PDA

View Full Version : The Cuban Missile



Benihana
06-07-2012, 12:24 PM
Has a pitcher ever had a 5.8 K/BB ratio with at least 30 IP in the major leagues? What about a 0.55 WHIP? 16.1 K/9? K/(BB+H) > 3?
What is the record number of innings a pitcher has gone without giving up an earned run?

I thought we might as well get a thread going in tribute to what has been the greatest two months (and counting) that a Reds pitcher has ever had...

Hoosier Red
06-07-2012, 12:36 PM
Has a pitcher ever had a 5.8 K/BB ratio with at least 30 IP in the major leagues? What about a 0.55 WHIP? 16.1 K/9? K/(BB+H) > 3?
What is the record number of innings a pitcher has gone without giving up an earned run?

I thought we might as well get a thread going in tribute to what has been the greatest two months (and counting) that a Reds pitcher has ever had...

Or a 3.25 K/Walks+Hits Combined

redsfan30
06-07-2012, 12:42 PM
We are witnessing something truely special.

RedsManRick
06-07-2012, 12:43 PM
Has a pitcher ever had a 5.8 K/BB ratio with at least 30 IP in the major leagues? What about a 0.55 WHIP?
What is the record number of innings a pitcher has gone without giving up an earned run?

I thought we might as well get a thread going in tribute to what has been the greatest two months (and counting) that a Reds pitcher has ever had...

Last year alone, 9 pitchers had a K/BB of at least 5.8 in 30+ IP, led by Sergio Romo's 14.0 (13.1 K/9, 0.9 BB/9).

The raw K rate and the WHIP are much more impressive than the K/BB.

That said, who hear knows of Ernesto Frieri? He's a rookie reliever for the Angels with a higher K/9 than Chapman. Who's talking about his historic season?

That's why people want Chapman to start. He's an awesome reliever and his start to the season has been a lot of fun to watch. But even awesome relievers aren't all that uncommon. Every year there are 10-15 relievers who just blow away the league. What differentiates the Brad Lidges of the world from the John Axfords is longevity. The raw talent isn't all that special.

But where championships come from is not from career value, from being dominant for a small number of innings over many seasons. It's from being dominant over a large number of innings with a given season. And there are few pitchers with the ability to do that.

The difference between a closer who throws 60 innings and never allows a run and one who has an ERA of 3.00 is about 2 wins. The difference between a starter who has a 2.50 ERA and one who has a 4.50 ERA is about 5 wins. In other words, if a guy can give you 200 IP of an ERA south of 3.50, there's basically nothing he can do as a reliever that will provide you as much value.

Chapman has been flat out awesome and is pacing for a historic season. But if he were in the rotation giving the Reds a run of the mill #2 starter season, we'd be better off.

RedFanAlways1966
06-07-2012, 01:35 PM
The difference between a closer who throws 60 innings and never allows a run and one who has an ERA of 3.00 is about 2 wins. The difference between a starter who has a 2.50 ERA and one who has a 4.50 ERA is about 5 wins. In other words, if a guy can give you 200 IP of an ERA south of 3.50, there's basically nothing he can do as a reliever that will provide you as much value.

Chapman has been flat out awesome and is pacing for a historic season. But if he were in the rotation giving the Reds a run of the mill #2 starter season, we'd be better off.

Yes, yes and yes to RedsManRick. But due to injuries... give me a break. The REDS braintrust just amazes me with not trying to get Champman in the starting rotation.

MikeThierry
06-07-2012, 01:59 PM
I have no idea why people want to put Chapman in the rotation when A. he's having the most dominant season in the history of baseball when it comes to relieving and B. the very reason why the Reds have taken off is because it's lock down from the 6th inning on for the Reds. The clear difference between the Reds and the rest of the division is a dominant bullpen. Dominant bullpens are more important than ever in today's game. That was proven in last year's playoffs and it has trended that way for a while now. As a person that's a fan of another NL Central team, I pray to god that the Reds put Chapman in the starting rotation. That will leave more uncertainty in the Reds bullpen and you do not know what you will get from Chapman in the rotation. Right now you have a known quantity. I don't know why the Reds should mess with it.

