The future behind the plate

Marceline

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2002
6,441
Canton, MA
BCsMightyJoeYoung said:
Im not so sure about that. Only close pitches would be considered a candidate for the effect. So a pitch, currently on the black and could be called a strike , would fall off the list of candidates when it becomes an obvious ball.

Edit: on further reflection I think the effect would be diminished. One assumes a smaller strike zone means their would be fewer "candidates"
Regardless of the size of the strike zone, there will always be pitches that fall into a borderline area for that strike zone. Thus, I would not infer any reduced impact from a smaller zone.
 

Mighty Joe Young

The North remembers
SoSH Member
Sep 14, 2002
8,402
Halifax, Nova Scotia , Canada
Joe Sixpack said:
Regardless of the size of the strike zone, there will always be pitches that fall into a borderline area for that strike zone. Thus, I would not infer any reduced impact from a smaller zone.
I realize this is pretty hypothetical but .. The smaller the area of the stikezone rectangle then the smaller the edges or border areas would be as well. And it's pitches in this border area that are candidates for a pitch framing effect.

But considering this skill is all about exploiting the umpire's perception of the strikezone .. And that perception is theoretically being influenced or "trained" by PitchFX feedback - it's rather difficult to project this "skill" into the future. Obviously robot umps would render it obsolete. And the better umps get at calling the strikezone correctly also makes it less important.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
6,348
Papelbon's Poutine said:
He might ask who Kelley is.
Do you think if they were having a phone conversation, Theo would ask Ben to spell the names he mentions in trade talks?
Regardless, I think if people want to move Swihart, then the best usage of him would be as trade bait unless there is a realistic expectation that he can have a consistent OPS >.820 as I would imagine other teams would value him more as a starting catcher
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
This was just tweeted by Mark Simon.
 

 
 
 
User Actions



 Following

Mark Simon@msimonespn

Defender of the Day: Red Sox C Christian Vazquez was impressive at pitch framing in a small sample of work
 
Edit: Have a bit more time so I'll add some thoughts. This falls in line with the perception of Vazquez as a plus pitch framer even if we don't know what an acceptable sample size is for drawing conclusions. The takeaway's section is interesting to me. Extending the zone lower against lefties is great as a lot of left handed power hitters are good at getting the barrel of the bat on low strikes, especially low strikes on the inside corner. Getting them to extend their swings down a little lower could result in more ground balls. This is probably a bit more valuable in Fenway, where left handed hitters going down and in to pull balls down the line where the pole is really shallow might entice them to swing at bad pitches that are getting called strikes because of his framing.
 
Additionally, opening up the lower outside corner of the plate against right handed pitchers could be very useful for pitchers like Buchholz, Masterson, Kelly, and Porcello who all throw cutters or sliders that can exploit the lower outside corner against right handed hitters.
 
As an aside, in looking at Porcello's pitch usage at Brooks Baseball I noticed that he stopped throwing the slider all together in August and September. Has there been any discussion on why? Oh, never mind. It was just classified as a cutter. Durr.
 

iayork

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 6, 2006
639
I think I posted a variant on this before, but if so here's an updated version, looking at the strike zone for Vazquez, Pierzynski, and Hanigan.  The blue line is the league average (outside the line there is more than a 50% chance of being called a ball, inside there is more than 50% chance of being called a strike); the red lines are the same (50% cutoffs) for each catcher.
 
Vazquez extends the zone at top,  bottom, and inside.  Hanigan extends the top and inside to LHB. AJ got a little bump at the top, but also lost a little at the bottom to LHB.  
 
http://www.statcorner.com/CatcherReport.php put Vazquez 3rd in baseball in +calls per game at 1.80 (minimum 1000 pitches), and Hanigan 25th at 0.23.  AJ is way down at -0.3 (for the Sox) or -1.28 (for the Cardinals).  That fits pretty well with the various visualizations.
 
I don't think Vazquez needs to bring a ton of offense to the table to make him an extremely valuable catcher.
 
Edit: Here's another way of looking at framing. I divided the area in and around the strike zone into smaller blocks, asked what the league-wide probability of a pitching being called a strike in each of those zones was, asked what the same probability was for each individual catcher, and plot the differences out as a colormap.  Blue means a lower chance of having a pitch called a strike than the league average, red means higher.
 
