Well, maybe, but it's equally likely that they're different skills. Accurately identifying the strike zone doesn't mean they're good at not being fooled by sleight of hand.
Swihart v. Vazquez: The Value of Framing
- Thread starter dhappy42
- Start date
I'm not sure how important this is, but Pitchf/x is not perfectly accurate. A little Google searching indicates the accuracy is within an inch. If that info is correct, that seems like the error may indeed be negligible, and a reasonable expectation is that the error would average out over large samples. Still, my sense is that Pitchf/x accuracy would be responsible for some noise in the data. But I'm guessing. Can the data be post-processed to show the difference between good and average framers by expansion of the strike zone in inches (or square inches) rather than strikes?
I think Alan Nathan says it's more like 2 inches, but that means an inch either way. But I'm pretty sure (for no solid reason other than this is how error usual works) that error is random and normally distributed, so once we start dealing with thousands of instances over the course of a season, they should more or less cancel out.
They probably can, but I feel like that's false accuracy. I feel better directly comparing to other catchers' outcomes, and expressing it as "extra strikes per game".
But the trend may be less that umpires improve accuracy, and more that they increasingly resist being "played" by specific catchers with reputations for framing.
To Fred: I can't get my head around the practical application of how an umpire would adjust his calls to framing reputation. "Hey, Vazquez is a great framer, I think I'm going to shrink my strike zone an inch when making calls on Sox pitching today." As if trying to get the calls right isn't hard enough, an umpire is going to try and introduce additional bias in an attempt to increase his accuracy? This make zero sense to me.
To Iayork: I agree the error is likely random and even distributed. Especially since the data seems to make sense in that who is or isn't a good framer. But there would be some error bar, so I'd be hesitant to make conclusions about small differences.
I don't know what you mean by "false accuracy". Sure, if the goal is to measure who the better framers are, then strikes per game is the better measure. But if the goal is to study the affect of Pitchf/x accuracy (even if the assumption that the affect of the inaccuracy is negligible seems reasonable) then I think measuring the impact on the strike zone could be illuminating.
To Iayork: I agree the error is likely random and even distributed. Especially since the data seems to make sense in that who is or isn't a good framer. But there would be some error bar, so I'd be hesitant to make conclusions about small differences.
I don't know what you mean by "false accuracy". Sure, if the goal is to measure who the better framers are, then strikes per game is the better measure. But if the goal is to study the affect of Pitchf/x accuracy (even if the assumption that the affect of the inaccuracy is negligible seems reasonable) then I think measuring the impact on the strike zone could be illuminating.
Most of the reason is based on how I calculate strike zones and framing. For framing, I break the region around the strike zone into squares that are about one baseball diameter, and then count the number and fraction of strikes in each of those zones. That means that the best accuracy I can get for framing is about 2.5-3 inches. (That's another reason I don't worry too much about PITCHf/x accuracy - most of the error is smoothed out by this anyway.) In my charts presenting framing, I generally smooth the values using interpolation, which again rounds off the absolute counts and helps even out error sources.
And looking at strike zones is equally fuzzy. In my charts, I'll draw a polygon representing a strike zone, but the lines represent the region where a pitch is 50/50 likely to be a ball or a strike. The probabilities switch over from 90% ball to 90% strike fairly quickly, but not instantaneously; the "edge" of a strike zone is a gradient, not a sharp line. Look at these examples (explained more here):
The blue and green regions are fairly unambiguously inside and outside the strike zone, but the red region, from about 40% to 60% strike probability, spans a couple of inches at the least, and not all of that represents PITCHf/x error -- there is a region where it's genuinely uncertain whether it is or is not part of the strike zone. Taking the inside, outside, or middle of that region changes the "size" of the strike zone by maybe 20%, and that's just debating a trivial part of the definition. (The strike zone as it is called in an 0-2 count is only about 2/3 the size of the zone that is called in a 3-0 count. Which should I choose as my starting point?)
Basically, I think that directly comparing strike probabilities between catchers, with some error smoothing built in, and ignoring the putative boundaries of the strike zone, is much more reliable than comparing to a moving target like the strike zone.
Last edited:
Fangraphs did an interesting piece on Pittsburgh Pirates use of an excellent defensive back up catcher, versatile starting catcher and weak fielding 1st basemen. Sounds familiar... Its worth a read with the thought of giving reps to Blake at 1B during Spring Training.