MikeThierry
06-07-2012, 02:04 PM
Also, I know the Reds are paying him a lot of money. It's 6 years, 30.25 million dollars. However, if you look at most high octane, lockdown closers in the game; they tend to make way more than 5 million per season. If the Reds were paying him elite starting pitching money (about 17-20 million per year), it would be one thing. Right now, the Reds in my opinion have an absolute steal of a deal paying the best closer in the game just $5 million per year.

Edit: I looked up Papelbon's contract and his is 4 years, 50 million. Yeah, I think the Reds are getting a great deal for their closer.

MWM
06-07-2012, 02:21 PM
That said, who hear knows of Ernesto Frieri? He's a rookie reliever for the Angels with a higher K/9 than Chapman. Who's talking about his historic season?


I do. He was a great pickup in my rotisserie league before he was anointed closer. The difference with Frieri is that he's walked 15 guys in 26 innings. That's not sustainable.That's 25 baserunners in 26 innings. Still very impressive, but in 29 innings Chapman has allowed only 7 hits and 9 walks. That's just insane.

RedFanAlways1966
06-07-2012, 02:25 PM
I have no idea why people want t put Chapman in the rotation...

Valid points, Mike, but I have to disagree for these reasons:

A. The win differential that RedsManRick points out. Cards fans should want him in the BP for that reason. ;)

B. Hope you get me 27 outs (more like 18-24 outs) every 5 games or hope you get me (on average for a .600 team) 9 outs or less every 5 games. The math tells me the former over the latter. Perhaps "modern thinking" does not agree but every out is equally important, 1st out vs. 27th out. Every 5 games there are about 135 outs (extra innings and losing in 9 innings on the road being exceptions). 20 outs of 135 outs = 14.8%. 9 outs of 135 outs = 6.7%.

757690
06-07-2012, 02:27 PM
Last year alone, 9 pitchers had a K/BB of at least 5.8 in 30+ IP, led by Sergio Romo's 14.0 (13.1 K/9, 0.9 BB/9).

The raw K rate and the WHIP are much more impressive than the K/BB.

That said, who hear knows of Ernesto Frieri? He's a rookie reliever for the Angels with a higher K/9 than Chapman. Who's talking about his historic season?

That's why people want Chapman to start. He's an awesome reliever and his start to the season has been a lot of fun to watch. But even awesome relievers aren't all that uncommon. Every year there are 10-15 relievers who just blow away the league. What differentiates the Brad Lidges of the world from the John Axfords is longevity. The raw talent isn't all that special.

But where championships come from is not from career value, from being dominant for a small number of innings over many seasons. It's from being dominant over a large number of innings with a given season. And there are few pitchers with the ability to do that.

The difference between a closer who throws 60 innings and never allows a run and one who has an ERA of 3.00 is about 2 wins. The difference between a starter who has a 2.50 ERA and one who has a 4.50 ERA is about 5 wins. In other words, if a guy can give you 200 IP of an ERA south of 3.50, there's basically nothing he can do as a reliever that will provide you as much value.

Chapman has been flat out awesome and is pacing for a historic season. But if he were in the rotation giving the Reds a run of the mill #2 starter season, we'd be better off.

Do those win totals take into account the leverage value of the innings pitched?

Over a season, 20 runs given up in the final innings of close games are about as damaging as 44 runs given up in the first 6 innings of a game. 20 runs given up by a closer over a season, probably means around 10-15 loses. A extra 1.5 runs a game for a starter probably means about the same.

puca
06-07-2012, 02:34 PM
I have no idea why people want to put Chapman in the rotation when A. he's having the most dominant season in the history of baseball when it comes to relieving and B. the very reason why the Reds have taken off is because it's lock down from the 6th inning on for the Reds. The clear difference between the Reds and the rest of the division is a dominant bullpen. Dominant bullpens are more important than ever in today's game. That was proven in last year's playoffs and it has trended that way for a while now. As a person that's a fan of another NL Central team, I pray to god that the Reds put Chapman in the starting rotation. That will leave more uncertainty in the Reds bullpen and you do not know what you will get from Chapman in the rotation. Right now you have a known quantity. I don't know why the Reds should mess with it.

I wish the Cardinals had left Wainwright in the bullpen.