By this approach, Vazquez doesn't come across quite as well and Hanigan looks better. Even though there are a few big bumps for Vazquez, that's compensated by his lower chance of getting a strike in some other spots, especially on the inner part of the zone to righties.  (Some of this may be small sample size, but it is what it is.) By comparison, Hanigan has few really weak spots, even though his strong spots are not as dramatic.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
I would be really interested in data on "personal catcher" relationships, and more broadly on data showing whether a catchers ability to frame strikes improves with familiarity with the pitchers. That would shed light on whether roster continuity at these positions is important.

Another question in the same vein is whether catchers do better at framing for a staring pitcher within the game. And whether improved framing later on games happens for relief pitchers throwing to the starting catcher vs. and in game replacement. Often managers won't PH for a catcher and give the excuse of not wanting to break up a battery that was "working well together." The stats for the first question would shed light on one now tangible way that might be true. The answer to the second would show whether it was unique to the starting pitcher or if the catcher was doing better because of learning the umps zone as well as the pitchers tendencies that day.
 

iayork

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 6, 2006
639
Plympton91 said:
I would be really interested in data on "personal catcher" relationships, and more broadly on data showing whether a catchers ability to frame strikes improves with familiarity with the pitchers. That would shed light on whether roster continuity at these positions is important.

Another question in the same vein is whether catchers do better at framing for a staring pitcher within the game. And whether improved framing later on games happens for relief pitchers throwing to the starting catcher vs. and in game replacement. Often managers won't PH for a catcher and give the excuse of not wanting to break up a battery that was "working well together." The stats for the first question would shed light on one now tangible way that might be true. The answer to the second would show whether it was unique to the starting pitcher or if the catcher was doing better because of learning the umps zone as well as the pitchers tendencies that day.
The problem is that you start to run into really small sample sizes, plus tons of confounding factors.  For example, Buchholz got better results when he as pitching to Vazquez than when he was pitching to Pierzynski, but then we're not only comparing different opposing teams, it's different times of year, and so on and so on; and on top of that, he pitched one great game (his complete game 3-hitter on Aug 31) to Vazquez, while his other games weren't all that great.  If you try to compare across seasons to increase your sample size, the confounding factors become even greater, because things change so much year to year.
 
It might be possible to look at framing on a per-inning basis, but I'm not sure there's a really strong rationale for it, and sample sizes are again going to be a big problem. 
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
I would think that you could get reasonable sample sizes looking across lots of teams and players. I agree looking at one specific pairing in one season or one pitcher across multiple seasons would be subject to a lot of the confounding factors you have listed. But if for instance, the "getting better as the game goes on" effect is real you should just be able to take the first three innings, middle 3, and last three innings for all games in which a catcher caught the full 9 innings.

As Larry Summers says, if it's no visible in a scatter plot, you should be skeptical anyway.
 

iayork

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 6, 2006
639
Plympton91 said:
I would think that you could get reasonable sample sizes looking across lots of teams and players. I agree looking at one specific pairing in one season or one pitcher across multiple seasons would be subject to a lot of the confounding factors you have listed. But if for instance, the "getting better as the game goes on" effect is real you should just be able to take the first three innings, middle 3, and last three innings for all games in which a catcher caught the full 9 innings.

As Larry Summers says, if it's no visible in a scatter plot, you should be skeptical anyway.
I'm skeptical.
 

tomdeplonty

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 23, 2013
585
There may be something not quite as you intended it to be with that gif. There are four frames; the first two are the same except for the labels (all innings vs. 1-3). True of both sides. (This is what I see looking at each frame as a still in Preview on a Mac).
 

iayork

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 6, 2006
639
tomdeplonty said:
There may be something not quite as you intended it to be with that gif. There are four frames; the first two are the same except for the labels (all innings vs. 1-3). True of both sides. (This is what I see looking at each frame as a still in Preview on a Mac).
Thanks, fixed now
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
Thanks for taking the time to do that, it is exactly what I had in mind. Is there a way to slow down the switch rate? I can barely focus on any one part of the plot before it redraws. One of the things I found interesting in the plots with 16 zones was that the ability to frame pitches differed by where the pitch was in the zone.
 

iayork

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 6, 2006
639
Plympton91 said:
Thanks for taking the time to do that, it is exactly what I had in mind. Is there a way to slow down the switch rate? I can barely focus on any one part of the plot before it redraws.  
http://iayork.com/Images/2015/1-3-15/K_zone%20frames/
 
But you don't need to focus on them. The point is that they're the same.
 
