Christian Vazquez

[moonslav59]

If you have a great defensive catcher, the personal catcher is not needed. Also, if the personal catcher goes down, the other guy has to catch up pretty quick. I'm not sure that's a very good strategy.

 

I agree. I never agreed with this strategy in full. I'm okay with intentionally giving a pitcher more time with one catcher, but it should not be 220 innings to 4.

 

[mvp 78]

I agree. I never agreed with this strategy in full. I'm okay with intentionally giving a pitcher more time with one catcher, but it should not be 220 innings to 4.

 

 

Yup, because without familiarity, you could be screwed come Sept/Oct if there is an injury.

[moonslav59]

2017 IP by catcher (and CERA)

 

Sale

209 Leon (2.63)

5 Vaz (13.50)

 

Porcello

163 Leon (4.47)-- (career 297/4.07)

40 Vaz (5.36)--(career 134/4.15)

0 Swihart-- (career 113/4.55)

 

Pomeranz

4 Leon (13.50)--(career 24/7.12)

170 Vaz (3.08)--(career 170/3.08)

 

Price

2 Leon (0.00)-- (career 110/3.18)

73 Vaz (3.45)-- career (170/4.12)

0 Swihart --(career 11/5.73)

 

ERod

1 Leon (0.00)--(career 87/4.55)

136 Vaz (4.22)--(158/4.26)

0 Swihart --(career 71/4.08)

 

Career

Wright

45 Leon 6.95

55 Vaz 3.46

70 Swihart 3.97

(95 Hanigan 2.94)

 

These numbers show a clear strategy of pitchers having their own personal caddy.

 

 

[S5Dewey]

If you have a great defensive catcher, the personal catcher is not needed. Also, if the personal catcher goes down, the other guy has to catch up pretty quick. I'm not sure that's a very good strategy.

 

That's my main objection to it. Baseball players are creatures of habit. There is a certain psychological 'comfort level' to be throwing to the same person all the time. The problem comes when that catcher isn't available. I think we've all seen times when throwing to a different catcher can disrupt a pitcher's psyche.

[moonslav59]

That's my main objection to it. Baseball players are creatures of habit. There is a certain psychological 'comfort level' to be throwing to the same person all the time. The problem comes when that catcher isn't available. I think we've all seen times when throwing to a different catcher can disrupt a pitcher's psyche.

 

Yes, and look at the success pitchers have with one catcher.

 

I'm fine with having a caddy, but not 209 IP to 5, 170 to 4, 72 to 2 and 136 to 1. That's too extreme for my liking.

 

Porcello's 163-40 looks better.

[Kimmi]

I agree. I never agreed with this strategy in full. I'm okay with intentionally giving a pitcher more time with one catcher, but it should not be 220 innings to 4.

 

 

I like the idea of the back up catcher being a personal caddie to one pitcher, and the starting catcher catching the other 4 guys. I understand the point about a catcher going down, which is a valid point, but I think the benefits outweigh that risk.

[cp176]

Doesn't it kind of all boil down to wins and losses? I do understand that total wins is just an overrated stat to the advanced metric folk. Is it possible that it is still a valuable stat to the guys throwing the ball toward the hitters at the plate though?

[Kimmi]

Doesn't it kind of all boil down to wins and losses? I do understand that total wins is just an overrated stat to the advanced metric folk. Is it possible that it is still a valuable stat to the guys throwing the ball toward the hitters at the plate though?

 

It boils down to team wins and losses, not pitcher wins and losses. IMO, wins and losses for pitchers are rather meaningless.

[moonslav59]

Are we willing to risk a loss (and possibly messing up a pitcher's psyche or rythym) to let the other catcher get a few innings with a different pitcher, just in case we need it later?

 

While I'm not in favor of a 200 to 4 inning split, I have to answer "No" to my own question."

[cp176]

It boils down to team wins and losses, not pitcher wins and losses. IMO, wins and losses for pitchers are rather meaningless.