MikeThierry
06-07-2012, 02:37 PM
I agree with 757690 on this one. Right now, I would rather have a lock down bullpen and average starting pitching than I would great starting pitching and an average bullpen. I'm biased a bit over this. What happened last year in the playoffs kind of changed the way I view how pitching these days. Giving up 4 runs as a starting pitching is still livable because your team has plenty of innings to make up those runs against the opposing starter. Not being able to close out games with a 1 run lead or keep it close in the later innings is killer and harder for teams to recover from. Teams, by the later innings, are using the matchup advantage where there isn't a matchup advantage while the starter is in the game.

MikeThierry
06-07-2012, 02:39 PM
I wish the Cardinals had left Wainwright in the bullpen.

Kind of a different situation because Waino has 3-4, even 5, out pitches, when healthy of course. I know Chapman has a devistating fastball and slider but his other pitches aren't there just yet.

Edit: Come to think about it, Waino even has two different kinds of curve balls he uses. He has the 12-6 hammer but he also uses a faster curve he gets over for strikes.

757690
06-07-2012, 02:40 PM
Valid points, Mike, but I have to disagree for these reasons:

A. The win differential that RedsManRick points out. Cards fans should want him in the BP for that reason. ;)

B. Hope you get me 27 outs (more like 18-24 outs) every 5 games or hope you get me (on average for a .600 team) 9 outs or less every 5 games. The math tells me the former over the latter. Perhaps "modern thinking" does not agree but every out is equally important, 1st out vs. 27th out. Every 5 games there are about 135 outs (extra innings and losing in 9 innings on the road being exceptions). 20 outs of 135 outs = 14.8%. 9 outs of 135 outs = 6.7%.

So the outs that Simon gets with no one on base in the 6th inning of an 8-1 game, are equal to the outs that Chapman gets with the bases loaded in the 9th of a 4-3 game?

RedFanAlways1966
06-07-2012, 03:19 PM
So the outs that Simon gets with no one on base in the 6th inning of an 8-1 game, are equal to the outs that Chapman gets with the bases loaded in the 9th of a 4-3 game?

Yes. It takes 27 outs to win a game. Out 1, out 12, out 27... all equally important. Do you think young stud pitchers (for lack of a better term) are groomed to be starters or relievers?

RedsManRick
06-07-2012, 03:24 PM
Do those win totals take into account the leverage value of the innings pitched?

Over a season, 20 runs given up in the final innings of close games are about as damaging as 44 runs given up in the first 6 innings of a game. 20 runs given up by a closer over a season, probably means around 10-15 loses. A extra 1.5 runs a game for a starter probably means about the same.

This is simply way off base. Let's look at it the short way and the long way.

The short way
The short way uses the basic inputs of runs and leverage index.

Well, we know 10 runs = 1 win, more or less. So that's where I got my 2 wins from. Well, Chapman has a gmLI of 1.74 this year. Cordero was around 1.6 for each of his 4 years and Cordero had some games as a fireman/setup type which usually produces a higher leverage than closing (because at 1 run deficit or tied game is higher leverage than a 2 or 3 run lead). So 1.6 seems like a good number to me.

2 * 1.6 = 3.2. Using this approach, we can say 20 runs allowed from a closer means 3 extra losses.

The long way
Let's actually model this and come up with a reasonable scenario that looks at the actual games impacted. We're going to have to use a lot of assumptions, but I'm going to try to be as realistic as possible, erring on the side of creating more losses where I'm not sure.

What do you think the distribution of Reds leads is when the closer comes in the game? Let's assume it's between 0 and 3 runs, since that's usually when the closer comes in. He may allow some runs in blowout situations or clear losses too, when he's just getting some work in, but we'll be generous and say all of the runs were allowed in games that were tied or in which the Reds held a save-worthy lead.

Let's also assume we're talking about entering at the beginning of the 9th inning as that's usually the case and I'm trying to keep this relatively straight forward. Since the most games you can allow 20 extra runs in is 20, let's work from that (the other 40+ games stay the same). This means he gave up exactly 1 run per game in which he was scored upon.

In reality, he will give up more than 1 run per game. And of course, because defense is part of run production, we shouldn't be giving the pitcher full credit for runs allowed. But those complicate things. For now, let's just say it's always a solo homer so it's always 1 run and not the defense's fault.

