Keeping Christian Vázquez Isn't a Sunk-Cost Fallacy Situation

[Cody Schoenmann]

No, the Twins front office isn't falling victim to a harmful cognitive bias by keeping the 33-year-old backstop. They have better reasons.

Image courtesy of © Bruce Kluckhohn-USA TODAY Sports

The term "sunk-cost fallacy" is often used in professional sports. While this distortionary influence exists in some situations (e.g., Anthony Rendon and the Los Angeles Angels), it wouldn't be appropriate to describe the situation the Twins find themselves in with catcher Christian Vázquez. Yes, he has been dreadful at the plate during most of his tenure with Minnesota. However, that doesn't mean he isn't providing any value. The Twins and Vázquez find themselves in a mutually beneficial relationship, even if it isn't manifesting in an easily identifiable way (aside from, you know, the odd walkoff homer).

Vázquez is the superior defensive option behind the plate, and various metrics support this notion. Here is how the 33-year-old backstop fares in the following defensive metrics at Baseball Prospectus:

• Called Strikes Above Average (CSAA) - 9th
• Errant Pitches Above Average (EPAA) - 17th

According to Baseball Prospectus's advanced metrics, Vázquez has created the ninth-most called strikes for his team, illustrating that he is an above-average pitch framer. He is also the 17th-best catcher in MLB at blocking pitches, not only avoiding passed balls but stopping wild pitches from resulting in advancement by the runner(s). These two metrics suggest that the two-time World Series champion is one of baseball's best receivers, which is a critical trait for a pitching staff that aggressively attacks the strike zone.

Vázquez is also excelling in the following defensive metrics at Baseball Savant:

• 78th-percentile at Blocks Above Average (BAA)
• 55th-percentile at Caught Stealing Above Average (CSAA)
• 92nd-percentile at Framing
• 41st-percentile at Pop Time

Baseball Savant rating Vázquez in the 92nd percentile in framing and 78th percentile in blocking further illustrates how vital he is for the Twins' pitching staff. Admittedly, he is subpar at controlling the running game by deterring basestealers, but variables such as the speed of the baserunner and the pitcher's ability to keep them close play more significant roles in suppressing stolen bases than a catcher's arm strength. Nevertheless, Vázquez is arguably a top-five defensive catcher in baseball, which provides significant value for a team over a 162-game season and the postseason.

Also, Vázquez's offensive woes have been overstated of late. Yes, he was well below average to begin the season (7 wRC+ over 116 plate appearances), but he has picked it up of late. Since Jun. 1, the Twins' primary backstop has hit .271/.302/.508, with a 126 wRC+ over 65 plate appearances, including a momentous walk-off home run against his former team, the Houston Astros, this past Sunday.

The average slash line for MLB catchers is .237/.301/.385, with a 94 wRC+, meaning Vázquez has been far clear of average for the position for over a month. His resurgence has come at a critical time, as fellow catcher Ryan Jeffers has cooled off from his hot start to the year, hitting just .194/.276/.313 with a well below-average 71 wRC+ in the same stretch. Vázquez has been the team's best catcher over their recent hot streak, providing a plus bat and top-tier defensive acumen.

The notion that Vázquez provides little to no value for the Twins on the field needs to end, as it is objectively incorrect. He is one of the best defensive catchers in the sport, and has quietly become one of the hottest-hitting players at the position over the past six weeks, which is a substantial enough sample size to suggest he may have changed his approach at the plate for the better. Also, what are the real alternatives? What could the team actually do to improve at the position? Call up Jair Camargo, who has a .762 OPS against Triple-A pitching and the benefit of ABS in his favor? It would be wrong for the Twins to eat a significant portion of Vázquez's contract and replace him with Camargo. The 25-year-old Triple-A catcher is significantly worse defensively and would, at the very best, provide .080 to .100 extra points in OPS, and even that feels like an overly optimistic outlook.

