Swihart v. Vazquez: The Value of Framing
- Thread starter dhappy42
- Start date
You really think demoting a top 25 prospect who basically skipped AAA due to injuries on the ML roster is best explained by Swihart having "not-so-good defense"?
He was a full time catcher for the back half of 2015 on a club that actually pulled itself out of the muck for much of that run. No one was losing their shit over his defense then. In fact, most assessed it to be average. Not good but not bad either, middle of the road with potential to improve, just like the slightly above average (for the position) bat.
He wasn't replaced by the not yet beast mode version of Sandy Leon. He was replaced by someone many scouts and stats guys agree looks like a generational talent behind the dish. That was the play here. Getting the supposed next great pitch framer behind the plate to stabilize the pitching while Swihart could resume his development track in AAA.
His moving off LF was exactly what it looked to be - a club understanding that their best hitter in AAA happened to be a catcher with the athletic pedigree to play elsewhere, at a time when LF production looked pretty dubious as Holt went into slump and Young was scuffling mightily out of the gate. Knowing that if they were to keep both Swihart and Vaz one was going to need to find PT elsewhere it only made sense to start using the athletic guy somewhere else.
There is no great flaw in Swihart as a defensive catcher. He just isn't Christian Vazquez. Or the very good Ryan Hanigan. Or hell, he's probably not even Sandy Leon who has always had a reputation as a very good glove but no bat catcher until these past few weeks. Just because the Sox currently have three VERY GOOD defensive catchers doesn't make Swihart BAD by association, only in comparison. He's an acceptable catching option who happens to be in an organization stacked with ML level catching depth.
Maybe. On the other hand, Britton would disagree with your analysis. For example, Britton doesn't say that the Red Sox were happy with Swihart's defense and demoted him for the sake of playing an even better defensive catcher. Instead, Britton explicitly states that Swihart's "defensive shortcomings" led to his demotion and the LF experiment.
Is it possible that Swihart's defense regressed? Such an explanation would reconcile the glowing reports on Swihart's defense with the belief that the Red Sox demoted him due to "defensive shortcomings." But isn't it unusual for a player so young to regress defensively?
Last edited:
I think we're thinking too much about Swihart. The young guy was apparently a great athlete in high school (playing multiple non-catching positions) that was selected high in the draft (2nd pick @ 26) because of that athletic ability. It was the Red Sox who decided to convert him into a catcher, apparently because of a great arm, to increase his value to the team. He was also a 4.0 HS student. {I'm no expert - I'm just picking this stuff off the internets.} From everything I've read, the team wanted to bring him along methodically to learn catching skills and pitcher management - and he's probably jumped ahead of the timeline due to injuries.
When I say we're thinking too much, I'm speculating that Blake Swihart was always a baseball player with high upside, and the fact that the Red Sox converted him to catcher shouldn't diminish the fact that he could probably learn a number of positions to major league credibility. He's just more valuable behind the plate. So what I'm blabbing about is agreeing that "defensive shortcomings" have everything to do with the original timeline for developing the kid's catching skills in the minors. Circumstance and talent led to him playing left field (where he gave every indication of being a good fielder - walls aside) and that his usage is more a testament to his abilities than a reflection of his shortcomings.
When I say we're thinking too much, I'm speculating that Blake Swihart was always a baseball player with high upside, and the fact that the Red Sox converted him to catcher shouldn't diminish the fact that he could probably learn a number of positions to major league credibility. He's just more valuable behind the plate. So what I'm blabbing about is agreeing that "defensive shortcomings" have everything to do with the original timeline for developing the kid's catching skills in the minors. Circumstance and talent led to him playing left field (where he gave every indication of being a good fielder - walls aside) and that his usage is more a testament to his abilities than a reflection of his shortcomings.
I'm not sure the quality of Swihart's catching is really a fixed quantity at this point in his career. It seems totally plausible that Swihart could have been fine on average at the end of last season and then he had some not so great games at the beginning of this season. Young players can be inconsistent. I don't think that necessarily means that Swihart was always a bad defense catcher or always a good one. He certainly had a few rough games early this season in the context of the pitching being terrible, there being some pressure on the team to get off to a good start, Holt maybe slumping a bit in LF, and Vazquez getting off to a great start in AAA (in a crazy small sample).
I think the decision to demote Swihart was way more about the context of the situation and a pressure to win now than a thinking that he would never have a chance to be an acceptable defensive catcher.
I think the decision to demote Swihart was way more about the context of the situation and a pressure to win now than a thinking that he would never have a chance to be an acceptable defensive catcher.
Last edited:
I also quoted two guys from Baseball Prospectus earlier in the thread. There's apparently a whole lotta charlatans out there.
Wow, Baseball Prospectus! Well, if Baseball Prospectus said it, it must be true.
I like Baseball Prospectus, a sabermetic approach to the game with less emphasis on traditional scouting. Perhaps the flaws in Swihart's game are best identified by the latter.
OK, so far you have come up with one sportswriter who gave an opinion and consider that one sportswriter has inside information that trumps literally anything else anyone can say.
Baseball prospectus uses scouts, by the way. And talks to scouts, by the way. As do the soxprospects guys, as do the MLB guys, as does FUCKING EVERYONE you say has no right to an opinion other than yours.
So stop. You are bringing an annoying combination of low information and stubborn refusal to accept anyone else's information and it is infuriating.
I don't agree with your characterization at all, I think it is total bullshit, but I'll drop the subject and not speak on the matter again.