Plympton91 said:
One of the things I found interesting in the plots with 16 zones was that the ability to frame pitches differed by where the pitch was in the zone.
I don't know what you mean by this.  It sounds as if you're saying that framing effectiveness depends on where the pitch is, which is the whole point about framing, and which you can't see with the larger blocks anyway because they munge together large chunks of space in a misleading way.
 

CSteinhardt

"Steiny"
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
3,201
Cambridge
iayork said:
 
According to http://www.statcorner.com/CatcherReport.php, in 2014 the top ten catchers in terms of pitch framing were from 1.43-2.21 +calls per game.  In 2008, before the strike zone expanded appreciably, the top ten catchers were from 1.50-4.08.  So there's little difference (aside from Molina getting older), but if anything, it looks as if the reverse is true - the smaller zone gives more opportunity for catchers to work their magic.
 
The bigger effect likely comes from the reduced number of strikes rather than the changed location of the strike zone boundary.  Adding, say, 1 strike per 75 pitches thrown is more valuable as strikes become rare (and thus each strike more valuable), and if a reduced zone means more pitches thrown, will also mean more strikes added.  
 

O Captain! My Captain!

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 3, 2009
3,532
This is less a catcher issue, but why is the landing spot for Swihart moving off catcher assumed to be 1b? Is the catcher-to-3b transition no longer considered particularly viable? Russell Martin played 3b a few times for LAD, Carlos Santana played 26 games there last year for the Indians, and of course our very own Pablo Sandoval was once a bad defensive catcher before becoming a good third baseman. By the time Swihart's bat starts to force the issue, Sandoval to 1b may be a viable option, and Swihart's athleticism would seem to play well at third.
 

foulkehampshire

hillbilly suburbanite
SoSH Member
Feb 25, 2007
5,099
Wesport, MA
O Captain! My Captain! said:
This is less a catcher issue, but why is the landing spot for Swihart moving off catcher assumed to be 1b? Is the catcher-to-3b transition no longer considered particularly viable? Russell Martin played 3b a few times for LAD, Carlos Santana played 26 games there last year for the Indians, and of course our very own Pablo Sandoval was once a bad defensive catcher before becoming a good third baseman. By the time Swihart's bat starts to force the issue, Sandoval to 1b may be a viable option, and Swihart's athleticism would seem to play well at third.
 
People are assuming 1B because its a traditional conversion spot for catchers. Swiharts athleticism and build is definitely not the norm for a catcher, so 2B/3B/OF shouldn't necessarily be out of the realm of possibility.  
 

payne8567

New Member
Jul 9, 2007
126
foulkehampshire said:
 
People are assuming 1B because its a traditional conversion spot for catchers. Swiharts athleticism and build is definitely not the norm for a catcher, so 2B/3B/OF shouldn't necessarily be out of the realm of possibility.  
 
 
This is a great point. Swihart certainly has the athleticism to allow a Biggio-type conversion to an above average defensive spectrum position. I'd like to see him get a shot at RF for Pawtucket considering his plus arm, good instincts, and at least average athleticism. Considering Nava was a viable (although not ideal) option for this team in RF, it would not be a stretch, IMHO, to contend that Swihart has a better arm as well as a faster pace than Nava and would likely provide more value at the plate given that he can actually hit from both sides of the plate with success. I'd love to see him get a week or so of reps in the OF either in AAA, or even better in ST where he can learn the Fenway RF.
 
*optimistic scenario* 2016 Hanley-> 1B; Mookie-> LF; Rusney stays in CF; Swihart-> RF; Vazquez-> Full-time C
 
It seems a consensus here that if the Sox keep both Vazquez and Swihart to play solely catcher, that both of their values' will not be maximized. I think it would be prudent to move Swihart off catcher, especially as Hanigan is signed through 2017 and is a good backup C.
 

Puffy

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 14, 2006
1,263
Town
I don't know why the Sox would move Swihart off catcher in 2015.  Swihart is looking like a very promising catcher on both sides of the ball - and probably needs another year of development anyway. Why not wait and see how he progresses and evaluate Vasquez in a full time role at the same time? It seems silly to switch his development track right now when he seems to be on the verge of becoming a solid major league catcher and we don't even know if Vasquez is going to be able to hold that role or not.
 

jasvlm

New Member
Nov 28, 2014
177
Puffy said:
I don't know why the Sox would move Swihart off catcher in 2015.  Swihart is looking like a very promising catcher on both sides of the ball - and probably needs another year of development anyway. Why not wait and see how he progresses and evaluate Vasquez in a full time role at the same time? It seems silly to switch his development track right now when he seems to be on the verge of becoming a solid major league catcher and we don't even know if Vasquez is going to be able to hold that role or not.
 
