Can a Blake Get Some Love?

[czar]

 
The value of pitch framing varies from team to team.  I gather Farrell and Cherington were quite high on it, while old-school GMs and managers were skeptical of the outrageous claims.  (A healthy Vazquez, based on his 55 game sample from 2014, would be a 7.5 WAR player if expanded to a full season.)  I'm guessing that while Dombrowski is open to new ideas, he's not on the leading edge of pitch-framing advocates.  On the other hand, Mike Scioscia, manager and GM-de facto of the Angels, is very high on catchers that are excellent pitch-framers.  
 
Situations where one player is valued much higher by another organization do exist, and they are the basis of trades.  

 
Yes. And a team could think Clay Buchholz is a bonafide ace capable of 220 innings and give the farm for him. Or, as much as you love JBJ, someone might offer their top 10 prospects for him and you might go, "OK, that could be useful for us." Obviously, you are always exploring what avenues are available. Saying "someone else might value him differently than the Red Sox, so you should listen to offers" is an overarching theme for roster construction -- not specific to the C discussion.
 
However, the notion that the Sox would be severely hindering another portion of the big league roster by carrying BOTH Swihart and Vazquez next year as opposed to trading one to upgrade elsewhere seems like a leap. Unless a very attractive trade offer appears, there doesn't appear to be as much downside to carrying both as some people are arguing. Or, put another way, I don't see how trading CV (in particular, since he's the less traditionally valued C chip) will net a big return to be used elsewhere on the roster, especially coming off a major elbow injury (when the vast majority of his value is tied up in defense).

 

[WenZink]

 
Yes. And a team could think Clay Buchholz is a bonafide ace capable of 220 innings and give the farm for him. Or, as much as you love JBJ, someone might offer their top 10 prospects for him and you might go, "OK, that could be useful for us." ....[snip] zzzzzzzzzzzz......

 
Nope, your post is just drivel.  I gave a particular case where a pitch-framing devotee, Scioscia, is likely to value Vazquez higher than DD, who is a more traditional GM then we're used to.  Give me a specific case that suggests any GM would think Buchholz could pitch 220 IP after a 9 year career where his high has been 189 IP and currently sidelined by injury?  Or at least offer a case where any GM would trade their top 10 prospects for JBJ.
 
Then maybe we can have a discussion.

 

[TomRicardo]

Wow there is a lot of stupid in this thread pretty hard to digest.
 
The thread started talking about Blake Swihart.  The guys is absolutely destroying the ball.  He does have a high BABIP however his LD% seems to support it.  Basically he is crushing line drives like it is his job.
 
His strikeouts have reduced a bit to a more manageable level and he is walking at a better rate.  Swihart of course is 23 YO rookie catcher with 151 PA in AAA.    I am not sure if people are trying to disparage him because Vazquez is some sort of binkie but everything I have seen of Swihart has shown that he is the real deal and proven why he was No. 1 catching prospect in all of baseball before the year starter.
 
Swihart is closer to an All Star than Vazquez right now especially since Vazquez is going to need some time in AAA next year.  I haven't seen anything that suggests the two can't coexist or there is a great need to trade one away.  

 

[johnnywayback]

 
Yes. And a team could think Clay Buchholz is a bonafide ace capable of 220 innings and give the farm for him. Or, as much as you love JBJ, someone might offer their top 10 prospects for him and you might go, "OK, that could be useful for us." Obviously, you are always exploring what avenues are available. Saying "someone else might value him differently than the Red Sox, so you should listen to offers" is an overarching theme for roster construction -- not specific to the C discussion.
 
However, the notion that the Sox would be severely hindering another portion of the big league roster by carrying BOTH Swihart and Vazquez next year as opposed to trading one to upgrade elsewhere seems like a leap. Unless a very attractive trade offer appears, there doesn't appear to be as much downside to carrying both as some people are arguing. Or, put another way, I don't see how trading CV (in particular, since he's the less traditionally valued C chip) will net a big return to be used elsewhere on the roster, especially coming off a major elbow injury (when the vast majority of his value is tied up in defense).

 
I'm not sure that's what anyone's arguing.  At least, it's not what I'm arguing.
 