Ok, so what's the lead distribution for those 20 games? Well, tight games are more common than blowouts. The save requires a lead, but we know closers are sometimes used in tie games. So, for the sake of discussion, let's say the run differential distribution looks like this:

- tied game: 2 times
- up 1 run: 8 times
- up 2 runs: 6 times
- up 3 runs: 4 times

In 10 of the games (2 & 3 run leads), that extra run was irrelevant. Reds win. In the 1 run games, that run creates a tie. Given the tie, it's a 50/50 chance to win, so that's 4 losses in 8 games. In the tie games, that puts the Reds down a run, so let's say the Reds lose both of those games (even though it's possible they could come back if the game is at home). That's 6 losses out of 20 games in which he was score upon - much less than the 10-15 you suggest.

Now that's doing pretty much everything we can within reason to blame the closer for losses. In reality, those runs aren't spread across 20 games, they're clumped, meaning the closer runs affect fewer games than the number of runs allowed. For example, last year Cordero allowed 19 ER .4in 14 games. So we need to increase our average runs allowed to about 1.5 runs per game, meaning the Reds would be more likely to lose a game in which the runs were allowed. So let's bump up that 30% loss rate (6/20) to 40%. 40% of 14 = 5.6. So, actually, that's not a huge difference -- maybe 1 fewer loss. Let's call it a wash.

But we still haven't brought the defense in. What portion of run prevention is a function of the defense. Honestly, I can't remember/find the answer, but I think it's something like 1/3 defense, 2/3 pitch. That drops the pitchers losses to 4.

So there we go. Using this set of assumptions, 20 runs translates to 4 losses, not 10-15. Feel free to adjust my assumptions, but unless they're unrealistic changes, it won't likely increase the number of losses.

Conclusion
So, short way says 3. Long way using generous assumptions (no comebacks, no runs in blowouts or when getting work in, etc.) says 4. Let's be kind to your perspective and say it's 4 losses due to 20 runs allowed.

Does leverage matter? Yes. But even the best closer in the league (3 runs of ERA better than replacement -- which nobody really is) used in a highly leveraged way is at best as valuable as a solid #2 starter when it comes to wins and losses.

So, if he really is this dominant in the long run, we're getting #2 starter value. That's obviously very valuable. But if you think the guy can be Randy Johnson, you're talking about 8 win seasons. For some, a bird in the hand beats two in the bush. But for me, when the game is championships and we're rocking an 88-90 win roster at best, I'll take my chances for twice the impact, especially knowing that even failure to reach that height as a starter would still make him as valuable as a solid closer.

defender
06-07-2012, 03:25 PM
If somehow Chapman finished the season as closer and did not allow a run, I am sure it will be more than a 2 win benefit. At this point in the season, Chapman has probably been at least as valuable as the Reds top 2 starters. The Reds are 6-5 when Bailey starts and 5-5 when Leake starts. Put Chapman in the rotation (and Leake, Bailey or even Bray in the pen), and I think it is a net loss for the Reds.

MikeThierry
06-07-2012, 03:33 PM
Does Chapman have 3 great pitches though? We know he has 2. As fast as Chapman pitches, you know his velocity will decrease if he goes into the rotation. As an opposing hitter, I want to see Chapman in the rotation with just 2 plus pitches and diminished velocity while having the opportunity to pound Leake in the bullpen rather than the situation the Reds have now. Again, I pray to god that the Reds put him in the roation because, at that point, they're trying to reinvent the wheel when it doesn't need to be reinvented.

powersackers
06-07-2012, 03:45 PM
If somehow Chapman finished the season as closer and did not allow a run, I am sure it will be more than a 2 win benefit. At this point in the season, Chapman has probably been at least as valuable as the Reds top 2 starters. The Reds are 6-5 when Bailey starts and 5-5 when Leake starts. Put Chapman in the rotation (and Leake, Bailey or even Bray in the pen), and I think it is a net loss for the Reds.

I believe RedMansRick's analysis shows us that it would be about a 4 win benefit over replacement if Chapamn finishes the season without giving up a run.

4 Wins is not insignificant. But likely as a starting pitcher it would be closer to 8 and he could give up 2.5 runs a game.

RedsManRick
06-07-2012, 04:26 PM
If somehow Chapman finished the season as closer and did not allow a run, I am sure it will be more than a 2 win benefit. At this point in the season, Chapman has probably been at least as valuable as the Reds top 2 starters. The Reds are 6-5 when Bailey starts and 5-5 when Leake starts. Put Chapman in the rotation (and Leake, Bailey or even Bray in the pen), and I think it is a net loss for the Reds.