It would be terribly premature to imagine Swihart changing positions any time in the next 2 seasons, and projecting guys to be sliding around the defensive spectrum is a fool's errand.  So much can happen to impact the club's decisions about defensive positions: injuries, trade opportunities, contract status, Farrell's preferences and opinions and prospect emergence would all influence the front office's impression of what 2015 and beyond will look like.  There is zero indication that Swihart is not suited to be at least an average major league catcher, and he could well develop into a plus asset behind the plate with his athleticism.  His capacity as a switch hitter with offensive upside makes his positional value dramatically higher as a catcher than anywhere else he might project to be able to play.  He might never be Vazquez' equal as a receiver, framer, and gun behind the plate, but if he's hitting .280/.340/.440 in today's offensive environment, he's an all star.  I like Vazquez as much as the next fellow, but I'd rather see Swihart emerge as the starter by August if he's hitting (and defending) at AAA this year, and allow Vazquez to be his defensive mentor and backup for the next several seasons.  I believe this is what the Sox hope will happen as well.  Swihart is the catcher of the very near future, provided he continues to develop and hit as he has over the past 18 months.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,250
O Captain! My Captain! said:
This is less a catcher issue, but why is the landing spot for Swihart moving off catcher assumed to be 1b? Is the catcher-to-3b transition no longer considered particularly viable? Russell Martin played 3b a few times for LAD, Carlos Santana played 26 games there last year for the Indians, and of course our very own Pablo Sandoval was once a bad defensive catcher before becoming a good third baseman. By the time Swihart's bat starts to force the issue, Sandoval to 1b may be a viable option, and Swihart's athleticism would seem to play well at third.
 
Craig Biggio, of course, is the poster child for this point.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
6,348
jasvlm said:
 
It would be terribly premature to imagine Swihart changing positions any time in the next 2 seasons, and projecting guys to be sliding around the defensive spectrum is a fool's errand.  So much can happen to impact the club's decisions about defensive positions: injuries, trade opportunities, contract status, Farrell's preferences and opinions and prospect emergence would all influence the front office's impression of what 2015 and beyond will look like.  There is zero indication that Swihart is not suited to be at least an average major league catcher, and he could well develop into a plus asset behind the plate with his athleticism.  His capacity as a switch hitter with offensive upside makes his positional value dramatically higher as a catcher than anywhere else he might project to be able to play.  He might never be Vazquez' equal as a receiver, framer, and gun behind the plate, but if he's hitting .280/.340/.440 in today's offensive environment, he's an all star.  I like Vazquez as much as the next fellow, but I'd rather see Swihart emerge as the starter by August if he's hitting (and defending) at AAA this year, and allow Vazquez to be his defensive mentor and backup for the next several seasons.  I believe this is what the Sox hope will happen as well.  Swihart is the catcher of the very near future, provided he continues to develop and hit as he has over the past 18 months.
 
The problem here though is that a backup Catcher of Vazquez' ability is worth more to another team than to the Sox if he's only playing 25% of the time.  He'd be worth more in a deal to bring a full time player back.  It's the same problem as when people expect/want the Sox to have ML quality starters as backup players.  If Swihart is behind the dish 75% of the time, it'd make sense to have someone like Hanigan behind the plate the other 25% rather than a cost controlled, young potential All Star like Vazquez.
 

ALiveH

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
1,104
Very premature to draw any conclusions on Swihart or Vazquez.  If Swihart develops to his potential (say 0.770 OPS with above average defense) then that is an all-star catcher.  If Vazquez develops to his potential (say 0.670 OPS and top-3 MLB defensive catcher) that is also an all-star catcher.  I'd argue b/c of the defensive premium at the position, if both develop to their potential, then it makes more sense to keep Vazquez behind the dish full-time with Swihart going somewhere else where he can be at least average defensively (and maybe his legs are fresher so his OPS is say 0.800 in that scenario).  Supposedly Swihart is an above-average athlete but I've seen limited information on where he'd best fit defensively other than catcher (1B/2B/3B/RF/LF?)  We don't know his reaction time on ground balls, how he reads fly balls off the bat, where his throwing arm fits best, etc.
 

flymrfreakjar

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 30, 2006
2,915
Brooklyn
I think by the time this is an issue it will make infinitely more sense to ship one of them off in order to address an area of need.
 

koufax37

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
2,472
Moving off of catcher is a difficult thing for me.  At the Posey/Mauer elite bat level you want to maximize your performance both in terms of wear and tear and the total number of games played, but lots of big bats cannot catch, so keeping the ones who can there allows you to build a stronger lineup as a result.
 