My argument is that if they're both starting-caliber catchers, you get more value out of them by starting one and trading one than you do by having them each ride the bench (or, in Swihart's case, DH) half the time.  So planning on keeping both long-term has the downside of allocating your resources poorly.
 
Now, if we're just talking about 2016, with the idea that another year will help us decide between them, then, sure, that downside isn't huge.
 
Except for one thing: This off-season, unlike most off-seasons, the team is in a position to make a major trade for a rare commodity (a cost-controlled front-line starter).  The hope, I think, is that we won't be in that position next off-season.
 
And so there may be some downside to not having whichever guy is eventually going to be traded not in the mix to be traded now.  Obviously, I don't have access to the offers they'll make and receive, but it's not hard to imagine Swihart being the difference between being able to trade for Matt Harvey (in a three-team deal) or Sonny Gray (if he winds up becoming available) and being able to trade for Tyson Ross or Jason Hammel.
 
I think that's the calculation: Make your decision now, and maximize your ability to trade for that ace you need (at the cost of perhaps being wrong); or postpone the decision a year, and have a little more information to help you make the right one (at the cost of perhaps missing this moment where we have both a need to make a big trade and also the ammo to make a big trade).  

 

[czar]

Nope, your post is just drivel.  I gave a particular case where a pitch-framing devotee, Scioscia, is likely to value Vazquez higher than DD, who is a more traditional GM then we're used to.  Give me a specific case that suggests any GM would think Buchholz could pitch 220 IP after a 9 year career where his high has been 189 IP and currently sidelined by injury?  Or at least offer a case where any GM would trade their top 10 prospects for JBJ.
 
Then maybe we can have a discussion.

 
I mean, that was clearly hyperbolic for effect and you know it. But I'll defer to the guy who has the direct line to both Angels and Red Sox front offices regarding their difference in evaluation of Christian Vazquez.
 

I'm not sure that's what anyone's arguing.  At least, it's not what I'm arguing.
 
My argument is that if they're both starting-caliber catchers, you get more value out of them by starting one and trading one than you do by having them each ride the bench (or, in Swihart's case, DH) half the time.  So planning on keeping both long-term has the downside of allocating your resources poorly.
 
Now, if we're just talking about 2016, with the idea that another year will help us decide between them, then, sure, that downside isn't huge.
 
Except for one thing: This off-season, unlike most off-seasons, the team is in a position to make a major trade for a rare commodity (a cost-controlled front-line starter).  The hope, I think, is that we won't be in that position next off-season.
 
And so there may be some downside to not having whichever guy is eventually going to be traded not in the mix to be traded now.  Obviously, I don't have access to the offers they'll make and receive, but it's not hard to imagine Swihart being the difference between being able to trade for Matt Harvey (in a three-team deal) or Sonny Gray (if he winds up becoming available) and being able to trade for Tyson Ross or Jason Hammel.
 
I think that's the calculation: Make your decision now, and maximize your ability to trade for that ace you need (at the cost of perhaps being wrong); or postpone the decision a year, and have a little more information to help you make the right one (at the cost of perhaps missing this moment where we have both a need to make a big trade and also the ammo to make a big trade).

 
The majority of this doesn't go against what I argue.
 
The argument I have interpreted goes "the Red Sox have two starting C. It is inefficient to have two starting C on the roster. Ergo, the Red Sox should trade a starting C for something else."
 
My argument says nothing to discourage trading if "Blake Swihart may be the dealbreaker between getting Matt Harvey and not." There is a difference between saying "we have to trade a C because we can't have two starting C on the 25-man" and "one of our starting C may be needed to bring back a huge piece."
 
If the latter is the argument people are making, then fine. But that argument holds for ALL players on the roster, not just the catchers. So I have no clue why it's a point of contention in the catcher thread.
 
There is also no requirement that if the Sox carry CV/BS that they have to play BS out of position somewhere else. He can play 60% of the games (all at C) instead of 70%. Doesn't seem to be an issue.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

 
The value of pitch framing varies from team to team.  I gather Farrell and Cherington were quite high on it, while old-school GMs and managers were skeptical of the outrageous claims.  (A healthy Vazquez, based on his 55 game sample from 2014, would be a 7.5 WAR player if expanded to a full season.)  I'm guessing that while Dombrowski is open to new ideas, he's not on the leading edge of pitch-framing advocates.  On the other hand, Mike Scioscia, manager and GM-de facto of the Angels, is very high on catchers that are excellent pitch-framers.  
 