 

kind of depends on how you look at it. My hope is that the clear majority of pitchers get the fact that it is about the team as opposed to the individual. that being said, if the pitcher wins kind of follows that the team does as well. I like pitchers that tend to win more than they lose. Works for the team in the long run.

[Lont1981]

kind of depends on how you look at it. My hope is that the clear majority of pitchers get the fact that it is about the team as opposed to the individual.

well, you know, that has been my hope for the last few years. and in regards to Vazquez, it does seems to be like he's more like a team player.

[Michigan adam]

I would rather rotate catchers based on hitting matchups and rest, not for who is pitching on our side....

[jacksonianmarch]

That's backwards unless you have offensive minded catchers with heavy platoon splits. Vaz and Leon are clearly not in the lineup for their offensive prowess. You go based on which pitchers they relate to. Starting pitchers are a strange bunch. They are the most habitual guys in the game. If they feel more comfortable with a catcher and there is no major difference in their total package, then they'll get their caddy

[Michigan adam]

Thats kind of the point though. If the two catchers are close to the same defensively, which I think they are, then choosing the catcher who has the best history against that pitcher, or is properly rested, would give your offense more for the same defense. I understand the job of the catcher is to "work" the pitcher first, but unless there is a big difference between catchers the one who can give more offense is potentially better for the team. That isn't even factoring in the "flexibility" of having both catchers and all of the pitchers comfortable with each other. I fully understand there is no correct answer here. Most times it is probably more of a significant difference between the two catchers leading one to have 60-75% of the playing time anyhow. The Sox it is more evenly split playing time and ability wise, so I can see where that leads to "preferences" from the pitching staff....

[moonslav59]

I wonder if some of these "preferences" are a result of being paired with one particular catcher from day one and the comfort grew from there, or if there really is a genuine, pitcher-handling difference between Leon & Vaz.

 

For example, had Sale started the year with Vaz, we might now be saying Vaz should remain Sale's personal caddy.

[cp176]

Thats kind of the point though. If the two catchers are close to the same defensively, which I think they are, then choosing the catcher who has the best history against that pitcher, or is properly rested, would give your offense more for the same defense. I understand the job of the catcher is to "work" the pitcher first, but unless there is a big difference between catchers the one who can give more offense is potentially better for the team. That isn't even factoring in the "flexibility" of having both catchers and all of the pitchers comfortable with each other. I fully understand there is no correct answer here. Most times it is probably more of a significant difference between the two catchers leading one to have 60-75% of the playing time anyhow. The Sox it is more evenly split playing time and ability wise, so I can see where that leads to "preferences" from the pitching staff....

 

Interesting points made.

[cp176]

I wonder if some of these "preferences" are a result of being paired with one particular catcher from day one and the comfort grew from there, or if there really is a genuine, pitcher-handling difference between Leon & Vaz.

 

For example, had Sale started the year with Vaz, we might now be saying Vaz should remain Sale's personal caddy.

 

 

Very likely true.

[Kimmi]

I wonder if some of these "preferences" are a result of being paired with one particular catcher from day one and the comfort grew from there, or if there really is a genuine, pitcher-handling difference between Leon & Vaz.

 

For example, had Sale started the year with Vaz, we might now be saying Vaz should remain Sale's personal caddy.

 

It's probably a combination of both. I think some catchers do genuinely prefer a certain way that a catcher receives the ball, etc. even though another catcher might be just as good defensively.

 

In the case of Leon and Vaz, I think it's probably the result of the comfort level growing from being paired with a specific catcher, but that's just a guess based on both catchers' ability to handle pitchers well.

 

However, if you have someone like Salty (no offense to him) versus Vazquez, then there would be a genuine pitcher handling preference.

[moonslav59]

It's probably a combination of both. I think some catchers do genuinely prefer a certain way that a catcher receives the ball, etc. even though another catcher might be just as good defensively.

 

In the case of Leon and Vaz, I think it's probably the result of the comfort level growing from being paired with a specific catcher, but that's just a guess based on both catchers' ability to handle pitchers well.

 

However, if you have someone like Salty (no offense to him) versus Vazquez, then there would be a genuine pitcher handling preference.