Vazquez makes it harder because his defense is so elite at a position where we are only starting to get a clear sense of measurable value, and it is more than people had previously thought.  Hoping that Swihart can be valuable as a corner bat seems reasonable, but you have to evaluate the long term value of three situations:
 
A) Vazquez C#1, Hannigan-type C#2, Swihart Corner
B) Swihart C#1, Vazquez C#2, Hanley/Pablo/Victorino/Betts/Napoli type Corner
C) Swihart C#1, Hannigan-type C#2, Hanley/others type Corner, plus the trade value returned by trading Vazquez.
 
You could also boldly reverse C and trade Swihart, but I will leave that out for now.
 
My issue with A) are, I don't think Swihart necessarily has enough offensive value to differentiate himself from the pack of corner types. Sure on the upside he means not signing a Pablo/Hanley and having that much more money to spend, but he hasn't yet demonstrated to be close to that level of offense.
 
My concern with B) is that we don't maximize value and end up sitting Swihart or Vazquez too much (Keith Law when asked this week about trading Vazquez said "Trade. Too good to be a backup. Both guys look like starters to me.").
 
My concern with C) is of course that we trade too low or too soon, and Vazquez goes all Yadi for another team, while Swihart follows the heralded switch hitter path of Salty and never becomes great.
 
So my thoughts would be on having them share time (B) when Swihart is ready, and hopefully have enough info after the first partial season of that to consider whether A or C is the better offseason option before 2016.
 
I also want to throw out there (potentially in Swihart's favor and to the detriment of Vazquez) that pitch framing value may have already peaked historically.
 
As umpires and MLB and analytics all have it pretty clear that it means "Duped the dumb umpire", the very reputation for being great at it will work against a catcher.  When that happens the zone of "borderline" pitches that an umpire will judge based on catcher receiving mechanics will narrow, and some of the top "thieves" will potentially be even overtly or subconsciously punished on these by umpires not interested in playing the Washington Generals to the tricksters.
 
Maybe I am being slightly too optimistic that umpire pride in accuracy and zone consistency will outweigh the ghost of Eric Gregg, but it really seems to me that pitch framing as a skill is completely subjective to umpires playing along, and the more it is talked about, the more umpires will work actively to reduce it.
 

jasvlm

New Member
Nov 28, 2014
177
koufax37 said:
Moving off of catcher is a difficult thing for me.  At the Posey/Mauer elite bat level you want to maximize your performance both in terms of wear and tear and the total number of games played, but lots of big bats cannot catch, so keeping the ones who can there allows you to build a stronger lineup as a result.
 
Vazquez makes it harder because his defense is so elite at a position where we are only starting to get a clear sense of measurable value, and it is more than people had previously thought.  Hoping that Swihart can be valuable as a corner bat seems reasonable, but you have to evaluate the long term value of three situations:
 
A) Vazquez C#1, Hannigan-type C#2, Swihart Corner
B) Swihart C#1, Vazquez C#2, Hanley/Pablo/Victorino/Betts/Napoli type Corner
C) Swihart C#1, Hannigan-type C#2, Hanley/others type Corner, plus the trade value returned by trading Vazquez.
 
You could also boldly reverse C and trade Swihart, but I will leave that out for now.
 
My issue with A) are, I don't think Swihart necessarily has enough offensive value to differentiate himself from the pack of corner types. Sure on the upside he means not signing a Pablo/Hanley and having that much more money to spend, but he hasn't yet demonstrated to be close to that level of offense.
 
My concern with B) is that we don't maximize value and end up sitting Swihart or Vazquez too much (Keith Law when asked this week about trading Vazquez said "Trade. Too good to be a backup. Both guys look like starters to me.").
 
My concern with C) is of course that we trade too low or too soon, and Vazquez goes all Yadi for another team, while Swihart follows the heralded switch hitter path of Salty and never becomes great.
 
So my thoughts would be on having them share time (B) when Swihart is ready, and hopefully have enough info after the first partial season of that to consider whether A or C is the better offseason option before 2016.
 
I also want to throw out there (potentially in Swihart's favor and to the detriment of Vazquez) that pitch framing value may have already peaked historically.
 
