Swihart DFA

[notin]

That amounts to about 60 games a season, spread out over 8 years, back and forth between Boston and Pawtucket, and back and forth between positions. That's not the consistent playing time that a developing player needs.

 

He did play nothing but catcher until 2016...

[Kimmi]

He did play nothing but catcher until 2016...

 

Right, and he was called up and put into action before he was ready. That was due to injury, I understand, but that still did not allow Swihart the proper development that he needed.

 

In Swihart's defense, he did a very admirable job in 2015.

[Bellhorn04]

If you had to pick one position from the 2018 lineup to improve upon, which one would you have picked?

 

Pitching.

[illinoisredsox]

What we don’t know is any behind the scenes stuff. What did the professionals see developmentally that us arm chair types didn’t? Was there an attitude issue? Maybe the drive wasn’t there to push himself to get better. Maybe he lost confidence because of what happened to him. These are things we will never know. And maybe, just maybe he wasn’t good enough to start with. It will be interesting to see if anyone picks him up.

 

It is a shame he got hurt, but that happens all the time, and first round picks flame out quite a bit. I’m with those who think he got many chances to prove himself and for whatever reason he just never did. Maybe he will somewhere else.

[harmony]

Blake Swihart, the No. 26 pick in the 2011 draft, has advanced further than most No. 26 picks over the past two decades:

 

https://www.baseball-reference.com/draft/?overall_pick=26&draft_type=junreg&query_type=overall_pick&from_type_jc=0&from_type_hs=0&from_type_4y=0&from_type_unk=0

 

The fruitful years for No. 26 picks were 1976 and 1977.

[notin]

Pitching.

 

 

I was hoping you might interpret “position from the lineup” to NOT mean pitching. Improving pitching is a given for every team every year. It’s just as vague as “room for improvement”...

[dgalehouse]

Pitching.

 

Well , we didn't exactly improve the pitching either . Lost Kimbrel and Kelly , and added Colten Brewer and Erasmo Ramirez . A net loss by any measure .

[Bellhorn04]

I was hoping you might interpret “position from the lineup” to NOT mean pitching. Improving pitching is a given for every team every year. It’s just as vague as “room for improvement”...

 

My mistake. I honestly didn't think our lineup needed any significant improvement. I would have thought getting another catcher would have been a move for the sake of making a move.

[Bellhorn04]

Well , we didn't exactly improve the pitching either . Lost Kimbrel and Kelly , and added Colten Brewer and Erasmo Ramirez . A net loss by any measure .

 

Getting Eovaldi for a full season was supposed to be an improvement, certainly over what it would have been if we let him walk. Obviously the results haven't been there yet.

[notin]

My mistake. I honestly didn't think our lineup needed any significant improvement. I would have thought getting another catcher would have been a move for the sake of making a move.

 

 

Not necessarily. Analytically our catching was bottom of the MLB barrel.

[moonslav59]

Not necessarily. Analytically our catching was bottom of the MLB barrel.

 

Not when looking at pitch framing, blocking bad pitches and CERA related areas.

[notin]

Not when looking at pitch framing, blocking bad pitches and CERA related areas.

 

Looking at a bigger picture like WAR, you are...

[moonslav59]

Looking at a bigger picture like WAR, you are...

 

WAR does not count some things, especially the intangibles related to the pitcher-catcher relationship.

 

They sure do suck on offense.

[notin]

WAR does not count some things, especially the intangibles related to the pitcher-catcher relationship.

 

They sure do suck on offense.

 

 

But outside of CERA, which is questionable, what does quantify that relationship?

[Bellhorn04]

But outside of CERA, which is questionable, what does quantify that relationship?

 

Let me know when any strategic/coaching aspect of any sport has been properly quantified.

[notin]

Let me know when any strategic/coaching aspect of any sport has been properly quantified.

 

Then how do you know they even exist or are effective?

[moonslav59]

But outside of CERA, which is questionable, what does quantify that relationship?

 

Just because it is not quantifiable does not mean it does not exist or cant be significantly impactful.

 

CERA, when used correctly, can quantify it to some extent, but it is far from perfect for many reasons. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence when you listen closely to the level of praise each catcher gets from various pitchers.

