Swihart v. Vazquez: The Value of Framing

Rasputin

Will outlive SeanBerry
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 4, 2001
29,419
Not here
It was very much like DIPS theory. I found it absurd when it told me there was no difference between Pedro Martinez and Pete Shourek on a ball in play.
Oooh, oooh, are we gonna argue about whether it made sense to start Schourek in Game 4 again? That's always fun.

I don't know what's more amazing, the fact that the game was 17 years ago, or that Bartolo Colon started it for the Indians and is still pitching.

If you think the estimates of how much framing a single strike can matter, just remember that the difference between starting 0-1 and 1-0 was 213 points of OPS for the AL in 2015 and consider that sevenish percent of those are going to come with the bases loaded. Sure, some of those are going to happen in blowouts, but those ABs are often the ones that decide games. You change ten of them over the course of a season with an extra strike, that might be the difference in winning several games, and we're in an environment now where if you're not winning your division, two or three games is a huge difference. Heck, if the Angels had won three more games, they'd have tied for the division lead instead of missing the playoffs entirely.

We talk a lot about how many runs or wins a player is worth, and they're all just theoretical models to assign some kind of logical value to a player's worth. Sometimes it's worth thinking about the actual baseball situations the players are going to find themselves in. The difference between an 0-1 count and a 1-0 count with the bases loaded and nobody out is huge. Sure, there are going to be a lot of times when that stolen strike comes in a relatively meaningless situation so it feels like it's nothing, but a handful of big situations make all the difference.
 

kieckeredinthehead

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 26, 2006
8,635
Forgive my ignorance, but has anyone looked at the effect of situation (either in the game or in count) on stealing calls? For instance, if you're a catcher whose pitching staff happens to get into a lot of 3-0 counts, I'd expect you'd show up as stealing a lot of strikes. If you get a strike on a 3-0 count with your team up or down 10, that's not particularly important. We know umpires are more likely to expand or decrease the zone in certain situations. But the studies I'm familiar with just quantify total number of balls that the catcher got called strikes and vice versa, and the study applies those results to a generic mean run value. So, have people broken it down by count? Or by leverage?
 

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
15,725
Michigan
Sometimes it's worth thinking about the actual baseball situations the players are going to find themselves in. The difference between an 0-1 count and a 1-0 count with the bases loaded and nobody out is huge. Sure, there are going to be a lot of times when that stolen strike comes in a relatively meaningless situation so it feels like it's nothing, but a handful of big situations make all the difference.
If you think the difference between a 0-1 and 1-0 count with no outs, bases loaded, is big, consider the difference between a K and BB in that situation. If I could find the link (provided by iayork, I think) and figure out how to post the data, it would show that the "max framing run value" of a pitch in a 3-2 count is .59 runs whereas in an 0-0 count it's only .08. That surprised me. Like you, I thought the value of a "stolen first strike" would be a lot bigger, probably the most important count after 3-2. According to the chart (I'll try to find the link later) it's the least important count. The counts with the highest potential "framing run value" are 3-2, 2-2 and 3-1. The lowest are 2-1, 0-1 and 0-0. Go figure. It's late here. Maybe I'm missing something.
 

iayork

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 6, 2006
639
Just because front offices value something, that doesn't mean the market place will reflect that. If no one starts paying significantly more for great pitch framers, there won't be a reason to start paying significantly more for great pitch framers. Especially if that skill isn't coming attached to a solid bat. Why drive up the market if you don't have to? In cases where a great pitch framer also has a good stick (Russell Martin, for example) it's hard to see where that contract splits between his various skill sets, which muddies the waters a bit.
I think the market does value good framing, and dislikes bad framing. Obviously it's hard to tell what front offices are thinking and separate out framing from other components, but for example: Salty can still hit, but the Sox had absolutely no interest in him after 2013, Miami got rid of him in 2015, and he barely scraped up a position for 2016. Brian McCann's and Russell Martin's contracts probably incorporate framing as part of their value. Rene Rivera has a job.

Framing is still new enough that it's probably not clear how to predict it over a long-term contract; older catchers (Joe Molina, Yadier Molina) have fallen apart rapidly enough framing-wise that teams may not want to pay for it much in the future. I suspect that that's the biggest reason for management to be cautious about signing framers, and as longer-term data come on line we may get a better sense for how they value the future value of framing.
 

DanoooME

above replacement level
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2008
19,831
Henderson, NV
If you think the difference between a 0-1 and 1-0 count with no outs, bases loaded, is big, consider the difference between a K and BB in that situation. If I could find the link (provided by iayork, I think) and figure out how to post the data, it would show that the "max framing run value" of a pitch in a 3-2 count is .59 runs whereas in an 0-0 count it's only .08. That surprised me. Like you, I thought the value of a "stolen first strike" would be a lot bigger, probably the most important count after 3-2. According to the chart (I'll try to find the link later) it's the least important count. The counts with the highest potential "framing run value" are 3-2, 2-2 and 3-1. The lowest are 2-1, 0-1 and 0-0. Go figure. It's late here. Maybe I'm missing something.
The key there is that on a 3-2 count, the AB will certainly end one way or another with a BB, a K, a HBP, a foul ball (which leaves the count at 3-2), or a ball in play. That AB has to end at that point whereas with a 0-0 count, there are still tons of possible variable outcomes with many different counts, so the impact is naturally going to be lessened.
 

RFDA2000

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2005
367
And with 2-2 if you steal a strike, you've just stolen an out. With 3-1, you've just stolen a "not a walk". In each case you have just had a definite impact that changes the course of the at bat. Those make sense as being more valuable than 0-0 to my not overly statistical mind.
 

