Vazquez had a terrific game last night, and he's a great defensive catcher. Hopefully he can become the Dustin Pedroia of catchers, and build a long and happy Red Sox career through superlative defense, leadership, and a swing built to leverage Fenway's dimensions into enough offense to keep starting.
If the same Vazquez as last night continues to show over the next month, DDski won't be as hesitant as Cherington to package Swihart up with Devers and a couple pitchers to return a playoff-caliber starter. But I definitely don't understand why the Sox decision-makers seem to want to train him for LF, though. If he needs to continue refining his catching skills, then keep him working on refining his catching skills, rather than giving him more different new stuff to learn.
Because, if Swihart isn't going to be the Red Sox catcher of the future, there's no reason to try to make him into the Ryan Doumit of the future, either. If another team wants that player, then great. He'll be available.
If Swihart is going to catch 4 days per week to work on "softening" his receiving skills during game action, I think it's more important for him to be able to chart pitch sequences the other 2-3, in order to learn how to call games better.I think its more of:
--they're not letting him catch 7 days a week, even at AAA;
--They think he's a really good hitter;
--they want to hedge against Holt slipping and castillo not being a good MLB player;
--vazquez is a significantly better catcher
--and for *this* season's Red Sox, it might be helpful if Swihart could contribute some other way in addition to catcher.
A day here or there wont Doumit him or diminish his trade value.
who knows...maybe Biggio turns out to be the comp?
Maybe a Ben Zobrist who can catch?who knows...maybe Biggio turns out to be the comp?
Porcello served up two middle, middle sub 90mph pitches that were parked over the monster. Framing skills are only a plus to pitcher and team performance on pitches around the edges or with late movement that actually reach the catcher.Why do people do this? I mean I'm not the world's brightiest, but who the hell actually thinks you call up a catcher to improve the pitching?
No, seriously, who actually thinks this? I mean you might as well ask whether getting a better left fielder improves the pitching -- maybe? Maybe not? but that has nothing directly to do with whether we upgrade or don't at left field.
Vazquez was called up to improve the catching. He's a catcher. Catcher's catch. Better catchers improve the catching. This should not surprise anyone. Vazquez is particularly good at catching. I think it's safe to say our catching got better.
Is there a direct correlation to a pitching improvement? Who the hell knows, I don't know, nor do I care, it doesn't matter. Improving the pitchinghas nothing to do with why anyone is doing anything at the moment, it's just noise to the discussion. Our catching got better, we have a better fielder behind the plate and he just took a baserunner away from the Jays tonight on a play I don't think Swihart could have made That's not a pitching thing, except that improving defense anywhere makes a bad pitcher look better.
I think Porcello complimented CV three times in two minutes in his post game narrative.
I see your point that catcher framing doesn't help if your pitchers throw meatballs, but I also think that there's an argument to be made that good framing is just as important, if not more so for pitchers like Porcello who periodically throw meatballs. If you have a pitcher who you know will periodically throw a meatball at a higher than average rate, then having a good framer will help a. reduce the number of pitches they have to throw, thus lowering the number of meatballs and b. reduce the number of walks/hitters counts, helping to keep people off the bases for when the inevitable meatball does occur. Adding in the fact that some pitchers may be more meatball prone in certain situations (the first HR came off a 3-2 pitch, though the second was a 0-0 pitch) may help reduce the number of times they feel like they have to just throw the ball over the plate to get back in the count.Porcello served up two middle, middle sub 90mph pitches that were parked over the monster. Framing skills are only a plus to pitcher and team performance on pitches around the edges or with late movement that actually reach the catcher.
Batting practice meatballs are food and drink to the majority of major league hitters and swapping BS for CV didn't prevent those gifts to Encarnacion. I hope that the Sox aren't banking only on catcher framing and the occasional pickoff to improve the rotation.
EDIT. Actually on reflection I don't think my view around CV or BS is that much difference that yours. I just think that they and tinkering around the edges of the pitching problem because they don't know how or don't have a plan to fix it. I'm just placing a higher priority on the pitching because I don't think that the catching is that big a problem. Less than 6 innings a start isn't sustainable without absolutely trashing the bullpen.