Situations where one player is valued much higher by another organization do exist, and they are the basis of trades.  

 
This should tell you something about WAR.
 
Give this a read and then make sure to read comment number 2:
 
http://tangotiger.com/index.php/site/comments/why-do-we-need-to-regress-fielding-in-war?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed
 
Single season samples of WAR, especially those built on defensive components (never mind positions that are even harder to quantify like catcher) are garbage. You can't just throw them out there without heavily regressing. That you just took 55 games and extrapolated it out to a full season to make an argument about his trade value is absurd.

 

[WenZink]

 
This should tell you something about WAR.
 
Give this a read and then make sure to read comment number 2:
 
http://tangotiger.com/index.php/site/comments/why-do-we-need-to-regress-fielding-in-war?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed
 
Single season samples of WAR, especially those built on defensive components (never mind positions that are even harder to quantify like catcher) are garbage. You can't just throw them out there without heavily regressing. That you just took 55 games and extrapolated it out to a full season to make an argument about his trade value is absurd.

 
Um, yeah.  But I preceded the assertion that Vazquez would be a 7.5 WAR player with the clause, "...old-school GMs and and managers were skeptical of the outrageous claims."  So get it, and i'm surprised given the context, you missed that I got that.

 

[WenZink]

 
I mean, that was clearly hyperbolic for effect and you know it. But I'll defer to the guy who has the direct line to both Angels and Red Sox front offices regarding their difference in evaluation of Christian Vazquez.
;;;;[snip]

 
Don't worry, i got the hyperbole.  It was your attempt to not deal with the point of my post and make it look absurd as well.  I also notice your snark to further avoid a serious discussion.
 
Mike Scioscia is so high on catcher defense that he gave Jeff Mathis - he of the 51 OPS+ -- half of the catching duties over Napoli, basing it on Mathis' far superior CERA.  We're talking about an ex catcher who has a high degree of input as to roster construction.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

 
Um, yeah.  But I preceded the assertion that Vazquez would be a 7.5 WAR player with the clause, "...old-school GMs and and managers were skeptical of the outrageous claims."  So get it, and i'm surprised given the context, you missed that I got that.

 
My point is that no on in the world thinks that 2014 Vazquez was a 7.5 WAR player, even if you accept single seasons of WAR as a valid way to compare players directly when talking trade value (hint: it's not). That you preceded it by pointing out that some GM's are dubious about the value of catcher defense (which doesn't even include pitch framing) doesn't absolve you of the fact that you are horrendously misusing WAR there. A 55 game sample extrapolated out to a full season, especially one based on a catcher's defense is not worth mentioning in any context.

 

[WenZink]

 
My point is that no on in the world thinks that 2014 Vazquez was a 7.5 WAR player, even if you accept single seasons of WAR as a valid way to compare players directly when talking trade value (hint: it's not). That you preceded it by pointing out that some GM's are dubious about the value of catcher defense (which doesn't even include pitch framing) doesn't absolve you of the fact that you are horrendously misusing WAR there. A 55 game sample extrapolated out to a full season, especially one based on a catcher's defense is not worth mentioning in any context.

 
Actually, at least one person in the world does.  On another board.  I didn't make up the "7.5 WAR" all by myself.  But I won't name him, lest my argument goes completely down the tubes!   :blink:
 
But even if the "unnamed" advocate of pitch-framing is on the lunatic fringe of the spectrum, my broader point still stands that Mike Scioscia, in particular, is closer to the fringe than DD.  Scioscia had Jeff Mathis start over 400 games at catcher over 5 years, and Mathis had a 50 OPS+ in his time with the Angels.

 

[MikeM]

I think some folks are vastly overestimating the trade value of Vazquez when using the argument "it is a value-killing proposition to keep two major league starting C's on the roster." As if trading Vazquez is going to create a significant valuation elsewhere on a roster already filled with A) big contracts and B) young, cost-controlled producers who are locked into jobs.
 

 
This. Even conceding the possibility that there is indeed a Mike Scioscia out there drooling over CV tape as we speak, what kind of a more specific return value are some of you speculating there? 
 