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/a-strategy-for-deploying-baseballs-best-backup-catcher/
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/a-strategy-for-deploying-baseballs-best-backup-catcher/
The Pirates plan to deploy Mike Morse and John Jaso at 1B in 2016. While they are questionable (or unknown in Jaso's case) defensively, they're not studs at the plate so swapping one of them out for Chris Stewart or Francisco Cervelli mid-game isn't a huge drop at the plate. Hanley, if he's healthy, is not a bat you want to remove from the lineup in late innings, particularly if it is Hanigan or Vazquez that is being inserted in his place. Maybe in 2017, with Ortiz retired and Hanley presumably shifted to DH full time, some sort of platoon/rotation with Travis Shaw (or Sam Travis or some other FA 1B) and Swihart/Vazquez might be feasible.
Regardless though, I don't see Farrell being all that enthusiastic about deploying both of his catchers in the lineup at the same time.
While I agree that umpires shouldn't be influenced by (consciously or subconsciously) outside factors when determining whether a pitch is a strike, it definitely does happen. This has been shown definitively many times comparing the called strikezone by count.
e.g. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-size-of-the-strike-zone-by-count/
For RHH: "The strike zone in 3-0 counts (sample size (n): 3,665 called pitches) has an area of 3.73 square feet (sq. ft.) while the strike zone in 0-2 counts (n: 12,339) shrinks down to 2.39 sq. ft., a size about 64% as big. Interestingly, the zone does not appear to constrict itself equally, but rather by getting shorter (vertically) slightly more than it gets skinnier (horizontally). Look at this possibly overcrowded contour overlay."
That's different than attempting to adjust for the framing ability of catchers. I don't find this data at all supportive of the idea that measuring framers will result in umpires not being "fooled" by their ability.While I agree that umpires shouldn't be influenced by (consciously or subconsciously) outside factors when determining whether a pitch is a strike, it definitely does happen. This has been shown definitively many times comparing the called strikezone by count.
e.g. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-size-of-the-strike-zone-by-count/
For RHH: "The strike zone in 3-0 counts (sample size (n): 3,665 called pitches) has an area of 3.73 square feet (sq. ft.) while the strike zone in 0-2 counts (n: 12,339) shrinks down to 2.39 sq. ft., a size about 64% as big. Interestingly, the zone does not appear to constrict itself equally, but rather by getting shorter (vertically) slightly more than it gets skinnier (horizontally). Look at this possibly overcrowded contour overlay."
It shows without a doubt that bias happens.
Whether any bias happens relating to a catchers framing reputation is a whole different kettle of fish. It would be much much harder to prove if not impossible. There is no way to measure which umpires know what ( if anything) about any given catchers framing ability or reputation, so what's the baseline?
Fireball Fred's hypothesis is that improved accuracy (less bias) will lead to framing skills being ignored by umpires, and Lowrielicious' hypothesis is that bias (less accuracy) indicates umpires will penalize good framers to even the playing field. They can't both be true, and I remain highly skeptical that either will be true.
Based on iayork's study, since umpires started getting judged by Pitchf/x, overall accuracy has improved and maybe good framers are taking a hit. My understanding of how measurement affects human performance is that the affect is most pronounced immediately after measurement gets implemented. The low-hanging fruit is harvested. But it's much more difficult to get any further.
In the case of baseball umpiring, MLBs efforts to improve calling of balls/strikes either got rid of the worst umpires or made the guys who had their own strike zones get more aligned with their colleagues. Going further will be tough and my hypothesis is that any additional gains will be much smaller than what we've already seen. Correlating small accuracy improvements with catcher framing will be very tough indeed.
Thanks. I hadn't seen either of these yet, but they are both takes on what I speculate will be an ongoing trend now that the pitch framing cat is even more out of the bag and the pressure on umpires to call an accurate strikezone (based on where the ball actually crossed the plate) and not a plausible/acceptable strikezone (based on it feeling like a strike).
I'm still not sure at a major league level what percentage of framing is umpire failing (duped by catcher) vs umpire complicit (rewarding catcher for making it look callable), but I think that both should continue to trend downward and continue to reduce the value of pitch framing over the cost controlled Vazquez and Swihart years we are speculating on and projecting. Those trends would continue to benefit Swihart.
However another consideration, much as lineups used to be constructed to take on the MFYs, is that for the near future a short series vs the mighty Running Royals seem to be a potential gateway to a championship, and an elite throwing catcher might be more useful in those seven than he would be in the 162.