The team could give Jeffers more starts behind the plate. Yet, mixing his recent cold stretch at the plate with the fact that he is a significantly worse framer (16th-percentile at Baseball Savant) and blocker (22nd-percentile BAA at Baseball Savant) suggests that is an avenue team decision-makers should avoid until his bat heats back up or he demonstrates significant improvement in the field. Even before accounting for the organization's preference to keep their catchers fresh by alternating their starts, Vázquez provides significant value to the Twins despite his hefty price tag and a slow start at the plate. There is no sunk cost. He is presently the Twins' best option behind the plate, and parting ways with him would send ripples through the team's pitching staff.

View full article

[Mike Sixel]

So we're going to ignore the first two months isy the year and last year, and only talk about the good stuff? Seems like a legit analysis. 

[FlyingFinn]

I've always supported the alternating catchers idea for this tandom. I find it incredible that they have both been healthy for 1.5 years and credit this rotation for that. 

[DJL44]

13 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

So we're going to ignore the first two months isy the year and last year, and only talk about the good stuff? Seems like a legit analysis. 

You don't have to ignore 2023. If you assume that 600 OPS is his true talent level he's a perfectly fine 2nd catcher because of his defense.

[Karbo]

Vasky is by far a better defensive catcher, and IMO he also calls a better game. Yes, he didn't hit last year and really sucked at hitting to begin the year. He has been hitting lately, and if he can get his avg. up to the .220-,230 range he is worth the $$. He's not going anywhere which is probably a good thing since they have a couple of rookie pitchers starting about 40% of the games.

[Jocko87]

15 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

So we're going to ignore the first two months isy the year and last year, and only talk about the good stuff? Seems like a legit analysis. 

It's more of a what TD and the Twitterati say vs what the team actually thinks.  (Catchy band name, that) 

The team cares about different things than the talking heads.  Namely, one of the best pitching staffs in the league in his time here.  The pitcher group went from 20th in WAR to 4th in his first year.  He's heavily involved in game planning with the staff.  It's not a coincidence.

Would they like him to not be 33 or 10m a year? Maybe, but he's an exceptionally valuable player before he even touches a bat.  He probably doesn't touch the field in the postseason again and I'm fine with that too.  

Really enjoying the hot stretch with the bat lately. He'll certainly fall back to reality but if he's just a tough at bat in the 9 hole he's irreplaceable, especially at cost. Camargo isn't it and an equivalent option doesn't exist in the trade market.

[Muppet]

34 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

So we're going to ignore the first two months isy the year and last year, and only talk about the good stuff? Seems like a legit analysis. 

Yes. We might as well bench players like Miranda and Larnach because they have sucked for most of their tenure as Twins as well. 

[Mike Sixel]

6 minutes ago, Muppet said:

Yes. We might as well bench players like Miranda and Larnach because they have sucked for most of their tenure as Twins as well. 

That's, of course, not what I said. And neither put up a 7 wrc+.... I said if we are going to fairly discuss this, we can't hand wave the bad. 

[Mike Sixel]

23 minutes ago, DJL44 said:

You don't have to ignore 2023. If you assume that 600 OPS is his true talent level he's a perfectly fine 2nd catcher because of his defense.

He's not a number two catcher. He catches more games than Jeffers. 

[Jocko87]

3 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

He's not a number two catcher. He catches more games than Jeffers. 

He's the #1 regular season catcher.

[CCHOF5yearstoolate]

1 hour ago, Mike Sixel said:

So we're going to ignore the first two months isy the year and last year, and only talk about the good stuff? Seems like a legit analysis. 

So we're just going to ignore how he's playing now and only talk about the first 2 months of the year?

[Craig Arko]

22 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

That's, of course, not what I said. And neither put up a 7 wrc+.... I said if we are going to fairly discuss this, we can't hand wave the bad. 

What alternative do you propose?

[Cody Schoenmann]

1 hour ago, Mike Sixel said:

So we're going to ignore the first two months isy the year and last year, and only talk about the good stuff? Seems like a legit analysis. 

The vast majority of Vázquez's value resides in his defense, which has been great since he joined the Twins. Also, I would argue that recent performance is most relevant when analyzing a player.