The real world demand, and more importantly a willingness to pay out on those types, is what ultimately matters there. CV wasn't going to bring in a talent haul even before he got hurt. Once past the hypothetical stack-a-lower-value silliness that people stretch into acquiring Sonny Gray, at best you are probably looking at a decent B type prospect or maybe an established reliever imo. The latter of which that can still be acquired through other means.
 
Neither is worth the asset trade off being made.  

 

[AlNipper49]

Will you stop it with this nonsense?

Having backups who are good enough to start is a good thing.

There are plenty of reasons to play someone less at catcher that have nothing to do with him being unable to catch and everything to do with his bat.

You can have Vazquez catch for games a week, Swihart catch three, and neither of them have to endure a full season of catching. You can get Swihart in at other positions and you can simultaneously prolong their careers and give yourself deep depth at one of the most important and hard to fill positions in the game.

You don't give a fuck about maximizing value, you give a fuck about winning rings.

We are on the cusp of having the best, most exciting, youngest team any of us has ever seen in any sport. You don't fuck with that for some pinheaded ideal of maximizing value.

We need an ace, and if the right trade works out, that's fine, but we happen to have the biggest collection of to flight pitching available as free agents in pretty much ever. You exhaust those options first.

Plus even if you were to trade Vazquez you'd maximize his value first. Eight seconds from a return from TJ isn't peak value.

 

[Drek717]

My argument is that if they're both starting-caliber catchers, you get more value out of them by starting one and trading one than you do by having them each ride the bench (or, in Swihart's case, DH) half the time.  So planning on keeping both long-term has the downside of allocating your resources poorly.
 

How is it a poor allocation of resources if Blake Swihart is one of the 8 best hitters the club can acquire by 2017/2018 (when this becomes relevant as trading Vaz now is selling incredibly low post-TJ)?
 
I mean, if Blake is a Buster Posey/Joe Mauer level hitter what's more valuable, Swihart catching 130 games and sitting for 32 or Swihart catching 90 and playing 1B/DH for 62-72?
 
This is the real prognostication topic a Blake Swihart thread should be about because over the last month and change he is EXACTLY that kind of hitter.  That from a 23 year old with less than 40 AAA games under his belt.  His BABIP suggests that it's unsustainable but he's also got a lot more maturation to go before he peaks, which will likely be around 2018.
 
He's got one hell of a ceiling with a bat in his hands.  Losing that for 30-40 games a year just to play him exclusively at catcher seems pretty dumb.

 

[EricFeczko]

What does Swihart have to do to get his own main board thread? 
 
OPS by month:
 
May: .525 (75 PA)
June: .690 (66 PA)
July: .719 (27 PA)
August: .931(66 PA)
September: 1.175 (13 PA)
 
Overall this season he has a .730 OPS.
 
All this and he's only 23 years old.
 
I'll leave his defense abilities to be spoken for by people who are better versed in them than me - but aside from JBJ's emergence - this is one of the best Red Sox stories of the year. A catcher who can hit like he has been - while showing the raw talent to at least be slightly above average with the glove is incredibly valuable.

While it is nice to see Swihart contributing offensively, I think you need to put the months in context with more than just OPS.
Here's his BABIP, ISO, and BB% by month:
May: .320 / .042 / 4 percent
June:.326 / .129 / 6.1 percent
July: .368 / .154 / 3.7 percent
August: .477 / .119 / 9.1 percent
September: .667 / .143 / 11.8 percent
 
Part of his line is BABIP driven. This is very different from the change we've seen in JBJ (more ISO driven). Although this is similar to Xander, Xander's plate approach (as evidence by contact and swing rates) is very different from last year. I'm not sure we have enough evidence to tell whether Swihart's improvement is meaningful, or if he is merely an average MLB hitter.
 
Part of the issue in splitting metrics by months is that we're dealing with really small sample sizes here (From 17 PA in september to 75 PA in may). The problem here is that we can't really trust any metric (except maybe swing rate) as representing what we would expect from some future 500 PAs. In fact, I would have just as much luck trying to guess his BB% as I would trying to guess his BABIP.

Ironically, the month closest to his year average is July, which had a miniscule sample of 27 PAs.