Max Power

thai good. you like shirt?
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
7,877
Boston, MA
Right, so Savin's example of turning Jim Thome into a pitcher 240 times a year is wildly overstating the effects. You've maybe done that for one pitch, but the proper comparison is the change in OPS for the complete at bat after a certain count to its conclusion. The problem there is double counting, obviously, since you can't get to a 0-2 count without having been at 0-1 first.

I'm still with MightyJoeYoung on this one. The effect might be there, but it's hard for me to believe it's so big. If stealing a couple strikes a game is somehow worth three extra wins on the season, then bad umpiring must be worth much, much more than that. An umpire may be fooled by a good frame job, or maybe they aren't and they negate your amazing framing skills, or they're just terrible and call an inconsistent strike zone.

For someone to say a great pitch framer is actually worth 3-4 wins with any kind of confidence doesn't make a lot of sense to me. You're basically saying that 3-4 wins that the pitching staff accumulated should actually be assigned to the catcher. But is someone deducting those wins from the pitchers' WAR totals? Is it done equally or is there a determination of which pitchers were actually helped by it? And if pitch framing aids some pitchers significantly more than others, is it truly a catching skill, or should the pitchers get some of the credit for being "frameable?"

To give an idea of how what winning teams have behind the plate, I just checked the last 20 teams to play in the World Series to see how many carried a poor hitting catcher. Only four of the 20 had a below average hitting catcher as their starter. Only one of those four actually won, the 2006 Cardinals with Yadier Molina, who happened to put up a 1.026 OPS in the series.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,478
Rogers Park
Right, so Savin's example of turning Jim Thome into a pitcher 240 times a year is wildly overstating the effects. You've maybe done that for one pitch, but the proper comparison is the change in OPS for the complete at bat after a certain count to its conclusion. The problem there is double counting, obviously, since you can't get to a 0-2 count without having been at 0-1 first.

I'm still with MightyJoeYoung on this one. The effect might be there, but it's hard for me to believe it's so big. If stealing a couple strikes a game is somehow worth three extra wins on the season, then bad umpiring must be worth much, much more than that. An umpire may be fooled by a good frame job, or maybe they aren't and they negate your amazing framing skills, or they're just terrible and call an inconsistent strike zone.

For someone to say a great pitch framer is actually worth 3-4 wins with any kind of confidence doesn't make a lot of sense to me. You're basically saying that 3-4 wins that the pitching staff accumulated should actually be assigned to the catcher. But is someone deducting those wins from the pitchers' WAR totals? Is it done equally or is there a determination of which pitchers were actually helped by it? And if pitch framing aids some pitchers significantly more than others, is it truly a catching skill, or should the pitchers get some of the credit for being "frameable?"

To give an idea of how what winning teams have behind the plate, I just checked the last 20 teams to play in the World Series to see how many carried a poor hitting catcher. Only four of the 20 had a below average hitting catcher as their starter. Only one of those four actually won, the 2006 Cardinals with Yadier Molina, who happened to put up a 1.026 OPS in the series.
I'm 90% sure your first two objections are already priced into the statistic. Read the Brooks/Pavlidis article linked above.

The third objection, about the delegation of responsibility for run prevention, is pretty interesting, and adds another wrinkle to the RA vs. FIP for summing pitcher value controversy.

But your fourth objection is bizarre. Isn't Molina evidence against the argument you're making? That the only poor-hitting catcher in the last ten world series was an elite framer is not an argument against the value of framing. Let's go through the pennant winning starting catchers of the pitchFX era, using data from StatCorner because it's easily available. Data is in runs above or below average:

Code:
2007: Varitek +1.9, Torrealba +8.4
2008: Navarro -12.6, Ruiz -2.4
2009: Posada -6.2 (but J Molina +19.7!), Ruiz +7.3
2010: Treanor -5.4, Posey +6.7
2011: Torrealba -0.9, Y Molina +14.7 
2012: Avila +5.2, Posey +23.3
2013: Saltalamacchia -2.3 (but Ross +7.9), Y Molina +19.2
2014: Perez -10.6, Posey +17.7
2015: Perez -9.1, d'Arnaud +11
Your best argument is Sal Perez, who is a poor framer, but has other strong attributes both offensively and defensively and — crucially for his team — is on an insanely team-friendly contract. But setting aside Perez, and while it's admittedly possible that the whole effect is Buster Posey, we've seen a pretty marked shift towards good framing catchers on pennant teams since they put up the cameras in the ballparks.
 

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
15,725
Michigan
If stealing a couple strikes a game is somehow worth three extra wins on the season, then bad umpiring must be worth much, much more than that.
Bad umpiring effects game outcomes too, maybe more than framing, but it more-or-less evens out because you win some and you lose some.

So good/bad umpiring isn't worth anything to teams. Teams don't sign, pay and play umpires.
 

geoduck no quahog

not particularly consistent
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 8, 2002
13,024
Seattle, WA
Has anyone pointed out how ironic (I think that's the right word) this discussion is? Teams benefit from having a catcher that (a) either dupes the umpire into thinking a ball is a strike, or (b) receives the ball in a manner which allows the umpire to call a strike a strike, which shouldn't be necessary.

In either case - it's about umpires that suck.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Plus, if some of us get our wish, pitch framing will have zero value because a computer will be calling balls and strikes.
 