I suggested it would be a 3-4 win benefit once you factor in leverage.

I understand your instinct, but I think most people fail to appreciate the importance of innings in producing value. I think the real argument against Chapman as starter is a belief that he's more likely to be a #3/4 type who struggles to maintain his stuff and his mechanics over the course of 100 pitches.

RedlegJake
06-07-2012, 04:31 PM
Interesting thread and very abstract since the die is cast. Chappy is a closer for the rest of this season. Better figure the best we can get from him in that light because it isn;t going to change this year.

I'm resigned to this but I am going to be severely ticked if the 2013 Reds don't include Aroldis Chapman as part of their starting five from the first day of ST on.

757690
06-07-2012, 04:42 PM
This is simply way off base. Let's look at it the short way and the long way.

The short way
The short way uses the basic inputs of runs and leverage index.

Well, we know 10 runs = 1 win, more or less. So that's where I got my 2 wins from. Well, Chapman has a gmLI of 1.74 this year. Cordero was around 1.6 for each of his 4 years and Cordero had some games as a fireman/setup type which usually produces a higher leverage than closing (because at 1 run deficit or tied game is higher leverage than a 2 or 3 run lead). So 1.6 seems like a good number to me.

2 * 1.6 = 3.2. Using this approach, we can say 20 runs allowed from a closer means 3 extra losses.

The long way
Let's actually model this and come up with a reasonable scenario that looks at the actual games impacted. We're going to have to use a lot of assumptions, but I'm going to try to be as realistic as possible, erring on the side of creating more losses where I'm not sure.

What do you think the distribution of Reds leads is when the closer comes in the game? Let's assume it's between 0 and 3 runs, since that's usually when the closer comes in. He may allow some runs in blowout situations or clear losses too, when he's just getting some work in, but we'll be generous and say all of the runs were allowed in games that were tied or in which the Reds held a save-worthy lead.

Let's also assume we're talking about entering at the beginning of the 9th inning as that's usually the case and I'm trying to keep this relatively straight forward. Since the most games you can allow 20 extra runs in is 20, let's work from that (the other 40+ games stay the same). This means he gave up exactly 1 run per game in which he was scored upon.

In reality, he will give up more than 1 run per game. And of course, because defense is part of run production, we shouldn't be giving the pitcher full credit for runs allowed. But those complicate things. For now, let's just say it's always a solo homer so it's always 1 run and not the defense's fault.

Ok, so what's the lead distribution for those 20 games? Well, tight games are more common than blowouts. The save requires a lead, but we know closers are sometimes used in tie games. So, for the sake of discussion, let's say the run differential distribution looks like this:

- tied game: 2 times
- up 1 run: 8 times
- up 2 runs: 6 times
- up 3 runs: 4 times

In 10 of the games (2 & 3 run leads), that extra run was irrelevant. Reds win. In the 1 run games, that run creates a tie. Given the tie, it's a 50/50 chance to win, so that's 4 losses in 8 games. In the tie games, that puts the Reds down a run, so let's say the Reds lose both of those games (even though it's possible they could come back if the game is at home). That's 6 losses out of 20 games in which he was score upon - much less than the 10-15 you suggest.

Now that's doing pretty much everything we can within reason to blame the closer for losses. In reality, those runs aren't spread across 20 games, they're clumped, meaning the closer runs affect fewer games than the number of runs allowed. For example, last year Cordero allowed 19 ER .4in 14 games. So we need to increase our average runs allowed to about 1.5 runs per game, meaning the Reds would be more likely to lose a game in which the runs were allowed. So let's bump up that 30% loss rate (6/20) to 40%. 40% of 14 = 5.6. So, actually, that's not a huge difference -- maybe 1 fewer loss. Let's call it a wash.

But we still haven't brought the defense in. What portion of run prevention is a function of the defense. Honestly, I can't remember/find the answer, but I think it's something like 1/3 defense, 2/3 pitch. That drops the pitchers losses to 4.

So there we go. Using this set of assumptions, 20 runs translates to 4 losses, not 10-15. Feel free to adjust my assumptions, but unless they're unrealistic changes, it won't likely increase the number of losses.

Conclusion
So, short way says 3. Long way using generous assumptions (no comebacks, no runs in blowouts or when getting work in, etc.) says 4. Let's be kind to your perspective and say it's 4 losses due to 20 runs allowed.