[Joe Schmitt]

All of the data is relevant.  And I don't think anyone is saying "ignore X data."  There is a legitimate question about what emphasis should be placed on the recent data.

Personally I think that (1) 65 AB is a pretty good sample size but (2) I am not aware of a change in swing or anything that explains why we should draw a line.  Thus I am happy about the recent trend, but don't assume that it represents a new expected level of performance.

[sun]

Every player has their ups & downs including X, Y & Z. I'm glad that some folks are able to focus on CV's ups for a change, IMO he'll play in the playoffs if the Twins make it this year.

[DJL44]

42 minutes ago, Mike Sixel said:

He's not a number two catcher. He catches more games than Jeffers. 

That isn't Vazquez' fault. That's a management decision.

[chpettit19]

8 minutes ago, Joe Schmitt said:

All of the data is relevant.  And I don't think anyone is saying "ignore X data."  There is a legitimate question about what emphasis should be placed on the recent data.

Personally I think that (1) 65 AB is a pretty good sample size but (2) I am not aware of a change in swing or anything that explains why we should draw a line.  Thus I am happy about the recent trend, but don't assume that it represents a new expected level of performance.

Going to start this by saying I'm in no way suggesting we should all believe the recent Vazquez is the "real" Vazquez and what we should expect moving forward, but here's an article from Dan Hayes yesterday about changes to his swing he's made this season. If you don't have a subscription this link isn't very useful for you, sorry. But he has made some changes. Him and Derek Shomon (assistant hitting coach) have been working together and even took a trip to Driveline when the team was in Arizona to get a better idea on tweaks to make.

[Cody Schoenmann]

11 minutes ago, Joe Schmitt said:

All of the data is relevant.  And I don't think anyone is saying "ignore X data."  There is a legitimate question about what emphasis should be placed on the recent data.

Personally I think that (1) 65 AB is a pretty good sample size but (2) I am not aware of a change in swing or anything that explains why we should draw a line.  Thus I am happy about the recent trend, but don't assume that it represents a new expected level of performance.

Dan Hayes of The Athletic stated that Vázquez "made changes to his lower half in his stance and is positioning his hands higher."

Here's the article if you are interested: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5625498/2024/07/09/twins-christian-vazquez-sunday-celebration/?source=emp_shared_article

[Joe Schmitt]

 With that in mind, I do think that there is a pretty good case to be made that the later data is more likely to be predictive of his future level of offensive performance.
And TY for sharing the links, those were helpful.

[USAFChief]

I agree with one thing in this article. 

There aren't any alternatives to Vazquez being on the team.

I don't agree he needs to play every other day.

[Five minute major]

He is not worth his contract.  Not even close to it.  I liked the signing at the time and am really dissapointed he has not hit close to his career average since becoming a Twin.  We are stuck with him.

 

[Jocko87]

42 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

I agree with one thing in this article. 

There aren't any alternatives to Vazquez being on the team.

I don't agree he needs to play every other day.

If the long term outcome is a fresh Jeffers for the postseason, he can play more for me.  Makes for some rough game threads but many, many innings have to be covered by a sub par sub in a long season.

[KirbyDome89]

We're advocating for Jeffers to catch less often because he has posted a 71 wRC+ in the last 6 weeks, but Vazquez starting more games last year and so far this season while posting a 65 & 49 wRC+ respectively isn't about a sunk cost? Ok....

I would love to see the defensive metrics being gushed over put into context vs. his terrible offensive numbers. How many strikes is he "stealing," in an average game? How often during a game is he blocking balls that prevent runners from moving up a base? Do either come close to providing enough value to offset his his inability to control the run game and his paltry offensive performance over the last 1.5 seasons?

[Bamboo Bat]

Yes, he's certainly been better, even good, since June 1st - no argument there. But as others have pointed out, he was terrible with the bat previous to that & in 2023, with a negative WAR in both years (so far) for the Twins. A lot of defensive stats don't pass the eye test, but he certainly is good with the glove & framing, he's earned that respect. 