As umpires and MLB and analytics all have it pretty clear that it means "Duped the dumb umpire", the very reputation for being great at it will work against a catcher.  When that happens the zone of "borderline" pitches that an umpire will judge based on catcher receiving mechanics will narrow, and some of the top "thieves" will potentially be even overtly or subconsciously punished on these by umpires not interested in playing the Washington Generals to the tricksters.
 
Maybe I am being slightly too optimistic that umpire pride in accuracy and zone consistency will outweigh the ghost of Eric Gregg, but it really seems to me that pitch framing as a skill is completely subjective to umpires playing along, and the more it is talked about, the more umpires will work actively to reduce it.
I think this is a reasoned account of the Sox options regarding their catching position.  The most obvious take away from this is that their best course of action is to just wait and see what they've got in Vazquez and see how Swihart develops at AAA.  I'm all for that scenario.  They already have Vazquez and Hanigan lined up to catch in 2015, with Swihart at AAA should there be an injury.  If Swihart is killing the ball and continues to be a solid defensive catcher, they'll have that much more information about what they should do for 2016 and beyond.  Vazquez may well end up having a better offensive season as well, and could improve his trade value if the Sox are convinced that Swihart is the guy they want to make their long term catcher.  
Catchers get hurt.  There is no rule against have 2 starting caliber catchers should both Swihart and Vazquez prove able in that role.  If they can address a major hole elsewhere by dealing Vazquez at that time, I'd be all for it.  Until then, I think they'll wait to see how things develop and hope to see progress from both Swihart and Vazquez in 2015.
 

Mike F

Mayor of Fort Myers
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 13, 2000
2,068
 
Maybe I am being slightly too optimistic that umpire pride in accuracy and zone consistency will outweigh the ghost of Eric Gregg, /quote]
IMO nothing spirit or human, save Prince Fielder, outweighs Eric Gregg.
 

jasvlm

New Member
Nov 28, 2014
177
Mike F said:
 
Maybe I am being slightly too optimistic that umpire pride in accuracy and zone consistency will outweigh the ghost of Eric Gregg, /quote]
IMO nothing spirit or human, save Prince Fielder, outweighs Eric Gregg.
I don't think catcher framing is a skill that will lose its value, no matter what the umpires do to try to "tighten their zones".  Catchers that can receive the ball softly, and keep from snapping at the ball or swinging their arms obviously to move the location will always have an edge in terms of getting calls for their pitchers.  Vazquez is particularly adept at it, and he's likely to get better with experience.  Swihart will have to learn that, but Vazquez is a great teacher, and I hope they have a chance to work together soon.
 

koufax37

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
2,472
I definitely appreciate good receiving skills, and as a former nibbling soft tosser, the difference between getting a close call very often depended on how my catcher did more than I did.
 
I don't mean to suggest that it will lose ALL of its value, but just as umpires used to give control pitchers inches off the plate on purpose that they "earned", I think umpires continue to reward good receivers and framers at all levels, primarily because it makes them look good in their call.  Mike Piazza used to carry good pitches out of the zone and I can only imagine how his data would stack up.
 
But what is different, is that the defined, measurable skill of pitch framing includes two components:
 
1) split on borderline pitches that really could/should go either way.
 
2) making definite close balls get called strikes or making definite close strikes get called balls.
 
There is probably a lot of room for #1 to continue, although as Umpires see data that Yadier gets 80% of borderlines and Salty gets 30% they might take minor professional offense to that and compensate.
 
But I am more speaking about #2.  This is where effectively a catcher either tricks an umpire into an incorrect call, or a catcher is rewarded by the umpire with an intentional incorrect call.  I think this is an area that as pitch location data continues to be more accurately reported and analyzed and presented, umpires will try very hard and be pressured by the league to improve and eliminate.
 
I know the strikezone isn't covered by replay, etc, but as more data is presented and it is communicated which umpires struggle and which catchers are adept at gaining incorrect calls, I think the trend will be towards fewer pitches being affected by a catcher's actions and more pitches called based on location as they cross the plate.  It might take years for this to have any significant impact, but I think the direction of change being toward reducing the value of framing to a catcher's run prevention ability.
 