Does leverage matter? Yes. But even the best closer in the league (3 runs of ERA better than replacement -- which nobody really is) used in a highly leveraged way is at best as valuable as a solid #2 starter when it comes to wins and losses.

So, if he really is this dominant in the long run, we're getting #2 starter value. That's obviously very valuable. But if you think the guy can be Randy Johnson, you're talking about 8 win seasons. For some, a bird in the hand beats two in the bush. But for me, when the game is championships and we're rocking an 88-90 win roster at best, I'll take my chances for twice the impact, especially knowing that even failure to reach that height as a starter would still make him as valuable as a solid closer.

First, I said if used in close games in the late innings. Most of your argument is one against using your closer only in the 9th inning. If used properly, in the highest leverage point of each game, those 20 runs easily equal 10-15.

Second, Even if used strictly to get the last three outs or in a tie game, I would say your assumptions are off and I would put it at 6 games. The change I would make is elimante the whole defense part of the equation. We're talking earned runs. And I thought your assumption was that it was a solo homer each time?

Third, let's see what happens when we do the same analysis to a starting pitchers runs allowed. Distribute 44 runs throughout a season for a starter and see how those additional runs effect the teams win lose totals. I imagine you would get the similar results, maybe a win different.

Just for the record, I have been from day one arguing that Chapman should be in the rotation. However, I just don't think that having him close is that much worse of an option. It certainly isn't less than half as valuable as having him in the rotation.

RedFanAlways1966
06-07-2012, 04:58 PM
Does Chapman have 3 great pitches though? We know he has 2. As fast as Chapman pitches, you know his velocity will decrease if he goes into the rotation.

Calling Mario Soto! Mario, "We need you and your spanish language to teach this kid that great changeup. You have done it before and we hope that you can do it again. You do not seem to have any bad blood with this team and we will gladly pay you for your time."

RedlegJake
06-07-2012, 05:01 PM
Calling Mario Soto! Mario, "We need you and your spanish language to teach this kid that great changeup. You have done it before and we hope that you can do it again. You do not seem to have any bad blood with this team and we will gladly pay you for your time."

I'd try like heck to do a deal with Mario to have a lot of Reds pitchers, at least prospects, spend winter in Mario's academy since he doesn't want to come north. Pay him to teach them in the off season and send a coach with them to pick up some of Mario's teaching too and bring it back with them. The Reds should try any way possible including creative means to utilize Mario's teaching talents which are tremendous from the evidence of pitchers he's worked with in the past.

camisadelgolf
06-07-2012, 05:03 PM
Chapman's a lock for the All-Star Game, right?

RedlegJake
06-07-2012, 05:08 PM
Chapman's a lock for the All-Star Game, right?

If he's not then the manager has a screw loose. Is LaRussa coming back to manage?

The Operator
06-07-2012, 05:11 PM
Does Chapman have 3 great pitches though? We know he has 2. As fast as Chapman pitches, you know his velocity will decrease if he goes into the rotation. You can get by with two pitches if they're both unhittable. Randy Johnson made a pretty good career out of two pitches.

His velocity will go down some in the rotation but 93-94 as a "low" velocity for him is still pretty formidable coming from the left side.

RedsManRick
06-07-2012, 05:30 PM
First, I said if used in close games in the late innings. Most of your argument is one against using your closer only in the 9th inning. If used properly, in the highest leverage point of each game, those 20 runs easily equal 10-15.

That's all well and good, but that's not what happens in practice. If he only ever pitched in tie games or 1 run margins, yeah the win total would be higher. But that's like saying what Votto's run production would look like if he always batted with the bases loaded. Though there's certainly more opportunity for control reliever leverage, it still won't happen to the degree you suggest.

For reference, the highest gmLI (leverage when entering the game) in baseball last year was Jordan Walden at 2.11, suggesting a 2x multiplier for your standard runs to wins conversion. 20 runs = 2 wins. 2 x 2 = 4 wins. 10-15 is simply not in the realm of reality.



Second, Even if used strictly to get the last three outs or in a tie game, I would say your assumptions are off and I would put it at 6 games. The change I would make is elimante the whole defense part of the equation. We're talking earned runs. And I thought your assumption was that it was a solo homer each time?