EDIT: "League average" hitting 23-year old catchers are solid players. I just want to make sure no one is thinking of Swihart as an "elite" (i.e. 0.900 OPS) MLB hitting catcher yet.

 

[WenZink]

 
This. Even conceding the possibility that there is indeed a Mike Scioscia out there drooling over CV tape as we speak, what kind of a more specific return value are some of you speculating there? 
 
The real world demand, and more importantly a willingness to pay out on those types, is what ultimately matters there. CV wasn't going to bring in a talent haul even before he got hurt. Once past the hypothetical stack-a-lower-value silliness that people stretch into acquiring Sonny Gray, at best you are probably looking at a decent B type prospect or maybe an established reliever imo. The latter of which that can still be acquired through other means.
 
Neither is worth the asset trade off being made.  

 
Young, cost-controlled starting pitching, which is the only area in which the Angels have depth right now -- thanks to Dipoto.  The Angels will have to go on the trade/FA market this winter to get a catcher, unless they give the job to Carlos Perez.  They also need a 3rd baseman, SS and 2nd baseman with a thin farm system and not much room financially.
 
Last June, the Angels drafted Taylor Ward 26th overall out of Fresno St.  Ward was considered to be, at best, a 2nd round pick, but the Angels target him for his defense.  He's hit very well in Rookie league and A ball since signing, but he's only 21.
 
(And admittedly, Vazquez' recovery from TJ surgery may screw up the timing, but maybe not, if the Angels are only able to address some of their needs in the off season.)

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

 
Young, cost-controlled starting pitching, which is the only area in which the Angels have depth right now -- thanks to Dipoto.  The Angels will have to go on the trade/FA market this winter to get a catcher, unless they give the job to Carlos Perez.  They also need a 3rd baseman, SS and 2nd baseman with a thin farm system and not much room financially.

 
So, just to be clear--you're suggesting that the Angels would be interested in Vazquez as a sweetener in a deal for "young, cost-controlled starting pitching," not a centerpiece....right? 

 

[WenZink]

 
So, just to be clear--you're suggesting that the Angels would be interested in Vazquez as a sweetener in a deal for "young, cost-controlled starting pitching," not a centerpiece....right? 

 
I was just responding to MikeM's request for a "more specific return value."  I'm sure Dipoto has a good evaluation of the Angels pitchers and just how much Scioscia wants a healthy Vazquez. I'd value CV higher than some, equivalent to others..  They include Santiago, Heaney, Skaggs, Richards, Tropeano..

 

[alwyn96]

This Vazquez stuff all seems a bit premature. I mean, it would be great if Swihart and Vazquez were both awesome starting quality catchers, but I think it's going to be a while before a team would even consider trading anything for Vazquez, and Swihart probably isn't going to be traded at all. Let's just enjoy young Swihart's BABIP-driven awesomeness without counting all our chickens. 

 

[absintheofmalaise]

 
Actually, at least one person in the world does.  On another board.  I didn't make up the "7.5 WAR" all by myself.  But I won't name him, lest my argument goes completely down the tubes!   :blink:
 
But even if the "unnamed" advocate of pitch-framing is on the lunatic fringe of the spectrum, my broader point still stands that Mike Scioscia, in particular, is closer to the fringe than DD.  Scioscia had Jeff Mathis start over 400 games at catcher over 5 years, and Mathis had a 50 OPS+ in his time with the Angels.

Unless you're gonna name who it is, my guess is Eric Van, then don't even bother to bring it up. 

 

[shaggydog2000]

While it is nice to see Swihart contributing offensively, I think you need to put the months in context with more than just OPS.
Here's his BABIP, ISO, and BB% by month:
May: .320 / .042 / 4 percent
June:.326 / .129 / 6.1 percent
July: .368 / .154 / 3.7 percent
August: .477 / .119 / 9.1 percent
September: .667 / .143 / 11.8 percent
 
Part of his line is BABIP driven. This is very different from the change we've seen in JBJ (more ISO driven). Although this is similar to Xander, Xander's plate approach (as evidence by contact and swing rates) is very different from last year. I'm not sure we have enough evidence to tell whether Swihart's improvement is meaningful, or if he is merely an average MLB hitter.
 