But Tek wasn't new and shiny at that point; and defensive metrics for catchers were just a gleam in someone's eyeRemeber the good old days when similar statements from Hall of Fame caliber pitchers about Varitek's "intangibles" we're mocked on SoSH
And when the run value of framing and other defensive metrics for catchers started to gain attention, Tek was the poster child for what not to do -- stabbing at pitches, unable to keep his hands steady for the umpire.But Tek wasn't new and shiny at that point; and defensive metrics for catchers were just a gleam in someone's eye
Which makes the comments about his value from Pedro and Schilling and others all the more relevant. Is it even possible in this day and age to praise someone's abilities for things beyond the box score and the playing field?And when the run value of framing and other defensive metrics for catchers started to gain attention, Tek was the poster child for what not to do -- stabbing at pitches, unable to keep his hands steady for the umpire.
1) yes. The framing alone will help. The confidence in the c helps. I'm hateful of the psyche games as much as anyone but pitchers have stated it bThis is great and all, but does it in any way, however small, lead you to believe that it improves the pitching? I disagree with your premise that this isn't a sign that the team is being run badly. The Manager was a pitching coach and he got his personal choice hired as the actual pitching coach. Do you think that simply changing catchers will fix the pitching? I think it's a diversion from their ability to coach the best out of the rotation. Even with Molina back there, they would still suck.
For what it's worth, though by the time PITCHf/x was available Varitek was a mediocre framer at best, it's likely that he was a good to excellent framer at his peak. This article at Baseball Prospectus by Judge, Pavlidis, and Brooks places him as one of the 10 best framers from 1988 to 2014. However, he wasn't very good by the time his framing could be more directly measured, as I showed in this article.And when the run value of framing and other defensive metrics for catchers started to gain attention, Tek was the poster child for what not to do -- stabbing at pitches, unable to keep his hands steady for the umpire.
I hope so, and I hope it's possible on this board, because it's not just pitch framing and a strong arm that makes Vazquez (and made Varitek) valuable.Which makes the comments about his value from Pedro and Schilling and others all the more relevant. Is it even possible in this day and age to praise someone's abilities for things beyond the box score and the playing field?
See, this is nonsense.The Sox have been reactive rather than proactive for quite a while now. It sucks.
This.There has been a massive overreaction but it wasn't by the Sox.
And This.Which makes the comments about his value from Pedro and Schilling and others all the more relevant. Is it even possible in this day and age to praise someone's abilities for things beyond the box score and the playing field?
If Castillo shapes up at the bat Blake can stick to improving as a catcher.Jason Mastrodonato @JMastrodonato 4m4 minutes ago
Farrell said Blake Swihart has begun taking reps in left field at Pawtucket and could play his first game in left in about a week.
The two are not even close to being related. Okay, maybe they're close.If Castillo shapes up at the bat Blake can stick to improving as a catcher.
But, why do want Swihart playing LF? If he's not a good enough hitter to beat out noodle bat Vazquez despite the defensive difference, then why would you want him at a position where offense is at a premium? If they want Vazquez to catch and need a LFer, trade Swihart for a LFer.The two are not even close to being related. Okay, maybe they're close.
The point of having Swihart learn other positions is not that we need the other positions, it's that we want both Swihart and Vazquez on the team and in the game and they can't both play catcher at the same time.
The best I can come up with is that he's still focused on catching. So they figure he can start his non-catching duties at the easiest position. If he adapts well to LF he'll get a shot in RF or CF.But, why do want Swihart playing LF? If he's not a good enough hitter to beat out noodle bat Vazquez despite the defensive difference, then why would you want him at a position where offense is at a premium? If they want Vazquez to catch and need a LFer, trade Swihart for a LFer.
Sounds like a good offseason plan...before you sign Young. We already knew Vazquez can't hit.Maybe because if Swihart can play LF, you can dump Young and carry 3 catchers and 4 outfielders?
No, his value isn't trashed. A team trading for him is probably going to want him to catch and they will make their evaluation on games he catches. Why the hell would they give a goddamn if the Sox want to play him somewhere else occasionally? They're going to make up their own minds about whether he's good enough to be a starting catcher.And if turns out Swihart can't play the outfield, then what? Isn't his potential value trashed? Not good enough to be a starting catcher or outfielder? What's that worth in a trade?
We knew and know nothing of the sort.Sounds like a good offseason plan...before you sign Young. We already knew Vazquez can't hit.
Exactly.But, why do want Swihart playing LF? If he's not a good enough hitter to beat out noodle bat Vazquez despite the defensive difference, then why would you want him at a position where offense is at a premium? If they want Vazquez to catch and need a LFer, trade Swihart for a LFer.