I made the HR assumption for the sake of setting an upper bounds of reasonable by removing defense completely -- doing exactly what you're suggesting and ending up with 6 WAR.

Of course, defense does come in to play in reality, it's a question of accounting for it. You seem to think errors/fielding percentage/earned gets us there. I don't think that's at all true. The studies have been done and using more sophisticated approaches to defensive assessment show only a weak correlation with fielding percentage. The earned/unearned distinction rewards guys with small range who simply can't get close enough the ball to screw up the play in the opinion of the (often biased) official scorer.

So I think that's a silly assumption to make.


Third, let's see what happens when we do the same analysis to a starting pitchers runs allowed. Distribute 44 runs throughout a season for a starter and see how those additional runs effect the teams win lose totals. I imagine you would get the similar results, maybe a win different.

Just for the record, I have been from day one arguing that Chapman should be in the rotation. However, I just don't think that having him close is that much worse of an option. It certainly isn't less than half as valuable as having him in the rotation.

You're right -- and my analysis supports that point exactly.

For example, Verlander allowed 67 ER in 2011 over 251, good for a 2.40 ERA and a 2.60 FIP. That equated to 6.7 fWAR (baseball reference, which uses actual runs and not FIP, had him at 8.3 rWAR). 6.7 WAR = about 67 runs above replacement. This suggests a 4.80 ERA as replacement level.

So, what ERA does 44 runs above replacement suggest? Given the Fangraphs calculation, it's what a 3.20 FIP produces. Guys with a 3.20ish FIP last year include: Jered Weaver 5.6 WAR, Ian Kennedy 5.0 WAR, Jamie Garcia 3.6, CJ Wilson 5.9. The reason there's so much variance is innings -- from Garcia's 194.2 to Weaver's 235.2.

So, you have the closers upside, with all of the assumptions in his favor, maxing out at or below the value of a guy who gives you 30+ starts of 7 IP and a 3.20 ERA. If you think Chapman has the potential to do better than that, you're leaving potential production on the table.

So I'll say it again. A top flight closer is akin to a good #2 starter. I don't see what's so controversial about that. The idea that a relief pitcher has a chance to be a 10-15 win player simply isn't based in the baseball reality we live in.

REDREAD
06-07-2012, 06:06 PM
I have no idea why people want to put Chapman in the rotation when A. he's having the most dominant season in the history of baseball when it comes to relieving and B. the very reason why the Reds have taken off is because it's lock down from the 6th inning on for the Reds. The clear difference between the Reds and the rest of the division is a dominant bullpen. Dominant bullpens are more important than ever in today's game. That was proven in last year's playoffs and it has trended that way for a while now. As a person that's a fan of another NL Central team, I pray to god that the Reds put Chapman in the starting rotation. That will leave more uncertainty in the Reds bullpen and you do not know what you will get from Chapman in the rotation. Right now you have a known quantity. I don't know why the Reds should mess with it.

Yea, we've discussed this before.
I think this year, Chapman is more valuable in the pen.
Especially if the Reds make the playoffs.. the pen is even more important in the postseason.

Another way to look at it.. The Reds can probably make the playoffs with Leake in the rotation instead of Chapman (not a given, but probably).
Once the Reds are in the playoffs, having Chapman available to appear in almost every playoff game is a HUGE advantage. Marshall and Orndrusek are solid, but the dropoff from Chapman to them is significant. In a 3 man playoff rotation.. who would our #3 starter be? Hard to say.. #2 and #3 will come from Arroyo, Bailey and Latos. I'm not sure Chapman would outpitch two of those guys as a starter. Maybe, but not a given. He's basically a two pitch (often one pitch) guy now.

REDREAD
06-07-2012, 06:19 PM
This is simply way off base. Let's look at it the short way and the long way.


I don't think you can analyze things in a vacuum though.
The Reds as a team and their needs must be considered.
If Josh Fogg or another black hole was in the rotation now, it makes a ton of sense to try Chapman in the rotation.
Right now, Homer and Leake are competent options for the back of the rotation.
The other SP are doing well too.

So you bump Leake out of the rotation.. what do you do with him? Send him to AAA or put him in the pen? If you send him to AAA, who do you put in the pen.
The entire bullpen has to then "move up a slot" in terms of roles.
Ondrusek and Marshall suddenly have to pitch a lot more innings, and might get worn out by the end of year.