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
15,725
Michigan
Has anyone pointed out how ironic (I think that's the right word) this discussion is? Teams benefit from having a catcher that (a) either dupes the umpire into thinking a ball is a strike, or (b) receives the ball in a manner which allows the umpire to call a strike a strike, which shouldn't be necessary.

In either case - it's about umpires that suck.
Or that accurately and consistently calling balls and strikes on the margins is really hard to do.
 

iayork

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 6, 2006
639
Has anyone pointed out how ironic (I think that's the right word) this discussion is? Teams benefit from having a catcher that (a) either dupes the umpire into thinking a ball is a strike, or (b) receives the ball in a manner which allows the umpire to call a strike a strike, which shouldn't be necessary.

In either case - it's about umpires that suck.
As I noted above, umpires have improved significantly in their ball/strike calling since about 2010, when their contract was altered to allow video review of their calls. You'd think this would reduce the value of framing, and it's possible that it has, but it doesn't seem to have made a huge difference. I wonder if a really good pitch framer is so good that it's basically sleight of hand, and trying to catch him is as futile as trying to watch Teller palming a chainsaw on stage.
 

Turrable

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2011
2,670
Bad umpiring effects game outcomes too, maybe more than framing, but it more-or-less evens out because you win some and you lose some.

So good/bad umpiring isn't worth anything to teams. Teams don't sign, pay and play umpires.
Is this true? I understand that teams have little/no control over how much they get screwed, but does that mean the screwing will necessarily be even over the course of a season? I'm legitimately asking, I don't understand this stuff and I'm learning a lot in this thread.
 

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
15,725
Michigan
Is this true? I understand that teams have little/no control over how much they get screwed, but does that mean the screwing will necessarily be even over the course of a season? I'm legitimately asking, I don't understand this stuff and I'm learning a lot in this thread.
Theoretically, bad umpiring evens out in the long run. I suppose that some umpires may have it in for some teams or players, but regardless, although the short-term effect can be huge, the long-term effect is probably negligible. More to the point, teams have no control over any "umpiring effect" (other than to avoid signing players who umpires disfavor.) Therefore, good or bad umpiring has no value to teams one way or the other.
 

iayork

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 6, 2006
639
For someone to say a great pitch framer is actually worth 3-4 wins with any kind of confidence doesn't make a lot of sense to me. You're basically saying that 3-4 wins that the pitching staff accumulated should actually be assigned to the catcher. But is someone deducting those wins from the pitchers' WAR totals?
What has that got to do with anything? Are you confusing WAR with reality? Whatever happened, happened; if WAR doesn't measure it accurately, then throw away WAR, don't assume that reality is wrong.

You say that the extra wins assigned to elite catcher framing doesn't make sense to you. To be honest, it didn't make sense to me either. But instead of simply saying "I don't believe it" and thinking that settled anything, I went and measured it for myself. OK, I had to download gigabytes of PITCHf/x data, and spent months figuring out how to properly interpret the data, and then spent days writing the scripts to analyze catcher framing, but then I could actually look at the data to try to disprove the counter-intuitive claims I was hearing. And then, when what I saw exactly matched those claims, I changed my mind and accepted that catcher framing really is a thing.

If you don't believe it, and you want to claim that's a rational belief, please point to exactly what part is wrong -- because it's actually pretty simple, and each step along the way is actually pretty intuitive. Do you really not believe that one catcher can get one or two called strikes per game than another? I mean, you just have to watch a few catchers before that's pretty obvious, isn't it? And once you agree that Catcher A gets two more called strikes per game, then it is 3rd-grade math to work out that he's getting about 200-300 extra strikes per season. Intuitively, don't you think 200 extra strikes per season must be worth something? What's your gut feeling for the value of 100 strikes? To me, a game seems pretty realistic -- you'd have to make a strong case to argue that 100 strikes are not worth an extra win.

Which part, exactly, don't you accept, and what's your support for rejecting it?
 

Turrable

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2011
2,670
Theoretically, bad umpiring evens out in the long run. I suppose that some umpires may have it in for some teams or players, but regardless, although the short-term effect can be huge, the long-term effect is probably negligible. More to the point, teams have no control over any "umpiring effect" (other than to avoid signing players who umpires disfavor.) Therefore, good or bad umpiring has no value to teams one way or the other.
I get that it would even out theoretically, but I'm wondering if it always happens in practice over a full season. My takeaway from reading about framing was similar to Max's from the part you quoted; basically, if picking up a few extra strikes per game can add three or four wins, couldn't even marginally good umpire luck add a lot more? A team obviously couldn't get 80% of borderline calls over the course of a season, but could you get 55? 52? I'm pulling these numbers out of my ass because my grasp on statistics is weak, but I'm basically curious how we know that the long-term effect of the human element is "probably negligible," since I would have thought the same thing about pitch framing before reading this thread. Also, I understand that a FO has no reason to take umpire luck into account when building a team, I'm just wondering to what extent it can fuck up their best laid plans.
 

PrometheusWakefield

Member
SoSH Member
May 25, 2009
10,441
Boston, MA
Except this guy.





The Rivera's of the world getting more playing time does not make Swihart less valuable as a catcher because the Rivera's of the world can't hold a candle to Swihart at the plate. Pitch framing is one component of the overall package and overall value is what matters. So, again, either this skill isn't too hard to pick up and Swihart should, like the rest of the league, improve going forward, or it is hard, and players like Rivera are going to have to make up a huge gap offensively with their framing skills.