 

It's about comfort levels, pitch sequencing/calling and the ability to adjust a game plan on the fly based on experience and a vast knowledge of the batters.

 

[moonslav59]

Then how do you know they even exist or are effective?

 

Well, CERA, as you mentioned, does show a very significant differential between Leon and Vaz/Swihart with Sale & Price. The sample sizes are pretty large.

 

Career

 

Sale:

2.50 with Leon (1273 PAs)

4.50 with Vaz (279 PAs)

3.23 everyone else but Leon over his whole career

 

Price:

2.83 with Leon (769 PAs)

4.32 with Vaz/Swihart (1234 PAs)

3.31 with everyone else over his whole career

 

Do we "know" these numbers are all because of Leon? No, of course not, but do we know a career .300 hitter is a better hitter than a .295 one, since so many factors go into how a hit becomes a hit and is ruled a hit or an error?

 

Edited April 18, 2019 by moonslav59

[notin]

Just because it is not quantifiable does not mean it does not exist or cant be significantly impactful.

 

CERA, when used correctly, can quantify it to some extent, but it is far from perfect for many reasons. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence when you listen closely to the level of praise each catcher gets from various pitchers.

 

It's about comfort levels, pitch sequencing/calling and the ability to adjust a game plan on the fly based on experience and a vast knowledge of the batters.

 

 

But all of that is so unknown and so dependent on so many factors.

 

For example, the pitcher/catcher relationship. I realized how important this was watching how Hideo Nomo suddenly became less effective when Varitek got hurt. But that doesn’t mean it takes years to build. Jose Molina, for example, changed teams more often than many people change underwear, but was certainly able to establish himself with many pitchers very quickly.

 

The issue with intangible arguments is they get categorized two ways: “worked” and “didn’t work.” And this simple method leaves many thinking “worked” is good enough and there is no need/little room/small possibility for improvement. The fact is there is an infinite array of possibilities, and the new ones aren’t all bad...

[notin]

Well, CERA, as you mentioned, does show a very significant differential between Leon and Vaz/Swihart with Sale & Price. The sample sizes are pretty large.

 

Career

 

Sale:

2.50 with Leon (1273 PAs)

4.50 with Vaz (279 PAs)

3.23 everyone else but Leon over his whole career

 

Price:

2.83 with Leon (769 PAs)

4.32 with Vaz/Swihart (1234 PAs)

3.31 with everyone else over his whole career

 

Do we "know" these numbers are all because of Leon? No, of course not, but do we know a career .300 hitter is a better hitter than a .295 one, since so many factors go into how a hit becomes a hit and is ruled a hit or an error?

 

 

The hitting analogy can be expanded further. I would argue a .295 hitter is the same as a .300 hitter with the caveat that there are numerous other stats to help separate them. I think you agree a .295/.380/.550 hitter is better than a .300/.330/.415 hitter.

 

As with CERA, there is a danger with small sample sizes regarding opponents. A pitcher and catcher who have 100PAs together against the three worst offensive teams can be very misleading. Or in 3 pitcher-friendly parks. Like all stats, we hope the larger sample sizes even it out. But like with a lot of other stats, it doesn’t always.

 

And more important, fearing the unknown and accepting the status quo simply because it worked once is dangerous. Cherington found this out in 2014, and it lead to bad decisions that plague the Sox to this day...

[Maxbialystock]

Right, and he was called up and put into action before he was ready. That was due to injury, I understand, but that still did not allow Swihart the proper development that he needed.

 

In Swihart's defense, he did a very admirable job in 2015.

 

Really? I just checked the AL catcher DWAR's for 2015. Leon's was .7, Hanigan's .3, and Swihart's -.4. He caught in 83 games and started 78 as catcher.

[Maxbialystock]

Well , we didn't exactly improve the pitching either . Lost Kimbrel and Kelly , and added Colten Brewer and Erasmo Ramirez . A net loss by any measure .

 

You forgot Pomeranz. Losing him was a net plus, maybe a big net plus. Kelly right now is carrying a pitching WAR of -.6 and an ERA of 10.8, so I'm not sure he was such a big loss.