 

Agree.

 

With Vaz and Leon, I think most of our pitchers would quickly grow accustomed to the other guys and be very close to the same as before.

 

The problem arises with the learning curve and how much we can afford to tinker with the established set-ups, assuming our goal is to get Vaz more starts. If we push for him to get 4 out of 5 starters, either Sale or Porcello has to switch, unless you want to mix and match withe those two.

[SCM33]

Tek was hella overrated.

 

Yes. If he were a defensive wizard, why was he terrified to catch Wakefield?

 

Answer: He was a little selfish. He knew his PB total would take a hit and he would be exposed, and slide stepping pitchers or not.....he could never throw. How many other catchers did you hear, "Oh, well his pitchers slide step, thats why he cant throw anyone out. Oh, well Lester takes too long to deliver the ball, thats why he cant throw anyone out"

 

Remember when we had to have a police escort from the airport for Doug friggin Mirabelli. All because Varitek couldn't catch a knuckleball. What a joke.

 

Great catchers don't have excuses built in. Hell, even good catchers don't have excuses built in. Tek was a walking excuse. Everything about his game was, "well, the numbers are hard to measure because of A, or because of B or because of C", speaking of C.......thats one thing that is definitely not overrated, the fact that he was a dirt dog and wore a C on his jersey.....what a tool.

Edited December 20, 2017 by SCM33

[jameyc]

if he hits .280 and 10+ HR's a season he will go down as one of the greatest C of all time IMO......

he is young enough so he obviously has not peaked offensively yet. those numbers are within reach. Last year i was definitely on the "swihart is our man going forward" bus but it was easy to dismiss Vaz while he was recovering from TJ.....put me in as a "believer" now. Swihart is gone in july.......

 

LMAO,,you sox fans are delusional..one of the best all time. he couldn't hit his way out of a wet paper bag,,,that is a necessary ingredient to be called one of the greatest all time. there are plenty of great defensive catchers in the league.

[Bellhorn04]

Yes. If he were a defensive wizard, why was he terrified to catch Wakefield?

 

Answer: He was a little selfish. He knew his PB total would take a hit and he would be exposed, and slide stepping pitchers or not.....he could never throw. How many other catchers did you hear, "Oh, well his pitchers slide step, thats why he cant throw anyone out. Oh, well Lester takes too long to deliver the ball, thats why he cant throw anyone out"

 

Remember when we had to have a police escort from the airport for Doug friggin Mirabelli. All because Varitek couldn't catch a knuckleball. What a joke.

 

Great catchers don't have excuses built in. Hell, even good catchers don't have excuses built in. Tek was a walking excuse. Everything about his game was, "well, the numbers are hard to measure because of A, or because of B or because of C", speaking of C.......thats one thing that is definitely not overrated, the fact that he was a dirt dog and wore a C on his jersey.....what a tool.

 

Seems to me we did pretty good while Varitek was our catcher. A lot of playoff games and rings and parades and stuff.

[cp176]

Yes. If he were a defensive wizard, why was he terrified to catch Wakefield?

 

Answer: He was a little selfish. He knew his PB total would take a hit and he would be exposed, and slide stepping pitchers or not.....he could never throw. How many other catchers did you hear, "Oh, well his pitchers slide step, thats why he cant throw anyone out. Oh, well Lester takes too long to deliver the ball, thats why he cant throw anyone out"

 

Remember when we had to have a police escort from the airport for Doug friggin Mirabelli. All because Varitek couldn't catch a knuckleball. What a joke.

 

Great catchers don't have excuses built in. Hell, even good catchers don't have excuses built in. Tek was a walking excuse. Everything about his game was, "well, the numbers are hard to measure because of A, or because of B or because of C", speaking of C.......thats one thing that is definitely not overrated, the fact that he was a dirt dog and wore a C on his jersey.....what a tool.

 

I'm beginning to kind of like your opinionated way of looking at things maybe because I agree with you more often than not. Although I think that Varitek stabilized the catching position for us, I never considered him to be great by any means.