I don't understand this. Do we have evidence that umpires are deliberately calling balls strikes because they want to reward a good pitch-framing catcher? So an umpire who would otherwise call a pitch a ball changes his mind and calls it a strike because he wants to "reward" the catcher? That's seems... unlikely.
Now, whether umpires can practice not being fooled by the catcher's sleight of glove, I suppose that's possible. You'd be training your eye to watch for and quickly process certain catcher movements when the ball is received.
I am merely pointing out that bias does definitely happen. Maybe its a conscious choice (hey, its 3-0, lets make an at-bat out of this and make the pitcher pipe one), or maybe its subconscious, but it absolutely happens, no matter how hard it is to make the right call without taking the count into consideration.
I don't think its a stretch to say that its possible that an umpire could go into a game with swihart (for example) catching and have in the back of his mind the reputation and accordingly give less on the corners than he may otherwise do.
I could see it being an ego type thing, an ump taking the position of "this guy isn't going to fool me". Or it could just be that there is more incentive for umpires now than ever to have the "correct" strikezone so they want to make sure they dont get duped into calling a ball a strike.
Either way though it is going to be next to impossible to quantify if it is happening at all due to the amount of variables involved.
It looks like robot umpires will add a lot of strikeouts and walks to baseball. I wonder if the conversation about framing and the feedback from the kind of enhanced strikezone analysis we see on TV will push human umpires in that direction anyway.
It could be instructive. Taking another look at the plots, one can see a pattern. The LHB strike zones are of one shape, the RHB strike zones are of another, and the shapes remain consistent regardless of the count. I can't imagine this is due to a bias for/against the handedness of the batter. I think it's an inherent "error" due to the positioning of the umpires based on the handedness of the batter. I think catcher framing is more like the positioning factor. It's not a conscious decision, but a factor that is inherent in how the catcher receives the ball. Umpires are doing their best to get the call right, but being human they aren't perfect. IMO, the position that getting measured will result in them adding bias to their calls to improve their accuracy is illogical. The only way to improve accuracy is to remove bias.
Not necessarily. Batters and pitchers also adjust and I think we would see a lot more swinging by batters with 2 strikes and more grooving of 3-0 count pitches by pitchers if there were robot umpires.
I think intentionally rewarding presentation of borderline pitches and rewarding a pitcher's command are both a part of the puzzle, although much harder to quantify since we don't know which mistake was being tricked by the catcher, and which mistake was rewarding the catcher. "Do we have evidence" is difficult because we cannot measure intent, but the legacy of what an exception pitcher or catcher "earns" (and the same with batters) is a certainty, and while it has been tightened up by strikezone enforcement, I think it very likely remains a statistically significant portion of missed calls.
The cliche's around this more obviously center around the pitcher and batter reputations and those would be more easily measured, like they have here. I don't think the all star pitchers deceive the umpires into a larger strike zone, but it is a reward on borderline calls based on reputation, established command, etc.
I think there is definitely a component similarly intentionally rewarding both the consistent player (Benji Molina) and the action (nailing the slider just off the black so the umpire doesn't look bad calling it vs carrying it out of the zone), and a significant portion of "framing" errors by the umpires are intentional, especially within the borderline areas that could reasonably go either way.
Late in the video to 2nd, practice pops all sub 1.9. Practice no doubt, but good news for the status of his recovery schedule.
Vazquez is in the best shape of his life! Well it doesn't exactly say that, but he apparently lost 25 pounds this offseason.
His arm seems good so far:
"Friday was the fourth time that Vazquez has thrown to the bases and he had the same velocity and accuracy as before the surgery. The trainers instructed him to make his first few throws under control then let it go for one throw to each base.
“He’s probably at about 90 percent,” Farrell said. “But it’s there. You can see that. He’ll only get better.”
Very encouraging article, even after adjusting for spring training optimism.
His arm seems good so far:
"Friday was the fourth time that Vazquez has thrown to the bases and he had the same velocity and accuracy as before the surgery. The trainers instructed him to make his first few throws under control then let it go for one throw to each base.
“He’s probably at about 90 percent,” Farrell said. “But it’s there. You can see that. He’ll only get better.”
Very encouraging article, even after adjusting for spring training optimism.
I saw a bit of one of those Top 10 right now players at a position, catcher, this morning on MLBN. Guys like Jonathan Lucroy and Stephen Vogt are on there, Buster Posey first of course. Bill James comes on late on those things and gives his opinions. He said the Red Sox have a couple of young catchers he'd rather have than half the catchers on the list. That's half of the top 10! He didn't place either of them in his top 10 because they haven't proven themselves yet, but, still. Giggity.