Of course, since PW is starting from the position that Swihart is a bad framer, he clearly doesn't know what he's talking about in the first place, so it shouldn't be shocking that his follow up post was an exercise in contradiction.
Well, I'm looking at the Baseball Prospectus stats, which has Swihart at -6.2 FRAA, of which -6 is from his framing, in a half season last year.

Christian Vazquez, on the other hand, put up +15.4 FRAA in 2014 in about 2/3rds of the opportunities, of which 14.3 came from framing.

Average out the differences in playing time and per 500 plate appearances, Vazquez in 2014 was about 48 runs better defensively than Swihart in 2015.

Offensively, of course, Vazquez was worth -8.5 runs in 2014, which projected out to 500 ABs is about -21 runs. For Swihart, that's -2.3 and -3.7 respectively.

So according to the advanced defensive metrics out there, Vazquez in 2014 was more valuable than Swihart in 2015. And furthermore in order for Swihart to hit enough to make up that gap, he'd have to be in the range of +27 runs of offense.

That means he needs to hit a bit better than Buster Posey. Just to get to even.
 
Aug 22, 2014
61
for the record those BP framing stats should be the standard imo - they take into account all 3 of the catcher, pitcher, and ump to get rid of a ton of noise in the other stats.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
Okay, but we're back to the assumption that Swihart won't improve at framing, which seems unlikely, and you're ignoring the very obvious improvement Swihart had at the plate over the course of the season. He was called up at least a year earlier than anyone planned on. It's not surprising he struggled with the bat early on. In the second half he looked like one of the best offensive catchers in the game with a 118 wRC+ after the all star break. There were exactly two catchers better than that over the entire season. He's a fair bet to be a plus at the plate next year.

You also seem to be completely unaware of Swihart's progression as a prospect. No one who has wrote about him while he was climbing up through the system has suggested he will end up being a bad defender. No one. Most have speculated he will end up a plus defender overall. His bat is already significantly better than Vazquez's. Given his reported make up, work ethic, ability and desire to learn and athleticism, it would be very surprising if he ended up a below average defender. His defensive floor is likely league average. And it's probably more likely that Swihart closes the gap on the defensive side than it is that Vazquez closes the gap at the plate. When you add in base running, I don't see it being even remotely that Vazquez ends up the better overall player.

And since Vazquez is coming back from major surgery it's kind of insane to suggest that he's anywhere but third on the depth chart going into the season which means he has an uphill climb in front of him. It's going to take the very unlikely scenario of Swihart stalling defensively and regressing with the bat for Vazquez to have an opportunity to take the starting job from him.
 

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
15,725
Michigan
I get that it would even out theoretically, but I'm wondering if it always happens in practice over a full season. My takeaway from reading about framing was similar to Max's from the part you quoted; basically, if picking up a few extra strikes per game can add three or four wins, couldn't even marginally good umpire luck add a lot more?
Maybe, but team can't replace a "bad" umpires with a "good" umpires to increase the likely number of games they will win during a season. Umpires are assigned randomly.
 

Turrable

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2011
2,670
Maybe, but team can't replace a "bad" umpires with a "good" umpires to increase the likely number of games they will win during a season. Umpires are assigned randomly.
I know, hence the last line in my post. Admittedly this probably wasn't the best thread for my question since I'm not making an argument one way or the other on the value of pitch framing, it's kind of a separate curiosity.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
Another real world test of the assumptions that underlie these calculations:

It has been stated that going from 0-0 to 0-1 turns a player from Jim Thome into a pitcher.

Doesn't that suggest that there should be tons of examples of managers having players with an 0-1 count sacrifice bunt? After all, that's what every manager does with a pitcher at the plate, a runner on base and less than 2 out.

If they don't make this change, is that another opportunity for a small market team to exploit an inefficiency?
 

PrometheusWakefield

Member
SoSH Member
May 25, 2009
10,441
Boston, MA
You also seem to be completely unaware of Swihart's progression as a prospect. No one who has wrote about him while he was climbing up through the system has suggested he will end up being a bad defender. No one. Most have speculated he will end up a plus defender overall. His bat is already significantly better than Vazquez's. Given his reported make up, work ethic, ability and desire to learn and athleticism, it would be very surprising if he ended up a below average defender. His defensive floor is likely league average. And it's probably more likely that Swihart closes the gap on the defensive side than it is that Vazquez closes the gap at the plate. When you add in base running, I don't see it being even remotely that Vazquez ends up the better overall player.
And it's too bad for him that all this is happening at a time when all the evidence indicates that the difference between an average defensive catcher and a great defensive catcher is massive, and that he happens to be on a team with a great defensive catcher.

And since Vazquez is coming back from major surgery it's kind of insane to suggest that he's anywhere but third on the depth chart going into the season which means he has an uphill climb in front of him. It's going to take the very unlikely scenario of Swihart stalling defensively and regressing with the bat for Vazquez to have an opportunity to take the starting job from him.
I guess we will see, but I doubt you are right about that. It's hardly insane to think he'll be back by Opening day, it's his actual timetable. And from this quote I think Farrell sees things closer to the way I do than the way you do:

About the catcher situation, Farrell said, "I think Christian is going to answer a lot of those questions once camp opens up. He's not going to (catch) any games until we get into the games scheduled at spring training. What he's going to need as far as recovery time in between games caught remains to be seen. So that will kind of answer itself as we get deeper into the game schedule."

Farrell said the priority is defense out of the catcher position.