The other factor is that Chapman might be worse than Leake as a starter.
He didn't exactly dominate as a starter in AAA, although I am sure the mechanical changes that have helped him in the pen would probably help him as a starter. It's unchartered waters. You might transform the best reliever in the game into a 4.50 ERA starter.. Is that likely? Probably not, but it's not a slam dunk that he'll be an impact starter.. maybe he's only incrementally better than Leake. Maybe he runs out of gas in the 5th inning and puts a bigger toll on the pen.. Although I will say this: Leake needs to go deeper into games. 4 out of 10 starts, he's failed to make it to the 6th inning. I guess I have more confidence that Leake will eat more innings than Chapman would this year.

Superdude
06-07-2012, 06:22 PM
Does Chapman have 3 great pitches though? We know he has 2. As fast as Chapman pitches, you know his velocity will decrease if he goes into the rotation. As an opposing hitter, I want to see Chapman in the rotation with just 2 plus pitches and diminished velocity while having the opportunity to pound Leake in the bullpen rather than the situation the Reds have now.

One of Chapman's starts this spring had pitch f/x and he was consistently mid to high 90's for 5 innings. That's pretty much where his fastball was the whole first month of the season, and he couldn't have been more dominant. If he has command of his slider, that's not two plus pitches. That's two of the best pitches in the game. If this mythical splitter that he has is even remotely close to average, he will be the last thing opposing hitters want to see.

Reds1
06-07-2012, 06:51 PM
Also, I know the Reds are paying him a lot of money. It's 6 years, 30.25 million dollars. However, if you look at most high octane, lockdown closers in the game; they tend to make way more than 5 million per season. If the Reds were paying him elite starting pitching money (about 17-20 million per year), it would be one thing. Right now, the Reds in my opinion have an absolute steal of a deal paying the best closer in the game just $5 million per year.

Edit: I looked up Papelbon's contract and his is 4 years, 50 million. Yeah, I think the Reds are getting a great deal for their closer.


Heck, we paid Madson much more than Chap is getting. As a closer as great as he is the cost is actually cheap. I don't think people realize the value of a shut down guy like chap in the pen. Last night even giving up the huge lead to 1 run with chap in I knew we had it in the bag.

camisadelgolf
06-07-2012, 07:11 PM
Heck, we paid Madson much more than Chap is getting. As a closer as great as he is the cost is actually cheap. I don't think people realize the value of a shut down guy like chap in the pen. Last night even giving up the huge lead to 1 run with chap in I knew we had it in the bag.
Chapman was guaranteed over $30M. Madson was guaranteed less than $10M.

Vottomatic
06-07-2012, 07:18 PM
Could be on the verge of one of the greatest pitching seasons ever. He is fun to watch.

If he isn't picked to be on the All Star team, then somebody screwed up.

George Anderson
06-07-2012, 09:09 PM
Could be on the verge of one of the greatest pitching seasons ever. He is fun to watch.

.

This thread likely is not done.

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=94862&highlight=koufax

mattfeet
06-07-2012, 11:12 PM
:(

Vottomatic
06-08-2012, 12:22 AM
This thread jinxed him. :(

MikeThierry
06-08-2012, 01:04 AM
You can get by with two pitches if they're both unhittable. Randy Johnson made a pretty good career out of two pitches.

His velocity will go down some in the rotation but 93-94 as a "low" velocity for him is still pretty formidable coming from the left side.

Again... please for the love of god put him in the rotation. 99 MPH is unhittable. 93-94, can be hit by most big league teams. Randy Johnson could pitch 96-99 most of the game and he developed other pitches later in his career. He also was massive and it looked like balls were coming out of the sky from the hitters point of view. I don't know of that's a good comparison to compare him to Randy Johnson.

Big Klu
06-09-2012, 05:03 PM
The other night, Jim Day and Jeff Piecoro were saying that Chapman needs an entrance song like some of the other closers have. They had some ideas, but none of them really stood out, IMO.

Last night at the game, it just came to me what his song should be: "Voodoo Child", by Jimi Hendrix. If anyone can pass this along to JD, I think it would be a hit with the crowd.

mth123
06-09-2012, 05:12 PM
"I Can't Drive 55"

Big Klu
06-09-2012, 05:28 PM
"I Can't Drive 55"

That would be good, too!