Christian is catching 2/3 games in Pawtucket right now. DH'd one game. If they are certain he can handle 2/3, I say he needs to do it for the big squad. DL was backdated, so he's eligible to be activated right now.
Pawsox play at home tonight and hit the road right after. Can't imagine Christian is on that bus with the struggles we've seen from Blake.
I don't know the roster solution. Swihart down would make the most sense until the Panda-errari gets gassed up and is playing for someone else. Roster flexibility sucks and that's with Panda being a switch hitter.
Pawsox play at home tonight and hit the road right after. Can't imagine Christian is on that bus with the struggles we've seen from Blake.
I don't know the roster solution. Swihart down would make the most sense until the Panda-errari gets gassed up and is playing for someone else. Roster flexibility sucks and that's with Panda being a switch hitter.
"Struggles" seems a bit over the top. He's getting on base, and other than that missed popup yesterday, his defense has looked pretty good to me. He hasn't exactly come out of the gate on a tear, but I don't think he's been a big problem either.
If the issue is that he has no XBH yet, one week is a bit early to draw conclusions from this, especially for a catcher; this is a problem he currently shares with Encarnacion, Votto, and a bunch of other guys.
I'm not saying you couldn't possibly make a case for bringing CV up and sending Blake down, but if so, it's a case based on seeing what CV can do, and not because Swihart is having a terrible time of it out there.
It also doesn't help preconceived notions of "struggles" that Swihart already got eaten alive by Wright's knuckler in Toronto, too.
The way Skydome was affecting Wright and Dickey this weekend, though, pretty much any catcher would have.
The way Skydome was affecting Wright and Dickey this weekend, though, pretty much any catcher would have.
Vazquez has 20 AAA plate appearances and Swihart has 22 MLB plate appearances with a .391 OBP. The Red Sox should demote Swihart why?
Because he's not perfect ... and Vasquez will be perfect. Have you learned nothing reading this board through the years?
When Vazquez is batting .175, everybody will be wondering why he's in the lineup too. Remember that.
Pitchers won't be wondering.
We've been down this road before. Take the offense out of it, take the knuckleball pitcher out of it, Blake struggles with the things behind the plate that Christian doesn't. And the pitchers know it.
Based on what I've seen, I'll be surprised if Blake spends the majority of his career as a catcher.
We've been down this road before. Take the offense out of it, take the knuckleball pitcher out of it, Blake struggles with the things behind the plate that Christian doesn't. And the pitchers know it.
Based on what I've seen, I'll be surprised if Blake spends the majority of his career as a catcher.
Paul, you also have to remember that Blake is fairly new to the position and has been thrust into the starting role at the MLB level due to CV's injury. At every level he has improved his defense and I don't think that will change at this level either. The only reason people are making a big deal about the dropped popup is because of the result of the play afterwards. Yes, we want him to be better behind the plate but Vaz isn't necessarily the answer either. Both are going to be strong at one aspect of the game and weaker at the other. I would be betting on Swihart to improve as the game slows down for him behind the plate and the more reps he gets. I don't think Vazquez is going to be more than a valuable backup catcher due to the fact that his bat won't be strong enough to carry full time in a lineup.
That is the difference for me at least. I'd rather have the elite D and see how the bat plays, than the other way around, and the other way around doesn't offer elite O at this point.
There is no assurance that Blake has any elite defensive skill at the major league level. The bat shows promise, but we've got a small sample size to deal with and everyone wants to go nuts over the O in the second half last year. Everything about the defense is a question mark. The framing, receiving, calling the game, footwork, blocking, throwing - its all elite for Vaz, its a huge question mark for Blake. People act like you just throw an athletic kid back there and he's going to develop into an elite catcher. I don't see it happening with Blake. If it was that easy, every team would draft a college shortstop and convert him to catcher.
We've got a pitching staff where everything is critical right now. We've blown a bunch of leads in a short time and everyone wants to blame the pitcher as if Blake didn't call for a low fastball to a dead red low ball hitter in a 0-1 count. What the hell did he think he'd be sitting on in a count where he needed to swing at a strike?
Blake had 80 PA's in AAA. Not his fault, but I'd rather him develop defensively in games I'm not watching.