"We'll prioritize the catchers to (get) the most out of the pitching staff nightly," Farrell said.
Likewise Gammons predicted that CV will get 110 starts at catcher. And personally I think this quote:

Another rising young talent, Blake Swihart, was often viewed by teams with ace-caliber pitchers to trade as a secondary piece in a deal rather than a primary one.
Suggests that the Red Sox were perfectly willing to trade Swihart if he could be the primary piece for a starting pitcher.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
You're still assuming he's going to be an average defensive catcher long term. He's only been catching since he was drafted. The progress he's made defensively has been astounding. The gap between them behind the plate is more likely to be very good to great, not average to great. But go ahead and keep ignoring pretty much everything we actually know about his development.
 

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
15,725
Michigan
It has been stated that going from 0-0 to 0-1 turns a player from Jim Thome into a pitcher. Doesn't that suggest that there should be tons of examples of managers having players with an 0-1 count sacrifice bunt? After all, that's what every manager does with a pitcher at the plate, a runner on base and less than 2 out.
Excellent observation and question.

I think the mistake you (and perhaps some others) are making is taking the Thome-to-Glavine drop too literally.

0-0 .324 OBP
0-1 .387
1-0 .256

A .131 OBP difference is significant, but the at bat isn't over. If the next pitch is a ball, then it goes back up...

1-1 .300

... and Thome is no longer Glavine.

If instead it's a strike...

0-2 .184

...you might consider bunting, except bunting with two strikes is always a losing proposition.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
How many people arguing for Vazquez to start at catcher over Swihart would trade Xander Bogaerts straight up for Jose Iglesias? That's basically what your arguing for.

I also agree with Snod. Swihart is likely to improve as a framer, much more so than Vazquez is to develop plus power.

I also agree with the person who said that if the value of catcher framing is really as high as currently being measured, then baseball needs absolutely to institute robot umpires. It is ludicrous that such a mundane act no one in the park can actually see could have so much value. It has to be deemphasized for the good of the game.

But, stepping out of that abstract realm and back to the Red Sox situation, If they aren't going to start Swihart at catcher out of the gate, they they need to trade him this offseason. His value can only go down if they send him to AAA. If he hits well down there, who cares, he already hit well in the majors. Value stays the same. But, if he hits poorly then maybe his majors last year was a fluke and value goes down. Can't risk it.

His value as a catcher to another team far exceeds any value to the Red Sox in corner infield positions. Good hitting catchers are bad hitting first basemen. Either you catch him or trade him.
 

rotundlio

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 8, 2014
323
According to BP's "Called Strikes Above Average," Swihart was one of the best receivers in the minor leagues. I certainly didn't read all that, but the model appears to be robust — I think it's their new basis for these things. Sea Dog Swihart was +20 runs. Also interesting to note how elite Mike Piazza's (and Varitek's!) pitch framing supposedly was.

It bears mentioning that ESPN, of all places, tried to quantify "game calling" in terms of runs. They found that calling a great game is even more impactful than stealing strikes...! They don't reveal their methods, and you can take that with an ocean of salt, but I'm really given to wonder what sort of data is in use by clubs.
 
Last edited:

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
15,725
Michigan
How many people arguing for Vazquez to start at catcher over Swihart would trade Xander Bogaerts straight up for Jose Iglesias? That's basically what your arguing for.
Not even close.

First, Iglesias is three years older than Bogarts, makes three times as much, and is arbitration eligible one year sooner (next year.)

Second, in 2015, they weren't that far apart offensively. Bogarts wOBA was .338. Iglesias wOBA was .315. (Or .776 vs. .717 OPS if you prefer.) Defensively, in 2015, Bogarts was better, 0.9 dWAR to Iglesias's 0.4 dWAR.

But the main reason Bogarts-for-Iglesias is probably a bad trade is Bogarts's potential upside is much higher than Iglesias's. Iggy's hitting in 2015 was surprisingly good.

According to baseballreference.com Swihart (in 2015) and Vaz (in 2014, fewer games) were worth almost exactly the same.

Vazquez 0.4 oWAR, 1.1 dWAR
Swihart 1.4 oWAR, -0.4 dWAR

And they both cost about $500K

Right now, playing Swihart or Vaz (assuming his arm is okay) is a coin toss. Going forward? If Swihart's 2nd-half hitting was for real and he improves defensively, as I expect he will, then not so much.
 

phenweigh

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2005
1,379
Brewster, MA
Defensively, in 2015, Bogarts was better, 0.9 dWAR to Iglesias's 0.4 dWAR.
I'll take the idea that Xander has become a better defender than Iglesias with a grain of salt given defensive stats are said to need three years to stabilize. However, the idea that Bogaerts had a great leap in defensive improvement is well accepted. The lesson here, IMO, is that it is foolish to think Swihart will not improve defensively. Regardless, when/if the Red Sox encounter the "problem" of having 3 healthy major league ready catchers, they'll be making decisions based on what they see in front of them and not on statistics with large error bars because the sample size isn't considered large enough yet.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
Excellent observation and question.

I think the mistake you (and perhaps some others) are making is taking the Thome-to-Glavine drop too literally.
I also made the dumb error, in my earlier post, of using the "on" count splits rather than "after", which is more meaningful for this purpose. Using "after", the gap between the average of the "strike stolen" and "strike not stolen" splits narrows to .364 (.505/.869). Rather than Thome/Glavine, that's more like turning Kevin Youkilis into Kevin Cash, which I think makes more intuitive sense.
 

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
15,725
Michigan
It's pretty silly to use rookie WAR numbers to answer an argument about upside, isn't it?
Yes, but it's all we got, data-wise, and it's a starting point.