 

As for Kimbrel, yes, a loss, but probably inevitable because he wants a lot of money, more than he is worth. Also, I doubt Kimbrel could have helped us so far. We've had 5 save opportunities and blown 1--last night in the 7th inning, an inning in which Kimbrel has never, ever pitched.

[Bellhorn04]

Then how do you know they even exist or are effective?

 

Some things I accept on faith.

 

I think Bill Belichick is probably a better than average coach and strategist, but I can't prove it.

[notin]

Some things I accept on faith.

 

I think Bill Belichick is probably a better than average coach and strategist, but I can't prove it.

 

 

I think it’s easy to prove Belichick’s superiority, and in a very quantifiable way. Check his fingers.

 

But as for the intangible/faith qualities, it’s not about existence. Sure they exist. It’s about acceptance and complacency. When the team thinks “well this worked last year,” they’re ignoring that it worked in a different league. Other teams around, particularly the closer ones, will improve. And what worked when those were lesser teams might not work so well when they’re better ones. Especially since this process involves evaluating one small part of a very large machine.

 

Sure, there is the adage “if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it.” But just because it isn’t broken doesn’t mean it’s optimized...

[moonslav59]

The hitting analogy can be expanded further. I would argue a .295 hitter is the same as a .300 hitter with the caveat that there are numerous other stats to help separate them. I think you agree a .295/.380/.550 hitter is better than a .300/.330/.415 hitter.

 

As with CERA, there is a danger with small sample sizes regarding opponents. A pitcher and catcher who have 100PAs together against the three worst offensive teams can be very misleading. Or in 3 pitcher-friendly parks. Like all stats, we hope the larger sample sizes even it out. But like with a lot of other stats, it doesn’t always.

 

And more important, fearing the unknown and accepting the status quo simply because it worked once is dangerous. Cherington found this out in 2014, and it lead to bad decisions that plague the Sox to this day...

 

I assumed everything else was equal when I made the .300 vs .295 hitter but failed to say it.

 

If you look at Sale's sample size, the 1200+ PAs is like two full seasons for a hitter. He's about 3/4 of a run better with Leon than all the other catchers combined. Of course, there could be other factors that helped create that gap beyond anything Leon did differently, but when you don't see any other starting pitchers with much worse numbers with Leon, I think one can accurately surmise that Leon makes a big difference with some pitchers and maybe not much with others, but is rarely negative with any large sample size pitcher. Yes, the Vazquez/Swihart sample size is not that large, but everyone else combined is!

 

Maybe it's not 0.75 just because of Leon, but even if he was responsible for 0.25 to 0.50, that is far and away enough to offset his .450 OPS on offense.

 

The gap with Price, to me, seems even more striking when you figure his years with Boston have been spotty, and he was not in prime years, yet he still blows away the rest of the catchers combined than when he's with leon.

[moonslav59]

Really? I just checked the AL catcher DWAR's for 2015. Leon's was .7, Hanigan's .3, and Swihart's -.4. He caught in 83 games and started 78 as catcher.

 

Even Kimmi fell for the decent catcher OPS Swihart had in 2015.

 

How quickly Swihart was removed in 2016 was a strong sign of how Sox top brass has viewed Swihart;'s catching skills.

[moonslav59]

You forgot Pomeranz. Losing him was a net plus, maybe a big net plus. Kelly right now is carrying a pitching WAR of -.6 and an ERA of 10.8, so I'm not sure he was such a big loss.

 

Yes! I've made this point as well.

 

It goes beyond Pom...

 

IP ER Lost from 2018:

74 50 Pom

66 32 Kelly

17 14 Cuevas

8 4 Haley

7 6 Scott

6 9 Beeks

 

178 IP- 115 ER

 

5.81 ERA Non Kimbrel

 

2.74 Kimbrel (62 IP and 19 ER)

 

All combined:

 

240 IP

 

134 ER

 

5.05 ERA

 

[Bellhorn04]

I think it’s easy to prove Belichick’s superiority, and in a very quantifiable way. Check his fingers.

 

But you can deconstruct that as evidence too.

 

Maybe it's all Tom Brady.