There is no assurance that Blake has any elite defensive skill at the major league level. The bat shows promise, but we've got a small sample size to deal with and everyone wants to go nuts over the O in the second half last year. Everything about the defense is a question mark. The framing, receiving, calling the game, footwork, blocking, throwing - its all elite for Vaz, its a huge question mark for Blake. People act like you just throw an athletic kid back there and he's going to develop into an elite catcher. I don't see it happening with Blake. If it was that easy, every team would draft a college shortstop and convert him to catcher.
We've got a pitching staff where everything is critical right now. We've blown a bunch of leads in a short time and everyone wants to blame the pitcher as if Blake didn't call for a low fastball to a dead red low ball hitter in a 0-1 count. What the hell did he think he'd be sitting on in a count where he needed to swing at a strike?
Blake had 80 PA's in AAA. Not his fault, but I'd rather him develop defensively in games I'm not watching.
Sign me up.
It may be a tribute to Swihart's superior athletic ability that he is able to be a not-disaster MLB catcher with so little experience. He may get better defensively. But the difference defensively between him and Vazquez is enormous. And I also think it makes a difference to the pitchers. Altho that's difficult to quantify or prove, I dont see Swihart "calling a game," so much as signalling pitches. That may be experience. That is not his fault. But for *this* team right now, I think Vazquez has to get the majority of the games.
And it's not just the dropped popup. This pitching staff may ultimately need more help than even an incredibly gifted defensive C can provide. But when the "guidance" that Buchholz, Kelly and Porcello need has been documented, I think Vazquez is the much better candidate to provide it. Again, its not Swihart's fault that the rotation is so shaky. But I dont see him as the best guy to get the most out of them.
it's way too soon to do anything like demote him.
That being said, he missed a few balls on Monday that a good catcher would catch.
Thing is, if Sox pitchers keep struggling, it's going to be real tempting to go with the years of experience guy, Hanigan, and the obvious superior defensive catcher (of the two young ones) Vazquez, not necessarily in that order. That would fit in with the get off to a good start on the season at most all cost. They already have sacrificed the high-paid third baseman to that mantra (no brainer there though).
Do you really think Swihart is so inexperienced that he is calling for the pitchers to miss their spots and leave them in the middle of the strike zone, or miss widely and walk too many people? His calling the pitches and locations the dugout wants, and the pitchers are missing spots. Vazquez won't help that. Maybe Vazquez would be left alone to call a game, but if the pitchers can't follow through what good is that?
We have two choices. Demote Swihart, or get rid of Hanigan. We need Vazquez behind the plate, his defensive talents are off the charts and we need all the defensive help we can get.
And I for one think that Hanigan has enough value that I'm not inclined to simply burn him for a guy who has options (Swihart) and has been showing his inexperience so far in the young season.
Given the option, I would demote Swihart, and have him either commit full time to improving defensively at catcher or split time at third base and catcher, depending both how confident the team is in Swihart as a catcher, and how confident the team is in Travis Shaw as a third baseman.
Since we have both a shortstop and a second baseman who should hit, I don't mind the offensive gap at catcher so badly. We have producers in other traditionally defense-first roles, so one bad offensive player in a lineup is far from the end of the world. And Vazquez did at least demonstrate the ability to work the count in his big league performance before the injury. so maybe he can show us something offensively to complete the package.
Are the piches being called from the dugout now? If so, I did not realize that. Regardless, no, I am not blaming the catcher for a pitcher's particular ineptitude. But if we can agree that catchers *can* make a difference . . . .the question is why/how?
There's a whole lot of chicken-and-egg speculation here (by me), but anyway.....if a pitcher has less confidence in a catcher catching a ball in the dirt does he throw it a bit higher? Does he go more toward the middle if he doesn't think the catcher can turn it into a strike as effectively? Is there any reasonable analogy at all to Tom Brady and comfort level with his receivers?
The bottom line for me is that Vazquez is a million times a better catcher than is Swihart (he may be 999,999 times better than almost every catcher).. That can only help a pitching staff that needs help.
I think those of us who (like me) are calling for Vazquez are doing so in light of the tremendous difference that Yadier Molina seems to make on pitchers for the St. Louis Cardinals. As rare as it is to have 2 generational catching talents active at the same time, Vazquez has a number of the skills that make Yadi so good. With the caveat that Vazquez is still practically a rookie, there's a lot of upside in run differential with a catcher of that talent level behind the dish, and the best way for Vazquez to turn that talent into refined veteran skill is to get him into the lineup ASAP.