The point is that BS and CV were roughly equivalent in their rookie years, with BS the better hitter and CV the better fielder. If fielding is considered easier to improve than hitting going forward, then you'd expect BS to have more upside, which is more-or-less what most people seem to believe.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
Yes, but it's all we got, data-wise, and it's a starting point.
That doesn't make it a good starting point. One year defensive or WAR stats are not good foundations. And rookie stats do nothing to answer a question about upside, as Savin was making as a point. Reaching for any possible stat, just because it's there to prove a point doesn't really prove anything.
 

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
15,725
Michigan
That doesn't make it a good starting point. One year defensive or WAR stats are not good foundations. And rookie stats do nothing to answer a question about upside, as Savin was making as a point. Reaching for any possible stat, just because it's there to prove a point doesn't really prove anything.
Didn't say it was a good starting point. I said it's the only starting point. Also didn't say rookie stats answer questions about upside potential.

Go ahead and be skeptical of data. I am. Data and analysis don't answer every question, but they're usually a lot better than just feelings.

My wife is rooting for Swihart because she misses Jacoby Ellsbury, but that doesn't mean Swihart is a better catcher than or will be a better catcher than Vazquez.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
It's not the only starting point. It's just the only one wrapped up in a single number that allows you to skip all that pesky thinking and research.

There is plenty of information out there that would allow you to build a decent argument for one over the other. WAR is not the foundation you are looking for. Move along.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
Didn't say it was a good starting point. I said it's the only starting point. Also didn't say rookie stats answer questions about upside potential.
Here's what I was responding to from your post:

But the main reason Bogarts-for-Iglesias is probably a bad trade is Bogarts's potential upside is much higher than Iglesias's. Iggy's hitting in 2015 was surprisingly good.

According to baseballreference.com Swihart (in 2015) and Vaz (in 2014, fewer games) were worth almost exactly the same.

Vazquez 0.4 oWAR, 1.1 dWAR
Swihart 1.4 oWAR, -0.4 dWAR
I assumed that the second quoted paragraph and the following stats were connected to the preceding paragraph, i.e., "you wouldn't trade Bogaerts for Iglesias because Bogaerts has more upside. Now Swihart for Vazquez, on the other hand...." If this isn't the case, I misread you, but if you pivot from one point to an entirely unrelated one without providing the reader any sign that you're doing so, misreadings will happen.
 

PrometheusWakefield

Member
SoSH Member
May 25, 2009
10,441
Boston, MA
How many people arguing for Vazquez to start at catcher over Swihart would trade Xander Bogaerts straight up for Jose Iglesias? That's basically what your arguing for.

I also agree with Snod. Swihart is likely to improve as a framer, much more so than Vazquez is to develop plus power.

I also agree with the person who said that if the value of catcher framing is really as high as currently being measured, then baseball needs absolutely to institute robot umpires. It is ludicrous that such a mundane act no one in the park can actually see could have so much value. It has to be deemphasized for the good of the game.

But, stepping out of that abstract realm and back to the Red Sox situation, If they aren't going to start Swihart at catcher out of the gate, they they need to trade him this offseason. His value can only go down if they send him to AAA. If he hits well down there, who cares, he already hit well in the majors. Value stays the same. But, if he hits poorly then maybe his majors last year was a fluke and value goes down. Can't risk it.

His value as a catcher to another team far exceeds any value to the Red Sox in corner infield positions. Good hitting catchers are bad hitting first basemen. Either you catch him or trade him.
The problem with the analogy here is that Iglesias hasn't really shown himself to be a superior defensive shortstop. Last year UZR had him a +2.3 runs, not really an upgrade from the +0.9 runs of X.

Would I trade X for Andrelton Simmons? I admit when I saw how little Simmons went for this offseason I was tempted to think the Sox should have traded X for Harvey and then moved a few minor prospects for Simmons. But of course there are a lot of factors at work there - Simmons is older, closer to free agency, etc etc the whole thing quickly gets complicated.

But again, there's a major difference in scale at work here. Last year, the difference between the best qualified SS (Simmons) and the worst qualified SS (Marcus Semien) was about 27 runs. According to Statcorner numbers, the difference on framing alone between the best and the worst catcher was around 42 runs. The difference between the best framing catcher and an average catcher was 26.7, so about the same as the difference between best and worst shortstops. Catcher defense matters more.
 

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
15,725
Michigan
It's not the only starting point. It's just the only one wrapped up in a single number that allows you to skip all that pesky thinking and research.
That's not quite right. It's a single number that roughly summarizes a lot of thinking and research.


There is plenty of information out there that would allow you to build a decent argument for one over the other. WAR is not the foundation you are looking for.
I am sure there is a lot of information for those arguments, but again, I'm not making an argument for starting one or the other, much less for starting Vazquez over Swihart.
 

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
15,725
Michigan
I assumed that the second quoted paragraph and the following stats were connected to the preceding paragraph, i.e., "you wouldn't trade Bogaerts for Iglesias because Bogaerts has more upside. Now Swihart for Vazquez, on the other hand...." If this isn't the case, I misread you...
It's probably my fault, but you misread me.


...but if you pivot from one point to an entirely unrelated one without providing the reader any sign that you're doing so, misreadings will happen.
Just because it's not an "A therefore B" connection doesn't mean the points are "entirely unrelated." A player's rookie stats don't tell you a lot about their potential, but they do provide a starting point [Edit: from which to measure future predicted performance.] Think of it graphically for a minute. Rookie stats are the first (pro level) data points on a prospective career performance curve. Whether the curve subsequently goes up, down, up-then-down or down-then-up or whatever is another matter.
 