Part of the issue in splitting metrics by months is that we're dealing with really small sample sizes here (From 17 PA in september to 75 PA in may). The problem here is that we can't really trust any metric (except maybe swing rate) as representing what we would expect from some future 500 PAs. In fact, I would have just as much luck trying to guess his BB% as I would trying to guess his BABIP.

Ironically, the month closest to his year average is July, which had a miniscule sample of 27 PAs.

EDIT: "League average" hitting 23-year old catchers are solid players. I just want to make sure no one is thinking of Swihart as an "elite" (i.e. 0.900 OPS) MLB hitting catcher yet.

 
Well, considering that there are only 3 qualified Catchers with an OPS over .800 over the last 5 years, .900 would be pretty elite.  The bar for being a good hitting catcher is pretty low.  If you're consistently 10% than the average hitter, you're a top ten catcher.  20% better and you're top 5.  (In terms of WRC+) Which is why I think the talk of moving Swihart to 1B or somewhere else is a little premature.  Even if he's a good hitting catcher, that is not very good for a first baseman.  Moving him there to play a guy who is great defensively but you still aren't sure can hit enough to be a starter is a bad idea.  They're still pre-arb, wait until your hand gets forced by them both playing great and you needing to free up cash becomes a thing.  You'll know more about them and be able to decide better whether position changes or deals make sense.  It's so hard to find good catchers, you really don't need to give away your options there before you know what you have.  

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

And it isn't as though there's a pipeline full of legit catching prospects busting their way up the minors, after Swihart andd Vazquez.

Keep them both. Trading one away for young pitching might sound like a good idea, but every pitcher is an injury risk, young and old.

 

[Detts]

Unless you're gonna name who it is, my guess is Eric Van, then don't even bother to bring it up. 

Of course it is EV.
 
http://forum.soxprospects.com/thread/3017/trading-swihart-discussion-thread
 
The SSS alone gave it away.

 

[Fishy1]

While it is nice to see Swihart contributing offensively, I think you need to put the months in context with more than just OPS.
Here's his BABIP, ISO, and BB% by month:
May: .320 / .042 / 4 percent
June:.326 / .129 / 6.1 percent
July: .368 / .154 / 3.7 percent
August: .477 / .119 / 9.1 percent
September: .667 / .143 / 11.8 percent
 
Part of his line is BABIP driven. This is very different from the change we've seen in JBJ (more ISO driven). Although this is similar to Xander, Xander's plate approach (as evidence by contact and swing rates) is very different from last year. I'm not sure we have enough evidence to tell whether Swihart's improvement is meaningful, or if he is merely an average MLB hitter.
 
Part of the issue in splitting metrics by months is that we're dealing with really small sample sizes here (From 17 PA in september to 75 PA in may). The problem here is that we can't really trust any metric (except maybe swing rate) as representing what we would expect from some future 500 PAs. In fact, I would have just as much luck trying to guess his BB% as I would trying to guess his BABIP.

Ironically, the month closest to his year average is July, which had a miniscule sample of 27 PAs.

EDIT: "League average" hitting 23-year old catchers are solid players. I just want to make sure no one is thinking of Swihart as an "elite" (i.e. 0.900 OPS) MLB hitting catcher yet.

 
And what's driving the BABIP is a 29.4% LD rate (34% in the second half!). He's taken the team LD% crown from Brock Holt, who at the halfway-point was clocking in at 27% himself. Per fangraphs, he's got about half as many BIP as needed to justify calling that LD% "stable," and it's exceedingly unlikely that it would stabilize there. Nobody with the qualifying % of PAs has a LD% that high.
 
We've talked a lot about how much JBJ is striking out, and Swihart is striking out nearly as much.  It's not like he's swinging at a ton of crap -- a ~30% O-swing %, which is pretty middle of the road -- but when he does, he's making contact about ~60% of the time. Not great, and about what Bogaerts did in last year's lost season. If he can make the transition to fouling some of those pitches off, as Bogaerts has done, he might be able to sustain this surge we've seen in his average, even as the LD% inevitably falls.

 

[Lars The Wanderer]

I get that folks are high on Swihart, but the Posey comparisons are a little absurd. When Posey was 23, he was putting up a 4 WAR, rookie of the year season and leading his team to a World Series.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

I get that folks are high on Swihart, but the Posey comparisons are a little absurd. When Posey was 23, he was putting up a 4 WAR, rookie of the year season and leading his team to a World Series.