I disagree with this. The games I have viewed have seen many borderline pitches going against the Sox. Both Swihart and Hanigan have hand movement when they receive the ball. some call it "stealing" pitches as opposed to framing pitches. My belief is that Vazquez is much superior to either of our current catchers and that it will make a difference in a below average staff's outcomes. There was a big difference between the way Martin was receiving pitches last week versus Swihart and IMO it led to pitches in the same location being called differently. I like Swihart and Hanigan but think Vaz is the best catcher of them and as has been documented on SosH, he has the potential to carry his weight as a hitter.
3B?
Why not try him out as a reliever?
There's an analogy here with Iglesias and Bogaerts, even if it's not perfect. There is no "correct" answer, just educated opinions. For example, were the Red Sox correct in trading away the defensive star Iglesias and committing to the offense of Bogaerts? (Recall at the time, everyone agreed that Iglesias' offense was filled with mirage). I don't know the answer to that question, but I'm damned happy Bogaerts is the full time SS.
Lauber even brought up the concept of carrying 3 catchers (at the expense of Sandoval). It's not 100% insane. Swihart could learn from the other 2 and at the same time offer offense off the bench. Who knows how many games Vazquez will be able to catch?
Swihart is cool enough to self-criticize when he talked about understanding hitters' tendencies from at bat to at bat, and communicating that to the pitcher. It's more than calling a game or framing pitches, it's a great deal about understanding what a pitcher is throwing that day and what the hitters are doing in response. Am I certain that Vazquez is a champ at that? I think so, but in reality I have no idea.
Why not try him out as a reliever?
There's an analogy here with Iglesias and Bogaerts, even if it's not perfect. There is no "correct" answer, just educated opinions. For example, were the Red Sox correct in trading away the defensive star Iglesias and committing to the offense of Bogaerts? (Recall at the time, everyone agreed that Iglesias' offense was filled with mirage). I don't know the answer to that question, but I'm damned happy Bogaerts is the full time SS.
Lauber even brought up the concept of carrying 3 catchers (at the expense of Sandoval). It's not 100% insane. Swihart could learn from the other 2 and at the same time offer offense off the bench. Who knows how many games Vazquez will be able to catch?
Swihart is cool enough to self-criticize when he talked about understanding hitters' tendencies from at bat to at bat, and communicating that to the pitcher. It's more than calling a game or framing pitches, it's a great deal about understanding what a pitcher is throwing that day and what the hitters are doing in response. Am I certain that Vazquez is a champ at that? I think so, but in reality I have no idea.
For all the knee-jerk overreaction to Swihart's developing defense, the real issue is how many games can CV be expected to catch in a season following TJ surgery. Writers (the nearest comp) has said it's a hard road back, and even if the early reports are positive, there's no way of knowing whether there will be setbacks along the way.
Expecting Vasquez to return and magically improve the pitching staff while catching 125 games with no issues with the elbow are asking a lot.
There is a logic to trying Swihart at third base given our lack of depth at that position. It's a judgment call, and comes down to your assessment of which of Swihart and Vazquez is most likely to become our starting catcher going forward, and what that means for the other one.
If you think Swihart is our starter in 2018, then the thing to do is to either keep playing him and let him learn on the job, in which case you either leave Vazquez in AAA where he has no business being or DFA Hanigan, or you send him down to AAA to let him refine his defensive skills in a lower-stress environment and run Hanigan and Vazquez for the next few months, and make decisions as the season goes on about how well that's working and whether moving Swihart back onto the 25 man at the expense of one or the other two constitutes an upgrade.
Or if you see Vazquez as the starter, the thing to do is to demote Swihart and either commit to him full time as a catcher and potential platoon partner or trade chip, or explore Swihart's athleticism and see if you can increase his utility to the team, or his value in a trade, by trying out 1b, 3B and maybe a little outfield, I don't think there's a reasonable doubt that Swihart has the athleticism to play on the corners if that's the team's judgment call. The question is simply one of whether you might consider Swihart "blocked" at catcher if Vazquez is successful at making the job his own.
It should be noted that I don't believe the team has ever committed to Swihart as its starting catcher of the future. Vazquez, on the other hand, was the intended starting catcher last year. IIRC, Swihart got the job only after Hanigan and Vazquez both got hurt.
IMHO, it's only not insane if at least one of them has some confirmed utility outside the catcher's spot.
The times I've seen that tried, it was because the team had either a 1B or a backup 1B with catching experience and could spell the 2 catchers at need. So it wasn't so much three catchers as a three man catching depth chart on the 25 man roster. I don't know that I've ever been aware of a team actually carrying 3 men on its roster that were all strictly catchers with no other utility.