2016 Red Sox Hot Stove Discussion Thread

[Dojji]

I think there's a risk in taking a guy who needs reps at catcher still, and trying to drill him in 2 other positions. Remember that Swihart converted to catcher full time only after signing with the Red Sox in the first place. He's less experienced behind the dish than your average rookie catcher and still has a lot to learn. Throwing third base and first base in on top of that may confuse him and result in a worse defensive catcher.

 

It's just a factor to bear in mind.

[User Name]

It depends on whether or not Vasquez runs away with the position. If he does, what I suggest may be Swihart's only clear path towards MLB playing time.

[Dojji]

That's true, and Swihart, if he converted successfully to 3B, would instantly be second on our depth chart at that position, and the same for first base. It's a question of how much they want Swihart's bat at catcher.

 

There's definite arguments for moving Swihart to any of 4 different positions that are not catcher, and letting him do his damage with the stick at positions where he'll get more time. Besides the two you mention, he's got corner outfield experience from his college days, so I have little doubt that he can slot in at left field, and only a little more doubt in his ability as a potential right fielder. And there's no reason not to believe his bat would allow him to play the corners either.

 

THe question pretty much comes down to, how good does Vazquez have to be *offensively* to kick an offense-first catcher out of his position? We think we know that Vazquez will outplay Swihart on D, but considering the verbal commitment to Swihart as the opening day catcher what's the minimum Vazquez has to hit in order to keep himself in the running as a potential starter or even beat Swihart out? Does just obtaining a reasonable OBP get it done? Does there have to be some XBH potential there which Vazquez really hasn't shown yet at any level?

[User Name]

They're probably looking at an OBP cut-off point if you ask me. He should have the ability to produce around average power numbers for a catcher, per the scouting report, but his BA and OBP abilities are what really lag behind. Then again, I heard someone say before he went down for TJ that "they may have to create a new, higher qualifier" in the 20-80 scale to rate his D.

[mvp 78]

Turning Swihart into a hybrid C/1B/3B with his athleticism might provide the Sox with fantastic insurance against injury at C, and suck at the corners. I think he has the tools to pull it off. I remember Ruseell Martin playing a decent 3B with the Dodgers there for a while.

 

Swihart should be C only this year. Give him a full year in the bigs to backup Vazquez and continue his defensive growth. If his defense lags, move him to 3b in 2017 and move Pablo to 1b (if he's still around). Swihart is athletic enough to play any of the corner positions.

[Dojji]

The fly in the ointment in that theory is Hanigan. Just throwing away a skilled and experienced veteran backstop is not an option. Hanigan will break camp with the team and that means one of Vazquez and Swihart will probably not.

[cp176]

A couple of other fles might be Shaw, Travis, and Deevers. I like Swihart a whole bunch but those other guys aren't just their for window dressing.

[Dojji]

Brock Holt is a factor too, if Panda screws up bad enough he may wind up being our every day 3B

[cp176]

Brock Holt is a factor too, if Panda screws up bad enough he may wind up being our every day 3B

 

I think that all in all the Sox have some pretty good potential backup plans for both Ramirez and Sandoval. I also think that we will see Benintendi on a fast track upward. Same goes for Moncada if they can figure out where he fits fielding wise. It is possible that he becomes the third baseman of the future. The issues with his footwork might require getting him away from second base.

[User Name]

It's unlikely that either of those guys get an AB at the MLB level this year, unless something truly catastrophic happens. Fortunately, the Sox enjoy good depth (an usual sore spot) position-player wise, and might do so pitching wise as well depending on how their MiLB arms progress this year.

[cp176]

You are probably right here. I might see a late season callup possibly all pending. I'm anxious for them to move because I think that very soon they will provide us with better options than we have right now. No one wants these guys rushed but they have the potential to help fill out a truly good roster. If they perform like their short history says they should, if nothing else they might send a message to the boys currently in their roster spots that there is some good competition to play.

[mvp 78]

Brock Holt is a factor too, if Panda screws up bad enough he may wind up being our every day 3B

 

He would have to flat out murder someone to be completely benched. They aren't going to have his salary just warming the bench.

[mvp 78]

It's unlikely that either of those guys get an AB at the MLB level this year, unless something truly catastrophic happens. Fortunately, the Sox enjoy good depth (an usual sore spot) position-player wise, and might do so pitching wise as well depending on how their MiLB arms progress this year.

 

Beninterdi could be a Sept call up. Maybe...

[Dojji]

He would have to flat out murder someone to be completely benched. They aren't going to have his salary just warming the bench.

 

Why not? They've done it before. Holding a player in his position because of the sunk cost fallacy is just stupid.

 

Mark my words, if they're competing for a playoff spot and Sandoval is sucking it up, he will sit. If they're not competitive it doesn't matter as much and he might squeak by, but if he's terrible and the team is in position to do something, I have no doubt that they will sit Sandoval by the end of May.

[User Name]

They did with Lowell, they will do it with Panda if he's stinking up the joint.

