notin

He has had some decent hitting stretches in the past in MLB. But that doesn't mean he can catch. When he was a rising prospect, I was hoping the Sox would move him to 3B. I do think he can be a league average hitter. But does that mean he should be playing the most difficult defensive position in the game, just because the players currently playing it are not hitting?

It's actually possible that Cora starts Bradley and Vazquez/Leon as often as the does because he values their defensive contributions. The rest of the team is hitting, but the rest of the team isn't fielding...

On BDC, there were posters who used to think Francona was not a good manager because they only won two titles under him. That's ridiculous. There absolutely were plenty of talented teams. The Yankees won 101 games in 2004. Was Francona supposed to stop them from doing that?

I hope not. I think it moves Holt to the bench and Pedroia to 2B as an easy switch. The options to make room for Pedroia are Bradley (or Holt) to Pawtucket, Nunez to DL, or Swihart to another team. The latter two strike me as more likely...

Hanley was terrific in April, but he has slowed down considerably. The Sox best all around lineup right now probably has Moreland at 1B, Bradley in CF and Martinez at DH. (And Holt at 2B, which seems odd for me to say.) At least against RHP, that is the best one.

He doesn't have to be "above average". He just has to be the best option on another team. The average OPS for an OF in MLB is .733. While better than the average OPS for a catcher (.686), the bar to start for a team might not be as high as you think. And Swihart has a very good arm capable of playing in RF. He'll have an easier time learning that position than the rigorous demands of catching. Swihart might represent an upgrade in RF for teams like the Orioles (where OF defense goes to die), the White Sox, the Twins, the Marlins, and the Rays. The Orioles, White Sox, and Marlins can take a low risk chance on him right now. What's he going to do? Ruin their season? (The White Sox should have cleared the path last off-season when Avisail Garcia had his career year.) Even the Twins and Rays should consider it. Outside of the Rockies and Rangers and maybe the Nationals, what team should be taking a chance on him at catcher? He's not even getting one in Boston, where the offensive side of the game has been the worst in MLB. And if the Red Sox are not giving him a chance, doesn't that say anything about his play behind the plate?

He might get a trial someplace. But for how long? Even bad teams have other minor league options. Teams are moving towards more athletic catchers, and Swihart should qualify there. But at some point, you have to be good enough to stick. He's more likely to get a crack at a starting outfield job than catcher. There are twice as many corner OF positions on bad teams, and a lot of mediocrity currently manning them...

Bobby Valentine?

Other than the fact that he wants out so he can sit on someone else's bench...

Interstingly, he seems to be striking people out at a greater rate than ever before. But he is also giving up more hits, walks and home runs. And doing so against NL lineups in a pretty big ballpark. I wouldn't want him, especially given the Sox payroll headroom...

Please link me to any post where that has been said.

The main problem is no one has ever said most of your counterarguments. I have never said the eye yest is no good because it isn't statistically based. I have said it is no good because it is incredibly subjective and nearly impossible for casual fans to use for comparisons. I have repeatedly said you can say Bradley is a good defender based onthe eye test, but you can't really say whether or not he is the best or second best based on the unequal amounts of data. My statement and yours are not the same at all. Really, you're putting words into everyone else's mouth on this. It's been REPEATEDLY pointed out to you that fielding metrics involve the eye test, so it can't be completely invalid. It's never been "all stats and nothing else." We are posting on a thread entitled "WAR is the dumbest stat", on which several people, yourself included, tried to invalidate it. I have yet to see a thread entitled "The Eye Test Is Completely Worthless and Baseball is Stats and Stats Alone." Perhaps you can link me to it...

True, but it is also a different argument. There are no stats for hustle, either. But just because WAR or any other stat doesn't cover that does not invalidate the stats...

It really comes down to how you want to interpret it. Overall, absolutely not. This season, it certainly does look that way given his negative value. However, historically he has established himself as a solid major league regular and this one quarter season sample size doesn't mean he necessarily isn't.

Its also likely his presence in the field has prevented runs and preserved games. Probably just ss many as his batting has cost. The Sox are playing .680 baseball and among the best offenses in the league. Not likely they'd be doing much better with another hitter. Especially since their defense doesn't dazzle anyone by any measure...

No stat for the swing? True. That is why observations like that go unchallenged. Or go challenged by someone with dissimilar observations. Defense? There are a lot of stats for that.

Absolutely no way the Marlins deal Barraclaugh for Swihart. They also won't deal Streckenrider. Ziegler? Probably. Tazawa? Sure. Hes already halfway gone anyway. Really outside of a chance to dump salary, not sure why the Marlins would want Swihart. They already have a catcher much closer to being a "Future Fisk" than Swihart...

I'm 100% certain WAR is still more reliable than eye test when it comes to evaluating defense...

Moo I am fairly certain no one has ever used WAR or any other stat to dispute swing mechanics. Especially when discussing defense. I've listed several flaws with eye test defense. What are the flaws you find with WAR?

.. deleted post

Or a sac fly. Neither Betts nor Benintendi have a comparable arm...

Pass on Colon. The Sox need pitching depth, not pitching width...

That's really the bigest reason. For all the complaining that Bradley or Bradley and Vazquez are costing this team wins, you'd think the Sox had won a lot less than 68% of their games...

Not every slump can be coached out of. and plate disciline is especially tough. If a player doesn't have it by the time he reaches MLB, he isn't very likely to ever get it. Many players have tried to improve their plate discipline at this stage. Most of them simply wind up taking more pitches, which not only isn't the same, but can also be very detrimental to the hitter...

Hanley might play less of Bradley were hitting better. But Moreland can only sub for one of them at a time...