Last edited:

shaggydog2000

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
11,482
The problem with the analogy here is that Iglesias hasn't really shown himself to be a superior defensive shortstop. Last year UZR had him a +2.3 runs, not really an upgrade from the +0.9 runs of X.

Would I trade X for Andrelton Simmons? I admit when I saw how little Simmons went for this offseason I was tempted to think the Sox should have traded X for Harvey and then moved a few minor prospects for Simmons. But of course there are a lot of factors at work there - Simmons is older, closer to free agency, etc etc the whole thing quickly gets complicated.

But again, there's a major difference in scale at work here. Last year, the difference between the best qualified SS (Simmons) and the worst qualified SS (Marcus Semien) was about 27 runs. According to Statcorner numbers, the difference on framing alone between the best and the worst catcher was around 42 runs. The difference between the best framing catcher and an average catcher was 26.7, so about the same as the difference between best and worst shortstops. Catcher defense matters more.
Pitch framing numbers only tell you about that aspect of Catcher defense. There are others that so far are harder to measure, right? Pitch calling for example. Then you'd also have to add in runs saved from controlling the running game. It's like only measuring fielding percentage and saying that is the only important stat for fielders. We know it's not. And now we look down on people who only look at errors, because it's too simplistic. So maybe by framing the difference is that big, but maybe once you add in other catching skills it helps even out the field. Or maybe it makes the difference even larger, we can't say without the data. So let's not get too obsessed with this one number. It's interesting stuff, and I welcome all data, but lets not dump a player who has potential to be a great all around catcher and an all-star because another young player with a recently blown out elbow who hasn't played competitive ball since his injury looks really good at one stat.

(By the way, is there a good, reliable stat to measure catcher arm/throwing/running game effect? I never hear anything about that, but it seems measurable somehow.)
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
Just because it's not an "A therefore B" connection doesn't mean the points are "entirely unrelated." A player's rookie stats don't tell you a lot about their potential, but they do provide a starting point [Edit: from which to measure future predicted performance.] Think of it graphically for a minute. Rookie stats are the first (pro level) data points on a prospective career performance curve. Whether the curve subsequently goes up, down, up-then-down or down-then-up or whatever is another matter.
I'm struggling a bit to understand the point you're making here. I mean, sure, rookie stats provide a starting point for measuring future performance, and even for projecting future performance. But they don't give us any help whatsoever in distinguishing which players are likely to outperform projections based on their rookie seasons, and which are likely to underperform them. You can say, "if Swihart is going to be much better than Vazquez, then he's going to have to improve quite a bit more from his rookie performance than Vazquez does from his." But if you use the rookie numbers to support an opinion about how likely that is, then you're basically arguing in a circle.
 

PrometheusWakefield

Member
SoSH Member
May 25, 2009
10,441
Boston, MA
It's interesting stuff, and I welcome all data, but lets not dump a player who has potential to be a great all around catcher and an all-star because another young player with a recently blown out elbow who hasn't played competitive ball since his injury looks really good at one stat.
But I'm not saying that. I'm saying lets give the guy a couple of options in terms of defensive positions this spring so that we have a couple of ways of keeping his bat in the lineup. And lets start the catcher who is going to have the best overall impact on the pitching staff.

The evidence about the defensive ability of catchers is stronger than you realize, and it's not that new any more. There's a reason that the most SABR-friendly organizations out there all have catchers with strong framing numbers (e.g. Dodgers, Cubs, Rays). Yes, you can measure other aspects of catcher performance other than game calling (which I'm skeptical is objectively measurable). BP cards have measurements for arm and blocking ability. Not surprisingly, CV is better in both categories.

BTW, guess which of these two catchers Steamer projects to have a higher RC+ in 2016?

Christian Vazquez .261/.325/.377 .702 OPS 88 RC+
Blake Swihart .265/.311/.385 .696 OPS 86 RC+
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
But I'm not saying that. I'm saying lets give the guy a couple of options in terms of defensive positions this spring so that we have a couple of ways of keeping his bat in the lineup. And lets start the catcher who is going to have the best overall impact on the pitching staff.

The evidence about the defensive ability of catchers is stronger than you realize, and it's not that new any more. There's a reason that the most SABR-friendly organizations out there all have catchers with strong framing numbers (e.g. Dodgers, Cubs, Rays). Yes, you can measure other aspects of catcher performance other than game calling (which I'm skeptical is objectively measurable). BP cards have measurements for arm and blocking ability. Not surprisingly, CV is better in both categories.

BTW, guess which of these two catchers Steamer projects to have a higher RC+ in 2016?

Christian Vazquez .261/.325/.377 .702 OPS 88 RC+
Blake Swihart .265/.311/.385 .696 OPS 86 RC+
If Christian Vazquez is a better overall value at starting catcher than Blake Swihart, then the Red Sox should trade Blake Swihart to a team that is going to use him as their starting catcher for the next decade. He is infinitely more valuable as a starting catcher than he is at any other position, because 1) we don't know if he can actually play another position, 2) other than Mookie Betts players who've changed positions in this organization have mysteriously forgotten how to hit and 3) most good hitting catchers are lousy hitting corner infielders and outfielders (and SS, 2B, and CF are taken). Thus, the value the Red Sox can get in a trade of Swihart as a starting catcher will far exceed the value they can get from Swihart as a utility player. Moreover, as I said previously, not starting Swihart immediately reduces his trade value. If you put Swihart on the bench in favor of Vazquez, then you immediately lose negotiating leverage, because you're trading a blocked backup catcher instead of trading your starting catcher. If you send Swihart to the minors and he hits well, nobody cares because he already hit well in the majors. If you send Swihart to the minors and he hits poorly, it undermines the value he built by hitting well in the second half of last season.