[Bellhorn04]

Just about any player not on a Hall of Fame track can be torn down if you try hard enough.

[cp176]

Just about any player not on a Hall of Fame track can be torn down if you try hard enough.

 

I'm sure that you are right here but looking at things realistically isn't always the same as tearing someone down. I know that you understand this. In my lifetime, I still consider Tek to be the second best in a Sox uniform that I have seen.

[mvp 78]

Yes. If he were a defensive wizard, why was he terrified to catch Wakefield?

 

Answer: He was a little selfish. He knew his PB total would take a hit and he would be exposed, and slide stepping pitchers or not.....he could never throw. How many other catchers did you hear, "Oh, well his pitchers slide step, thats why he cant throw anyone out. Oh, well Lester takes too long to deliver the ball, thats why he cant throw anyone out"

 

Remember when we had to have a police escort from the airport for Doug friggin Mirabelli. All because Varitek couldn't catch a knuckleball. What a joke.

 

Great catchers don't have excuses built in. Hell, even good catchers don't have excuses built in. Tek was a walking excuse. Everything about his game was, "well, the numbers are hard to measure because of A, or because of B or because of C", speaking of C.......thats one thing that is definitely not overrated, the fact that he was a dirt dog and wore a C on his jersey.....what a tool.

 

That C on the jersey didn't translate well into the clubhouse when he was too busy fussing over who was banging his side chick.

 

Overrated.

[mvp 78]

Seems to me we did pretty good while Varitek was our catcher. A lot of playoff games and rings and parades and stuff.

 

He was good, but still overrated.

[mvp 78]

I'm beginning to kind of like your opinionated way of looking at things maybe because I agree with you more often than not. Although I think that Varitek stabilized the catching position for us, I never considered him to be great by any means.

 

He was stable, but overrated.

[mvp 78]

I'm sure that you are right here but looking at things realistically isn't always the same as tearing someone down. I know that you understand this. In my lifetime, I still consider Tek to be the second best in a Sox uniform that I have seen.

 

Second best Catcher or second best anything?

 

Gedman 84-86 >>> Tek 03-05

[mvp 78]

Anyone else remember watching this game? https://www.upi.com/Archives/1985/09/18/Rich-Gedman-hit-for-the-cycle-going-4-for-5-and/8638495864000/

 

Rich Gedman hit for the cycle, going 4-for-5 and driving in seven runs Wednesday night, to pace Boston's 18-hit attack and carry the Red Sox to a 13-1 thrashing of the American League East-leading Toronto Blue Jays.

 

Despite the loss, the Blue Jays remained five games ahead of the New York Yankees, who lost 5-2 to Detroit.

 

Al Nipper, 9-11, scattered six hits, struck out five and did not walk a batter in posting his fifth complete game of the season.

 

Wade Boggs also went 4-for-5 to raise his major league-leading average to .372 and his leading hit total to 219 -- the most in the majors since Willie Wilson's 230 for Kansas City in 1980.

Leading 4-0 in the fourth, the Red Sox erupted for five runs to knock out reliever Dennis Lamp. Glenn Hoffman started the uprising with a walk and Boggs followed with a one-out single. Bill Buckner singled to score Hoffman. Lamp intentionally walked Jim Rice to load the bases and was then replaced by John Cerutti.

 

Gedman's line to left eluded George Bell, who attempted a shoestring catch, and rolled to the wall for a three-run triple. Marty Barrett drove in Gedman with a two-out single to make it 9-0.

 

Boston opened the scoring with three runs in the second off loser Jim Clancy, 7-5. Hoffman had a sacrifice fly, Evans belted an RBI double and Boggs hit an RBI single for the 3-0 lead.

 

Boston went ahead 4-0 when Gedman blasted his 18th homer, in the third.

 

Gedman's fifth RBI of the night, on an infield hit, scored Buckner for a 10-0 lead in the fifth.

 

The Blue Jays broke the shutout on Louis Thornton's RBI single in the seventh, but Rice's RBI double and Gedman's two-run double in the bottom of the inning accounted for the final margin.