 
At the beginning of that ROY season, Posey had 276 career PA in triple-A or above, including a cup of coffee in the majors the previous year. Swihart had 151. So there's that.
 
But there's also this. Here are Swihart and Posey's lines through their first 119 major-league PA:
 
.216/.263/.288
.263/.286/.342
 
Now here are their lines through their next 136 major-league PA:
 
.344/.393/.472
.385/.442/.631
 
Yes, in both cases the second, better line is Posey's. But the difference, though substantial, is not dramatic, and the story arc is strikingly similar.
 
I think the best you can hope for is that Swihart turns out to be a poor man's Posey, but that's a pretty good thing to have, and there seems to be a pretty decent chance we have it.

 

[jscola85]

Is a reasonable projection for Swihart something like Jason Kendall?  Good contact hitter with doubles power leading to a ~750-800 OPS, plus baserunner despite being a catcher, and a solid reputation as a receiver.  Kendall during his Pittsburgh years was a regular ~4 win player based on that.

 

[Erik Hanson's Hook]

I like that comp. Plus, Kendall wasn't even a switch-hitter.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Is a reasonable projection for Swihart something like Jason Kendall?  Good contact hitter with doubles power leading to a ~750-800 OPS, plus baserunner despite being a catcher, and a solid reputation as a receiver.  Kendall during his Pittsburgh years was a regular ~4 win player based on that.

 
To keep it in house, I think Jason Varitek's peak is probably a pretty good guess at Swihart's upside at the plate. 20% better than league average, switch hitter, 15-20 home run power. Maybe a year or two where he hits a few more than that. He also seems like he has the kind of make up (from scouting reports at least) that could mean he ends up being a team leader and great a handling a staff once he's got some more experience. Swihart is obviously getting and earlier start to his major league career, which could alter things a bit, but every so often I think I see more than a little Tek in him. Plus some speed.

 

[Rovin Romine]

 
To keep it in house, I think Jason Varitek's peak is probably a pretty good guess at Swihart's upside at the plate. 20% better than league average, switch hitter, 15-20 home run power. Maybe a year or two where he hits a few more than that. He also seems like he has the kind of make up (from scouting reports at least) that could mean he ends up being a team leader and great a handling a staff once he's got some more experience. Swihart is obviously getting and earlier start to his major league career, which could alter things a bit, but every so often I think I see more than a little Tek in him. Plus some speed.

 
You touched on it, but IMO the age difference is key.  Going by full season OPS+, Varitek became a better than average hitter during his age 31-33 years.  He then yo-yo-d a bit, but never came close to his 3 peak years of aprox 120 OPS+.
 
Posey had his first full season at age 23.  Since then he's never had a full season OPS+ less than 130-140, peaking at 170.
 
Blake is at 94 OPS+ as a 23 year old.  But he's 135 in the second half, which puts him in Posey, not Tek territory.   SSS I know.  
 
But if you think Blake's second half is mostly sustainable, barring injury, he's got a very good chance to eclipse Tek's career arc.  He's got his prime ahead of him.  
 
***
Caveat: Unless Blake has a hidden flaw as a catcher which we don't yet know about.  Pitch calling?   He seems to be at least average at all other aspects of the defensive game, with room to improve.
 
 
Caveat2: The no collision rules may allow Swihart to  turn out better numbers than some earlier catchers who might have seemed comparable players.  

 

[alwyn96]

 
To keep it in house, I think Jason Varitek's peak is probably a pretty good guess at Swihart's upside at the plate. 20% better than league average, switch hitter, 15-20 home run power. Maybe a year or two where he hits a few more than that. He also seems like he has the kind of make up (from scouting reports at least) that could mean he ends up being a team leader and great a handling a staff once he's got some more experience. Swihart is obviously getting and earlier start to his major league career, which could alter things a bit, but every so often I think I see more than a little Tek in him. Plus some speed.

 
I think Swihart reaching Varitek's peak unadjusted numbers might be tough - after all, Varitek's peak occurred during the sillyball era. Varitek's 296/390/482 line would probably be something like a 145 wRC+ today. That's around Buster Posey level. It's hard to do cross-era comparisons these days, but yeah, something like an adjusted Varitek line or Posada line would be pretty nice. 
 