Yes I know all of that and agree that it mitigates the loss of value.Maybe because if Swihart can play LF, you can dump Young and carry 3 catchers and 4 outfielders?
You can pinch hit for Vazquez or Hanigan late and behind?
The only issue is needing Betts or Holt to play CF, or Holt to play RF if someone gets hurt.
Or maybe he's a better hitter than Holt.
Or maybe he's simply a more valuable player if he can play more than one position...
but you know this.
Except that, only Vazquez will continue being groomed into potentially "a really good catcher" now. Swihart has proven himself a capable-hitting catcher, but the Sox appear to be cutting bait on him improving any further defensively. That's why he was replaced after 6 games, and why he's now taking reps in LF.Because catchers get hurt, a lot. And backup catchers tend to suck horribly.
...[snip]...
If we keep both of them and one of them turns into a really good catcher and the other sucks, that is a huge win for us. Even though with hindsight everyone will be complaining that we didn't make some mythical trade of the other guy, because in hindsight trades always work out and you obviously should have been able to tell which guy would be good and which one would be bad. In the real world, that isn't the case.
If you trade one of them now and you trade the wrong guy, you have a sucky catcher and no alternative at that position.
Probably for the same reason that Swihart's offensive promise leads some to tab him as a crappy defensive catcher. From the start, the thinking about both of these guys has been distorted by this weird dualistic narrative that says one of them is the Defensive Guy (and therefore a terrible hitter) while the other is the Offensive Guy (and therefore a terrible defender). The idea that they both have the potential to be two-way catchers, with different mixes of strengths but no glaring weaknesses, seems to be more nuance than some people can handle.Why is it that because Vazquez is described as brilliant at the defensive side and not so much on the offensive that it's assumed he can't hit at all?
Blake Swihart is likely a better catcher now than Brandon Inge ever was. Swihart isn't a bad catcher. He didn't get sent down because he was a bad catcher. He got sent down because Vazquez is older, more polished defensively, has a lower offensive ceiling and less need for mL polish, and most importantly demonstrated that he was healthy. Meanwhile Swihart was rushed up last year during a catching emergency and never went back down. Had everything gone according to plan we'd be talking about when Swihart would get called up this year, not when he got sent down.Except that, only Vazquez will continue being groomed into potentially "a really good catcher" now. Swihart has proven himself a capable-hitting catcher, but the Sox appear to be cutting bait on him improving any further defensively. That's why he was replaced after 6 games, and why he's now taking reps in LF.
DDski's set up Swihart to potentially develop into the Sox' version of Brandon Inge. But one thing that guy isn't, is a really good catcher.
This is a Farrell-driven move. If DDski can't tell us what the end goal is, that suggests he's making moves that aren't based on his own analysis, but rather is providing the pieces his manager is requesting.“The priority is still for [Swihart] to be behind the plate, because we’re an injury away from him being right back here in the same position,” Farrell said. “He’s going to catch the majority of the games while in Pawtucket . . . Catching is the priority with the ability to be versatile.”
Said Dombrowski: “I can’t even tell you what the goal is. I’d like to have him capable of doing a lot of different things. I think our goal is to make sure he’s part of our future and we’ll tackle what that is as time goes on.”
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?Yeah, I have come around on bringing CV up and sending Swihart down if they were just making sure CV was healthy, but I don't get the LF thing at all.
Release the worst one of the 4, Send the second worst one of them to Portland, and the second best one backs up Swihart. We're talking about Sandy Leon and Dan Butler here. Even if they sign elsewhere, it'll be in AAA and they'll have peomises that they'll be released if a major league job opens up.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.
Not to pile on, but really who gives a shit about Butler or Leon. Release one or both and let Bathea back him up. Swihart is a legit top prospect. If he needs work, you give it to him. You don't prioritize getting innings for journeymen in their thirties. Give him five days a week and let the other guys help.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.
OK. Now you have four catchers in Portland. Which of those catchers should lose their training time?Release the worst one of the 4, Send the second worst one of them to Portland, and the second best one backs up Swihart. We're talking about Sandy Leon and Dan Butler here. Even if they sign elsewhere, it'll be in AAA and they'll have peomises that they'll be released if a major league job opens up.
He was good enough to continue as the starting catcher even after Hanigan, a proven high quality defensive catcher, returned from injury last season. I'd say that speaks volumes. He isn't necessarily even "very good" but they had "very good" and chose Swihart over him for the glove + bat combination. Then did it again to start 2016.Detroit made Inge a utility player once they got a better catcher in Ivan Rodriguez. Now Swihart is being made a utility player, although Vazquez has nowhere near the complete package of offensive-plus-defensive skills. Still, that doesn't mean Swihart is thought of as "a solid ML catcher." Rather the opposite, it suggests to me that he isn't viewed that way by the people making the decisions.