 

Maybe Belichick is a great GM but not a great coach or strategist.

[oldtimer]

I think it’s easy to prove Belichick’s superiority, and in a very quantifiable way. Check his fingers.

 

But as for the intangible/faith qualities, it’s not about existence. Sure they exist. It’s about acceptance and complacency. When the team thinks “well this worked last year,” they’re ignoring that it worked in a different league. Other teams around, particularly the closer ones, will improve. And what worked when those were lesser teams might not work so well when they’re better ones. Especially since this process involves evaluating one small part of a very large machine.

 

Sure, there is the adage “if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it.” But just because it isn’t broken doesn’t mean it’s optimized...

We just had a grear year and also found ourselves up against the 2nd tier of the competitive balance spending limit. Other teams have and had more leeway We did sign Eovaldi and Sale and got Bogie for the long term. It was probably questionable to have taken on Pedroia's contract but players like Kelly and Kimbrel were financially off limits. So what do you think we could have done better to optimize the team given the circumstances.

 

 

The starters are only now coming closer to form but need run and defensive support. The suggestion is that ST was not adequate to get them off to a good start.

 

Our hitting has some holes. Mookie is having a tough start as is JBJ. About the only thing we might have done is trade JBJ in the off season as an optimization move. The fact that these guys are struggling is more about readiness and focus. Maybe JBJ just has these periods where he loses his ability to hit.

 

We didn't make the hard decisions at 2nd base and had given Dustin a long term contract. That has come back to bite us and was somewhat predictable.

 

A question to consider, based on what has happened is set in stone, its what can be done going forward?

 

My thoughts include:

 

1. Shore up 2nd base immediately

2. Reconsider our BP and bring up at least one youngster and let go of our poorest performer.

3. Move Mookie down in the lineup as a way of getting him started

 

I don't see much more we can do now, although I would reconsider trading JBJ at the halfway point if he is still stuck in a subpar hitting performance.

[notin]

We just had a grear year and also found ourselves up against the 2nd tier of the competitive balance spending limit. Other teams have and had more leeway We did sign Eovaldi and Sale and got Bogie for the long term. It was probably questionable to have taken on Pedroia's contract but players like Kelly and Kimbrel were financially off limits. So what do you think we could have done better to optimize the team given the circumstances.

 

 

The starters are only now coming closer to form but need run and defensive support. The suggestion is that ST was not adequate to get them off to a good start.

 

Our hitting has some holes. Mookie is having a tough start as is JBJ. About the only thing we might have done is trade JBJ in the off season as an optimization move. The fact that these guys are struggling is more about readiness and focus. Maybe JBJ just has these periods where he loses his ability to hit.

 

We didn't make the hard decisions at 2nd base and had given Dustin a long term contract. That has come back to bite us and was somewhat predictable.

 

A question to consider, based on what has happened is set in stone, its what can be done going forward?

 

My thoughts include:

 

1. Shore up 2nd base immediately

2. Reconsider our BP and bring up at least one youngster and let go of our poorest performer.

3. Move Mookie down in the lineup as a way of getting him started

 

I don't see much more we can do now, although I would reconsider trading JBJ at the halfway point if he is still stuck in a subpar hitting performance.

 

 

Once the financial implications became clear, I was critical of the Pearce signing. And when Wilson Ramos signed for something like $1.5mill more, I found it disappointing. In fact, the Sox could have signed Ramos, and cut Thornburg and/or Leon (assuming no one wanted Vazquez) and saved cash and maybe even had a better team. Heck, for less than the cost of Pearce, Thornburg, and Leon, the Sox could have brought in Ramos, Alex Wilson and lefty-mashing 1b Danny Valencia.

 

But it’s too late for that now.

 

Fixing 2b? Lin and eventually Chavis, assuming he works out.

 

Bullpen? Domingo Tapia is off to a great start in Pawtucket. I’ve never been a fan of Workman or Johnson, and Thornburg May never be the pitcher he was in Milwaukee again. Or keep Ramirez in there.

 

As for moving Betts, opinions seem to be divided. Some want him leading off. Some want him further down. I like the idea of keeping him 2nd. But he has to get going at some point...