It'll be interesting to see how Swihart does next year. He's already made some adjustments to MLB which is really great to see, but the book is still kind of being written on him. Teams will figure out how to pitch him better and we'll have to see how/if he can adjust to that. I would guess he starts seeing a few less fastballs and a few more sliders down and away, which is often one of the first counteradjustments they throw at rookies.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

 
I think Swihart reaching Varitek's peak unadjusted numbers might be tough - after all, Varitek's peak occurred during the sillyball era. Varitek's 296/390/482 line would probably be something like a 145 wRC+ today. That's around Buster Posey level. It's hard to do cross-era comparisons these days, but yeah, something like an adjusted Varitek line or Posada line would be pretty nice.

 
 
That's why I said "20% better than league average" rather than 273/351/512. 15-20 home run power is definitely in the realm of possibility, though, adjustment or not. Of course, my post is more than a little tongue in cheek as player comps are usually pretty poor regardless of what similarities you can find to match them up. If you're going to do them anyway, though, might as well go full homer.
 

 

[alwyn96]

 
 
That's why I said "20% better than league average" rather than 273/351/512. 15-20 home run power is definitely in the realm of possibility, though, adjustment or not. Of course, my post is more than a little tongue in cheek as player comps are usually pretty poor regardless of what similarities you can find to match them up. If you're going to do them anyway, though, might as well go full homer.
 

 
Oh totally. I generally go full homer around early March, when guys start showing up to Spring Training in the best shape of their life. That's when I'll likely start breaking out the Johnny Bench/Carlton Fisk comparisons. 

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

Is a reasonable projection for Swihart something like Jason Kendall?  Good contact hitter with doubles power leading to a ~750-800 OPS, plus baserunner despite being a catcher, and a solid reputation as a receiver.  Kendall during his Pittsburgh years was a regular ~4 win player based on that.

 
Swihart's not a good contact hitter, though. He's not a whiff monster, but his contact skills are average to below-average. There's nothing in his resume to suggest he'll ever get his K rate much below about 16%, which is 2x Kendall's. Somewhere in the upper teens seems like a good target.
 
Varitek's not a bad comp, but he had more power than Swihart seems likely to develop, and got more of his OBP from BB rate and less from BABIP. And he didn't have Swihart's speed.
 
Ivan Rodriguez is actually not a terrible upside comp; he has the high BABIP, middling power (though perhaps still a bit more than we're likely to see out of Swihart), and speed. But he neither walked nor struck out as much as Swihart is likely to.
 
Russell Martin is also interesting. Like Varitek, he gets more of his OBP from walks and less from hits than Swihart probably will, but the speed, power and K rate are all in the ballpark, and the defensive style and skills seem similar to what we've seen already from Swihart.

 

[Devizier]

I think Posey and (especially) Mauer are a bridge waaayyy too far for Swihart at this moment.
 
Optimistically, we can hope for Brian McCann. I would be fuckin' stoked with a McCann-like career from Swihart.
 
I think we can draw a decent comparison to Matt Wieters and just hope that Swihart develops into a better hitter than Wieters did.

 

[jscola85]

McCann has power that Swihart couldn't dream of.  I have a hard time seeing Swihart hitting 20-25 bombs a year even at his peak potential.

Fair point on the K rate vs. Kendall.  I just struggled to think of a guy with Swihart's athletic, wirey frame.  It's also hard to find a good comp in terms of contact - there's a few high-contact guys like Posey, Mauer, Kendall, AJP, and then lower-average / higher-power guys, but not a ton of guys who profile as a .270-.280 hitter with passable patience and doubles power.
 
I guess perhaps someone like Ramon Hernandez?  In his prime years he was something like a .275/.330/.450 hitter with a low/mid-teens K rate and 15-18 HRs.

 

[kieckeredinthehead]

I'm not saying he reminds me of Hall of Famer Craig Biggio, but there are certainly hints of pre-26 catcher Craig Biggio. OPS+ ages 22-25 (when his primary role was catcher): 75, 114, 93, 113. 20 SBs a season, doubles power, K rate in the mid-teens. Small, wiry guy. They moved him to second base to save his legs (and I guess to make room for the immortal Ed Taubensee).