The same goes for Vazquez. If the Red Sox think Swihart is the better overall value as a starting catcher, then they have to trade Vazquez as soon as he proves he's healthy.

Dombrowski seems very good at these types of decisions, much better than the previous front office that consistently allowed prospect value to wither on the vine for the previous half a decade.
 

Hank Scorpio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 1, 2013
6,914
Salem, NH
How would keeping CV in AAA for most/all of 2016 affect his FA/arb eligibility? If it pushes it back a year, that's also a consideration, whereas we have a strong tandem in Swihart/Hanigan already, and Swihart to 1B in 2017 might make some sense.

Things could shake out differently if Hanley proves to be a solid defensive 1B, or one of the Travises earns a starting job. Still, Swihart at 1B could be desirable from a depth perspective if CV gets injured again.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,675
Maine
How would keeping CV in AAA for most/all of 2016 affect his FA/arb eligibility? If it pushes it back a year, that's also a consideration, whereas we have a strong tandem in Swihart/Hanigan already, and Swihart to 1B in 2017 might make some sense.

Things could shake out differently if Hanley proves to be a solid defensive 1B, or one of the Travises earns a starting job. Still, Swihart at 1B could be desirable from a depth perspective if CV gets injured again.
Vazquez would have to be off the 25-man roster for a minimum of 83 days in order to push off his FA eligibility by a season. He is currently at 1 year and 82 days of service time (one year = 180 days).
 

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
15,725
Michigan
I'm struggling a bit to understand the point you're making here. I mean, sure, rookie stats provide a starting point for measuring future performance, and even for projecting future performance. But they don't give us any help whatsoever in distinguishing which players are likely to outperform projections based on their rookie seasons, and which are likely to underperform them. You can say, "if Swihart is going to be much better than Vazquez, then he's going to have to improve quite a bit more from his rookie performance than Vazquez does from his." But if you use the rookie numbers to support an opinion about how likely that is, then you're basically arguing in a circle.
I agree with everything you said there. I don't know what the misunderstanding is about.
 

PaulinMyrBch

Don't touch his dog food
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 10, 2003
8,316
MYRTLE BEACH!!!!
The are only two reasons CV ends up at AAA this year.

1. When the team breaks spring training, he is not able to catch on consecutive days. In that case he'll go to AAA, catch 3 times a week, DH 3 times a week to build up his AB's.
2. He starts the season with the big club and goes full 2014 Jackie Bradley, batting Anderson Esponoza's weight for a few months. In that case, he goes down to work on the AB's.

He will not be down there, healthy, gunning guys, and framing better than any catcher in the bigs so we can tick off days to a delayed FA eligibility. Some of the crap in this thread is over the top, even by over the top crap in threads standards. CV (if healthy) is the catcher. Swihart is the nice little problem to have if CV is healthy. It's not the other way around.

Catcher ERA
CV in 2014 3.71, Sox ERA in 2014 4.01 (Caught 55/162 games)
BS in 2015 4.51, Sox ERA in 2015 4.31 (Caught 83/162 games)
Adjusting for team ERA, CV is roughly a half run per game better on catcher ERA.
 

PrometheusWakefield

Member
SoSH Member
May 25, 2009
10,441
Boston, MA
If Christian Vazquez is a better overall value at starting catcher than Blake Swihart, then the Red Sox should trade Blake Swihart to a team that is going to use him as their starting catcher for the next decade. He is infinitely more valuable as a starting catcher than he is at any other position, because 1) we don't know if he can actually play another position, 2) other than Mookie Betts players who've changed positions in this organization have mysteriously forgotten how to hit and 3) most good hitting catchers are lousy hitting corner infielders and outfielders (and SS, 2B, and CF are taken). Thus, the value the Red Sox can get in a trade of Swihart as a starting catcher will far exceed the value they can get from Swihart as a utility player. Moreover, as I said previously, not starting Swihart immediately reduces his trade value. If you put Swihart on the bench in favor of Vazquez, then you immediately lose negotiating leverage, because you're trading a blocked backup catcher instead of trading your starting catcher. If you send Swihart to the minors and he hits well, nobody cares because he already hit well in the majors. If you send Swihart to the minors and he hits poorly, it undermines the value he built by hitting well in the second half of last season.

The same goes for Vazquez. If the Red Sox think Swihart is the better overall value as a starting catcher, then they have to trade Vazquez as soon as he proves he's healthy.

Dombrowski seems very good at these types of decisions, much better than the previous front office that consistently allowed prospect value to wither on the vine for the previous half a decade.
Well, sort of. My Plan A this offseason was to use Swihart as the primary piece in a deal for a cost-controlled ace like Carlos Carrasco and I'd still move Swihart for a solid #2 like Jose Quintana or Tyson Ross. But it doesn't seem like his trade value is that high. And we all might be badly overstating the value of a player who profiles as average defensively at a position where everybody is now looking for defense, whose bat produced a 91 RC+ last year, and is projected for a 86 RC+ in 2016. So while I'm open to the possibility that there is someone out there, like Quintana, who would be more valuable to our team than Swihart, I think we all also need to recognize the very real chance that the market for Swihart just isn't that great and there may be no way to turn him into anything more valuable for the 2016 Red Sox than what we already have, a backup catcher who can occasionally fill in for a corner infield position.