Only time will tell if my expectation will come to be, but I think that the measuring of pitch framing is so new, we haven't yet had time for the logical counter action I anticipate.  It could come relatively quickly and importantly if MLB pressures umpires for pitch calling accuracy instead of it just being professional pride by ridiculed umpires.
 

jasvlm

New Member
Nov 28, 2014
177
There may well be an organizational bias towards aggressively pursuing good pitch framers (Vazquez and Hanigan are both excellent in this area), but it would have to be a new change in focus.  Salty was below average as a pitch framer, and AJP was a disaster, and has been below average in that area for most of his career.  If the Sox are indeed trying to move towards focusing on pitch framing as a design aspect for the catching position, it would certainly be a welcome (and visible) reconfiguration.  I think it was apparent when they cut AJP and let Vazquez catch that the pitchers started getting a lot more borderline calls.  Perhaps that is an expectation bias, but that is how it looked from my perspective.  I'm sure there are numbers to support such a claim, but I'm too lazy to present them here.
 

koufax37

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
2,472
jasvlm said:
There may well be an organizational bias towards aggressively pursuing good pitch framers (Vazquez and Hanigan are both excellent in this area), but it would have to be a new change in focus.  Salty was below average as a pitch framer, and AJP was a disaster, and has been below average in that area for most of his career.  If the Sox are indeed trying to move towards focusing on pitch framing as a design aspect for the catching position, it would certainly be a welcome (and visible) reconfiguration.  I think it was apparent when they cut AJP and let Vazquez catch that the pitchers started getting a lot more borderline calls.  Perhaps that is an expectation bias, but that is how it looked from my perspective.  I'm sure there are numbers to support such a claim, but I'm too lazy to present them here.
I agree with this. Win impact or not it drove me crazy to watch Salty and AJ back there, and seeing Vazquez was a pure joy. And I don't think the skill is immediately worthless now or in five years by any stretch of the argument.

I was just introducing an argument that it's value may have peaked and decline in coming years as a factor in the Swihart vs Vazquez dilemma.

I am still not all the way in the Swihart camp, and really want to see Vazquez have some Yadier like offensive progression because he is a tremendous defensive catcher.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,510
Rogers Park
Rudy Pemberton said:
Do we have any insight in to how game situation / score effects framing? I'd assume that a borderline call on 3-0 is a lot more likely to get a called a strike than when it's 0-2, and that's not necessarily framing. Same goes in a 7-0 game vs. a 2-1. For all the talk of how great a framer Vazquez is, the team had it's worst BB and K rates with him as catcher. Granted, there's a ton of noise there- the caliber of pitchers he was catching was not very good either, but wondering...is framing more important with certain pitchers than others. Apologize if what I'm saying isn't clear; certainly Vazquez seems to be a very good defensive catcher, I just wonder if we are too caught up in the framing #s which are based on a really small sample of extraordinary circumstances.
 
We have insights into counts, at least. 
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
The discussion of whether or not to trade Swihart for Hamels in the Hamels thread got me thinking about how valuable Swihart is right now.

Consider:

1) Suppose they didn't have Vazquez, would it be crazy to think that Swihart could come into spring training and win the starting catcher job (even assuming they'd paired another journeyman with Hannigan)? If Vazquez were not an option, would anyone be willing to trade Swihart for Hamels? I highly doubt it.

2) Are we seriously overrating Vazquez relative to Swihart? While obvious that Vazquez has all world defensive skills, I haven't read a single thing that suggests Swihart isn't average to above as a receiver. Given that Swihart has an offensive ceiling that is potentially 100 to 150 OPS points above Vazquez, would it be crazy to think that Swihart with a strong spring could beat out Vazquez if he has a weak one?

Now, with all that said though, after checking the stats, the narrative of Swihart having a much higher offensive ceiling is based largely on scouting eyes, I think. If you compare them at the same ages and at the same level, Swihart is often somewhat better but it is not unanimous. As 22 year olds in Portland, Swihart had a 840 OPS compared with 771 for Vazquez. As 21 year olds in Salem, Swihart was 794 while Vazquez was 756. But as 20 year olds in Greenville, Vazquez was 856 and Swihart was 702.

It's a hard choice with massive implications for the franchise over the next decade; with as hard as it is, I'd want more time to evaluate them both. In addition, I'm guessing that now is not their peak trade value. Both seem likely to build on last season's success, which will only make them better chips in the post-all star break market.
 

charlieoscar

Member
Sep 28, 2014
1,339
Look at Vazquez's passed balls and maybe errors for his mlb season in relation to those of teams for the full season. His defensive strength seems mostly to come from throwing out runners and at least some of that is controlled by pitchers.

I think the big question is how well he will hit.
 