[sk7326]

If Benenintendi is up before September, it's either REALLY BAD NEWS (see: 2015 Catcher injuries) or REALLY GOOD NEWS (see: 2014 Betts refusing to be ignored)

[Kimmi]

Where are you getting the 9th has the highest average leverage inning? The only advantage an offense has that inning is pinch hitting. Statistically does the meat of the order come up that inning more than other times, or does it have to do with the pressure of holding a lead on the offense? Why would the 9th be the inning with the most pressure to the defense on average?

 

The discussion is using your best reliever at the most advantageous situation. Not the hypothetical team than only has one good reliever.

 

We may be only talking a game or two a year for most teams as they are constructed in this era, but a game is a game.

 

When a crises cometh...... why wait until there may be a crises in the 9th when there may not be and you already have one..?

 

According to The Hardball Times, if you take out the bottom of the 9th inning (due to selection bias), the leverage index increases slightly in the 7th and 8th innings, then drops in the top of the 9th.

 

http://www.hardballtimes.com/tht-live/leverage-index-by-inning/

 

Also, I have read that, statistically, the meat of the order comes up more often in the 8th inning while the 6-9 guys come up more often in the 9th, but intuitively, that doesn't make sense to me. I haven't been able to verify that one way or the other.

 

I agree with you completely. Why worry about saving your best reliever for a situation that might never materialize when you are facing a crisis in the 8th inning?

[Kimmi]

This would mean that, hypothetically, the closer would have to be prepared to come in the game any time from the 6th inning on, maybe even earlier. That could be beneficial in one particular game, but over the course of the season I'm not sure it would work out so well.

 

It's a valid point that you can't have your closer warming up several times during the game. I don't think you need to have the closer ready before the 7th, because there is still enough of the game left for your offense to have a chance to come back.

 

My gripe is against the idea that a closer cannot be brought into the game during a crucial time in the 7th or 8th inning because he needs to be saved for the 9th inning. The 9th inning save situation may never materialize.

 

Another situation is in extra inning games, when managers won't bring their closers into tie games when they're on the road. Why not? Because they're saving the closer for a save situation which, again, may never materialize. In the meantime, Joe Bum has been brought into the game and has coughed up 4 runs, while your best relief pitcher sits on the bench.

[Kimmi]

What is missing in this argument is the fact that managers don't manage one game at a time except in the playoffs and then only in the later games. Major leaguers need consistency to be successful. The closers role didn't just suddenly appear over night, It evolved over the last hundred years this game has been played. The stats show a trend to using more relievers for a shorter period of time. There are times a manager may use a closer earlier than the ninth but those are rare and few and far between.

 

The point is that major league ball players are creatures of habit. That's why the closer by committee doesn't work. The current system of using the "best reliever" to close out the game was developed because it has been shown to produce the best results through actual experience not by a theoretical model. Experience has shown that teams get their best results when the designated closer knows day in and day out before the game starts that he is one who is going to get the ball with the game on the line in the ninth inning.

 

No one is talking about closer by committee. For the majority of games, the closer will pitch the 9th inning. Sometimes, however, a game needs to be "saved" in the 8th inning. The closer should be brought in then. There is no reason why the closer can't also stay in the game for the 9th.

[Kimmi]

So here is the link to the article Kimmi sent out.

 

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2011/4/14/2110082/why-dont-sabermetric-gms-have-sabermetric-managers-and-shouldnt-they

 

I really picked up on #5 because I have always questioned the closer role. I think it would be safe to say that more games are lost in innings earlier than the 9th inning.

 

Here's a portion of what was written about closers in the article:

 

One might think that the fact that closers don't pitch 100 innings anymore is mostly about closers being limited to one-inning saves. But they are also pitching fewer games. Look at the games pitched leaders for the 1970's and the first half of the 1980's. It is full of closers. You'll see names like Mike Marshall, Rollie Fingers, Dan Quisenberry, Willie Hernandez, Kent Tekulve and Mitch Williams. But by the 1990's and especially the 2000's, closers give way to setup men. You'll see names like Jesse Orosco, Steve Kline, Paul Quantrill, Matt Guerrier and Pedro Feliciano.

 

So closers have been reduced primarily to single inning work, and not in a great number of games. In short, a team's best reliever is having his contribution to his team severely limited. Wouldn’t it make the most sense to 1) use a team’s best reliever in the highest leverage situations, and 2) have them pitch for more innings, thus maximizing their utility to their team? This is not some impractical pipe dream which works on paper but wouldn’t work in the real world. It worked very well for many years until closers started to be treated like hot house flowers. The return of the multi-inning fireman is very much overdue.

 

Teams are not benefiting from having their relievers pitch less. Here is a blurb from a very good article from my man Dave Cameron at Fangraphs:

 

"In fact, if you look at the sum of the components (in the table above, that’s ERA- and FIP-), there’s just no evidence that bullpens are preventing runs at a better rate now than they were before the current roster construction norms came along. Any improvements in quality of performance by the elite relievers have been offset by the fact that more innings are now being given to inferior arms, so the trade-off has essentially resulted in a change of no real benefit.

