iayork did a piece on this early in the season for anyone interested: http://sonsofsamhorn.com/baseball/the-evolving-strike-zone-during-the-pitchfx-era/

 

[iayork]

Instead, I would think the value has been shown to decrease, but it is possible or likely that some of the decrease is the result of poor framers no longer being catchers. If umpires continue to improve and become almost robot like making only 1% (not that this will happen just to elucidate my point) then there naturally would be yet fewer calls in the denominator and the value of framing would necessarily tend to decrease.

I'm not sure I follow your first point. Getting rid of bad framers won't reduce the value of framing. It may reduce the competitive advantage of having a good framer, though -- if most catchers start at 2, then having a 4 is less of an advantage than if most start at 0. That's one of the reasons I have a hard time telling if framing is getting less effective, because the only way I have to quantify framing is by comparison to the rest of the league. If the average catcher gets a strike 40% of the time in one particular region, and Vazquez gets strikes 80% of the time there, then I call him a better framer; but if everyone is getting 80% in that zone then Vazquez just looks average, even if everyone gets those strikes through superb framing. In that world, it is hard to detect the value of framing, but it's still there; saying framing isn't valuable because everyone is good at it, is like saying oxygen is not useful because everyone breathes it.

 

[In my lifetime]

My point is simply as umpires get more proficient as you found in your analysis that there is obviously less missed calls and the value of framing is decreased. This is not to say it is eliminated, but it is a skill that is dependent on umpires who are now working to become better at calling the strike zone.