Snodgrass'Muff

oppresses WARmongers
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2008
27,644
Roanoke, VA
charlieoscar said:
Look at Vazquez's passed balls and maybe errors for his mlb season in relation to those of teams for the full season. His defensive strength seems mostly to come from throwing out runners and at least some of that is controlled by pitchers.

I think the big question is how well he will hit.
 
It's well documented that the Red Sox love his pitch framing. His ability to throw out runners is a big plus, but his pitch framing is what they rave about. I'm a Swihart guy when comparing the two, but Vazquez is to catcher defense what Iglesias was/is to shortstop. There are people who already think he's the best defensive catcher in the game.
 
And to answer Plympton's question, yes, I think people are overrating Vazquez relative to Swihart. It's tough to be sure by how much because of how little ability we have to quantify his pitch framing skills, but Swihart is rated, at worst, as an average defender, and has had quite a few people project him as plus. Even if Vazquez hits his ceiling with the bat, Swihart is likely to be more valuable overall. Vazquez's ceiling is probably something like a .340 to .350 OBP hitter with maybe 10 HR power. Swihart's power probably ends up in the 15-20 range with a similar OBP, better contact skills and the ability to steal some bases. If Swihart hits his ceiling, you're looking at a Buster Posey type player.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Also, Vazquez .856 OPS was in his 2nd year at the level, which is in large part why he was getting no attention that year. It's not really a fair comparison.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
8,681
Maybe it's just me, but I'd be willing to take the risk that one or both of Vasquez and Swihart flame out and lose value and see if the Sox actually do develop two above-average everyday catchers.  If that scenario comes to pass, then either the team is going to have the best catching tandem in the game or they are going to have one incredibly valuable young everyday player to trade. 
 

Doctor G

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 24, 2007
2,331
Snodgrass'Muff said:
It's well documented that the Red Sox love his pitch framing. His ability to throw out runners is a big plus, but his pitch framing is what they rave about. I'm a Swihart guy when comparing the two, but Vazquez is to catcher defense what Iglesias was/is to shortstop. There are people who already think he's the best defensive catcher in the game.
 
And to answer Plympton's question, yes, I think people are overrating Vazquez relative to Swihart. It's tough to be sure by how much because of how little ability we have to quantify his pitch framing skills, but Swihart is rated, at worst, as an average defender, and has had quite a few people project him as plus. Even if Vazquez hits his ceiling with the bat, Swihart is likely to be more valuable overall. Vazquez's ceiling is probably something like a .340 to .350 OBP hitter with maybe 10 HR power. Swihart's power probably ends up in the 15-20 range with a similar OBP, better contact skills and the ability to steal some bases. If Swihart hits his ceiling, you're looking at a Buster Posey type player.
One point in Swihart's favor is his handling of Ed Rod in Portland. Rodriquez made a quantum leap forward with Swihart calling his pitches. This also goes for the rest of that staff. He did a real good job of working with guys developing effective off speed repertoires.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
Doctor G said:
One point in Swihart's favor is his handling of Ed Rod in Portland. Rodriquez made a quantum leap forward with Swihart calling his pitches. This also goes for the rest of that staff. He did a real good job of working with guys developing effective off speed repertoires.
There's a really good article on one of the Red Sox sites right now, I think maybe Over the Monster, in which Ed Rod credits Bob Kipper with the results in Portland. It seems Baltimore was constantly tinkering with Ed Rod's change up causing him to lose confidence in the pitch. So, when he was traded to Boston, he asked Kipper to help him refine his change up. Kipper watched him throw one bullpen session, and told him his change up was a perfectly good pitch, and he should start throwing it early and often. So, with renewed confidence and a new repertoire, Ed Rod dominated for Portland.
 

edoug

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
6,007
Plympton91 said:
There's a really good article on one of the Red Sox sites right now, I think maybe Over the Monster, in which Ed Rod credits Bob Kipper with the results in Portland. It seems Baltimore was constantly tinkering with Ed Rod's change up causing him to lose confidence in the pitch. So, when he was traded to Boston, he asked Kipper to help him refine his change up. Kipper watched him throw one bullpen session, and told him his change up was a perfectly good pitch, and he should start throwing it early and often. So, with renewed confidence and a new repertoire, Ed Rod dominated for Portland.
This maybe the story you're referring
 
http://www.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/alex-speier/2014/09/20/did-red-sox-land-their-future-ace-deadline-rev
 
John Sickels opinion of Swihart.  
http://www.minorleagueball.com/2015/1/19/7815629/boston-red-sox-top-20-prospects-for-2015