 

We’re told that defined roles are supposed to make a reliever’s job easier by giving him a usage pattern he can adapt to. This makes sense from an intuitive standpoint, but the results don’t really show much of an effect. Teams have essentially taken two roster spots away from position players and handed them to the bullpen without seeing a tangible improvement in performance from their relievers overall."

[Kimmi]

Turning Swihart into a hybrid C/1B/3B with his athleticism might provide the Sox with fantastic insurance against injury at C, and suck at the corners. I think he has the tools to pull it off. I remember Ruseell Martin playing a decent 3B with the Dodgers there for a while.

 

I know that if/when it comes to that, Swihart would likely be worth more to us in trade, but I have always liked the idea of playing him at 1st or 3rd base, and having that backup or emergency catcher available if needed.

 

I think mostly it's just that I don't want to see Swihart traded because I've grown attached to him. But I do think that Vazquez will eventually serve the team better as our starting catcher.

[Kimmi]

THe question pretty much comes down to, how good does Vazquez have to be *offensively* to kick an offense-first catcher out of his position? We think we know that Vazquez will outplay Swihart on D, but considering the verbal commitment to Swihart as the opening day catcher what's the minimum Vazquez has to hit in order to keep himself in the running as a potential starter or even beat Swihart out? Does just obtaining a reasonable OBP get it done? Does there have to be some XBH potential there which Vazquez really hasn't shown yet at any level?

 

That's a good question. Personally, I don't think it's going to come down to Vazquez having to be at a certain level offensively, but rather whether Swihart can hold it together defensively. His defense last year was not good. If Swihart has not shown marked improvement defensively, I think Vazquez will be in as soon as it's deemed that he is 100%.

[Kimmi]

The fly in the ointment in that theory is Hanigan. Just throwing away a skilled and experienced veteran backstop is not an option. Hanigan will break camp with the team and that means one of Vazquez and Swihart will probably not.

 

I agree. Hanigan is not going anywhere, nor should he.

[Spudboy]

It's a valid point that you can't have your closer warming up several times during the game. I don't think you need to have the closer ready before the 7th, because there is still enough of the game left for your offense to have a chance to come back.

 

My gripe is against the idea that a closer cannot be brought into the game during a crucial time in the 7th or 8th inning because he needs to be saved for the 9th inning. The 9th inning save situation may never materialize.

 

Another situation is in extra inning games, when managers won't bring their closers into tie games when they're on the road. Why not? Because they're saving the closer for a save situation which, again, may never materialize. In the meantime, Joe Bum has been brought into the game and has coughed up 4 runs, while your best relief pitcher sits on the bench.

 

The emphasis should be on having a BP populated with quality arms. More than one guy who can be relied upon to close the door.

[Spudboy]

I agree. Hanigan is not going anywhere, nor should he.

 

Hannigan is a luxury this team can afford to have. Especially if my idea of moving Swihart to 3rd or 1st is adopted.

[mvp 78]

They did with Lowell, they will do it with Panda if he's stinking up the joint.

 

Was that in the second year of his deal or no?

[Bellhorn04]

No one is talking about closer by committee. For the majority of games, the closer will pitch the 9th inning. Sometimes, however, a game needs to be "saved" in the 8th inning. The closer should be brought in then. There is no reason why the closer can't also stay in the game for the 9th.

 

I agree, but again it's a case where the manager can't do this as much as he'd like to. Otherwise the closer will get burned out. It's a long season.

 

I think Dojji made a good point. If you don't have more than 2 relievers you can trust to put up zeros consistently you're pretty much screwed no matter what you do. If you have a bullpen like KC you have a guy like Herrera you can bring in for one of those 7th inning jams, and you still have a Madson and a Davis out there behind him.

[cp176]

currently Swihart would alone be worth very little in a trade. Packaged with others maybe but alone sorry. I suppose moving him to another position is a possibility but how does anyone know that we don't have better options certainly at first and third. Sam travis I am guessing will surprise you all and he will be every bit as good a hitter as Swihart. At third or first Travis Shaw has and probably will in the future provide more of a power source than Swihart ever will. Don't get me wrong, I like Swihart. I just do not see him being the important piece to this puzzle that others do. He will be a decent player for us if he stays in Boston. We have others that might actually be better.

[User Name]

Was that in the second year of his deal or no?

 

I think it was actually. Second or third, after he had the hip issue.

[User Name]

I agree, but again it's a case where the manager can't do this as much as he'd like to. Otherwise the closer will get burned out. It's a long season.

 

I think Dojji made a good point. If you don't have more than 2 relievers you can trust to put up zeros consistently you're pretty much screwed no matter what you do. If you have a bullpen like KC you have a guy like Herrera you can bring in for one of those 7th inning jams, and you still have a Madson and a Davis out there behind him.

 

Another point to consider is that your closer isn't always your best reliever anyway. A lot of managers will smartly name a "veteran" closer and keep a young guy with grade A stuff as a jack-of-all-trades to put out fires. We just got one of those guys in Carson Smith. Miller is arguably better than Chapman over in NY, and Davis has been the best reliever in MLB for the past couple of years but they kept him behind Holland so they could maximize his value.