From the same article:
If Dombrowski was to tell us what the end goal was when holding two of the best young players at an incredibly hard to staff position he should have his head examined. He doesn't need to provide a narrative for why and doing so would only weaken his hand with regards to dealing with other clubs.This is a Farrell-driven move. If DDski can't tell us what the end goal is, that suggests he's making moves that aren't based on his own analysis, but rather is providing the pieces his manager is requesting.
Like he would starting the majority of games at the position in AAA? Exactly what the FO has said he'll be doing? Yeah. So is spending his off days playing LF and getting more ABs going to somehow foul that all up? The professionals seem to disagree. In fact, many scouts and analysts have long held that Swihart has a better bat waiting to develop with time. Getting more ABs without the wear and tear of catching is a good first step towards seeing if that is true.However, for Swihart to become a better defensive catcher, and potentially surpass Christian as a complete player, he needs to focus on doing catcher-related things at AAA, not increasing his versatility. Charting pitches, blocking and framing practice, learning to read hitters in the box and adjusting his in-game calling skills.
This would be a Farrell/JBJ problem unrelated to Swihart.And then there's this. IMO, JBJ's started playing like his head's next on the block. He's both slipping into pull-happy bad habits and putting up more consistently terrible at-bats; his affect at the plate appears tighter than at the beginning of the year and he's not swinging to drive the ball to the opposite field. Prior to Blake's demotion, he hit .283/.300/.393. Since then, the line's been .154/.241/.231. Both of those are unreliably small sample sizes, but it's more than clear he's not a Farrell guy based on his pattern of usage/demotion in 2014-15. I have long thought he knows it too, and now is playing like the next axe to fall will be on his neck.
Swihart has almost all of his pre-FA years in hand. He plays a scarce position. The Sox have two young potentials for this position, but moving one now and moving the wrong one is a hell of a lot more damaging long term than flipping one for a market rate Cole Hamels a year or two before age related decline makes him overpaid. The Sox are clearly exploring a path that lets them keep both Vazquez and Swihart on the roster long term. The benefits of that are pretty obvious.A platoon of Holt and Young is likely to be far better than Swihart offensively and defensively in LF. An outfielder or starting pitcher acquired in a trade for Swihart may be all star caliber.
It's about opportunity cost. Sure there's value in having a potential starter take those 50 games Vazquez doesn't catch for the next 3 years. There's more value in having someone like Cole Hamels as your #2 or someone like Alex Gordon as your everyday left fielder.
Swihart posted a .712 OPS in over 300 PAs last season at the tender age of 23, so I'd say any projection system pegging him for a .670 followup has something inherently wrong with how it is rating the kid.The average AL LFer had a .731 OPS last year. ZIPs projected a .710 for Holt, .670 for Swihart, .700 for Young.
1. Why would it particularly mess with his catching development if he's still starting at catcher 5 out of 7 games?Even if you're bullish on Blake's bat, this doesn't seem like a significant upgrade at LF, and the downside is that you mess with his catching development. I don't think it will make or break him as a player but I don't see the point in bothering when the Sox have two competent LFers already.
On the MLB scale, JBJ has been provided with a relatively unimpeded pathway to claiming a regular post as a starting player. The failure to make that happen yet is on the player.And then there's this. IMO, JBJ's started playing like his head's next on the block. He's both slipping into pull-happy bad habits and putting up more consistently terrible at-bats; his affect at the plate appears tighter than at the beginning of the year and he's not swinging to drive the ball to the opposite field. Prior to Blake's demotion, he hit .283/.300/.393. Since then, the line's been .154/.241/.231. Both of those are unreliably small sample sizes, but it's more than clear he's not a Farrell guy based on his pattern of usage/demotion in 2014-15. I have long thought he knows it too, and now is playing like the next axe to fall will be on his neck.
They did that because Hanigan has a tendency to fall off and/or get hurt if he's asked to play too often.He was good enough to continue as the starting catcher even after Hanigan, a proven high quality defensive catcher, returned from injury last season. I'd say that speaks volumes. He isn't necessarily even "very good" but they had "very good" and chose Swihart over him for the glove + bat combination. Then did it again to start 2016.