But thinking 65 AB is a "good sample size" is just silly. It a month of baseball. Joey Gallo had a fine month of April in 2023 (7HR, 9BB, .339 OBP) that, mixed in with his defensive flexibility, gave some of hope he'd found something close to his 2021 form with a mixture of a great eye, power, & solid defense. But that April 2023 "good sample size"? Pretty sure we all know how that turned out. 

Trying to paint Vazquez in a shiningly good light is just not realistic. The Twins signed a guy they thought they'd net 1 - 2.5 WAR out of annually with a .260+ average & great defense. No sugar-coating: it hasn't worked out that way on one side of the ball, or even in that neighborhood of WAR, a few good weeks notwithstanding. 

 

[RpR]

1 hour ago, Bamboo Bat said:

Yes, he's certainly been better, even good, since June 1st - no argument there. But as others have pointed out, he was terrible with the bat previous to that & in 2023, with a negative WAR in both years (so far) for the Twins. A lot of defensive stats don't pass the eye test, but he certainly is good with the glove & framing, he's earned that respect. 

But thinking 65 AB is a "good sample size" is just silly. It a month of baseball. Joey Gallo had a fine month of April in 2023 (7HR, 9BB, .339 OBP) that, mixed in with his defensive flexibility, gave some of hope he'd found something close to his 2021 form with a mixture of a great eye, power, & solid defense. But that April 2023 "good sample size"? Pretty sure we all know how that turned out. 

Trying to paint Vazquez in a shiningly good light is just not realistic. The Twins signed a guy they thought they'd net 1 - 2.5 WAR out of annually with a .260+ average & great defense. No sugar-coating: it hasn't worked out that way on one side of the ball, or even in that neighborhood of WAR, a few good weeks notwithstanding. 

 

He is better than Jeffers or any othe option.

[bean5302]

Vazquez isn't MLB caliber, but at least his bat isn't the worst in MLB anymore. There's still some positive regression possibility for him. He could wind up at at 0.5 or maybe even 1.0 WAR with some luck?

In any case, he's not a guy a playoff caliber team wants playing much, but there aren't probably a lot better options for essentially "free."

[Brandon]

With his hot streak the last 6 weeks or so definitely helps his value.  Hopefully he can keep it up and end up a .75-.80 OPS+ type offense for the season and he keeps up with his defense.  There is planning and communication and setting up the pitchers that isn’t quantifiable so it’s hard to peg a value there.  He is a popular player in the clubhouse so his work is recognized by his teammates.  If he isn’t worth the contract he is probably not off by as much as we the fans might think.  🤔 

[tony&rodney]

If you are a good pitcher you don't give a damn about whether or not your catcher can hit. There is nothing wrong with Vazquez and the guys who throw to him would be much more scornful of negative comments about him than any of us ever could be.

[bean5302]

4 hours ago, tony&rodney said:

If you are a good pitcher you don't give a damn about whether or not your catcher can hit. There is nothing wrong with Vazquez and the guys who throw to him would be much more scornful of negative comments about him than any of us ever could be.

...and I don't care about the opinions of a pitcher who only cares about his own personal results rather than the team's performance.

Vazquez isn't MLB caliber. He's on the team, he's getting paid $10MM, he's going nowhere. He's as good as a random AAA replacement player overall, and the Twins probably aren't going to spend more on the position.

But he's good at defense!!! So is every single catcher in MLB. Every last one of them is good defensively. Way better than any beer league softball catcher. The difference between Vazquez and the worst defensive catcher in the the big show is literally 1.0 WAR over 50 games or so.

Luis Campusano has the same WAR as Vazquez, ironically (0.0). Because Campusano is a poor hitter at wRC+ 85 but just not as rough as Vazquez. Literally, the absolute most miserable defensive catcher in MLB with a slash line of .230/.277/.364 OPS .640 wRC+ 85 is just as good as Vazquez with his near elite defense.
 

[Ctwink]

19 hours ago, Mike Sixel said:

So we're going to ignore the first two months isy the year and last year, and only talk about the good stuff? Seems like a legit analysis. 

Apparently you skipped over the parts of the article where he talked about Vazquez sucking at the beginning of the season.....