PDA

View Full Version : If the Reds do convert Chapman...



Brutus
11-08-2012, 04:01 PM
And it's starting to look like they'll finally pull the trigger for good, how do you suppose they handle the rest of the staff?

Will they trade Bailey? Trade Leake? Option Leake? Put Leake or Bailey in the pen until Chapman reaches an innings limit? Start Leake or Bailey early in the year until they can stretch Chapman's innings to the end of the year?

Personally, I'd be willing to trade Bailey only if it net them a quality starting LF or CF (that could be converted to LF next year). I think Leake's value is unappreciated here, though I'd trade him under the same circumstances (while noting he doesn't have as much trade value as Bailey). But it would be nice to have both since they could have the other replace Arroyo when his contract comes off the books.

I tend to think the Reds will not trade either, but I wonder how they approach Chapman's innings for this year and what they do with the other pitcher in the meantime. Leake, because he has an option they could use if done at the beginning of the year, has more flexibility.

Will M
11-08-2012, 04:31 PM
1) keep Bailey

2) I'm ok with moving Leake IF the team backfills his roster spot with a swingman/6th starter. The team needs more depth in case of injuries. 2012's healthy rotation is the exception not the norm

3) I'd probably start Chapman in the rotation then move him to the pen when he gets to a certain innings limit. Maybe mid August

4) I'd get two good (they don't have to be great) bullpen arms to replace Chapman & Broxton.

_Sir_Charles_
11-08-2012, 05:08 PM
If they pulled the trigger and put Aroldis in the rotation, I'd guess that Leake would get optioned (as they still need depth), and that they'd attempt to sign a closer (Madson or Broxton most likely). If they failed to sign one, then they'd go with an in-house closer (LeCure, Hoover & Marshall are the most likely candidates IMO...I'd lead towards Marshall)

And yes, I'm in favor of doing this too.

Superdude
11-08-2012, 05:12 PM
Best case scenario is Chapman going easy for a month or so and having enough left in the tank come playoff time. I'll get flamed for this, but can Chapman still be optioned to Louisville to start the season? Not only can they easily limit his innings, but also get a better idea of what exactly he's bringing to the table as a starter before we throw him into the fire.

AmarilloRed
11-08-2012, 05:17 PM
I seem to recall in the Marshall thread-bad memory? that Marshall would be moved into the closer slot after 2012. In that case, we'd need a set-up man, not a closer.

cinreds21
11-08-2012, 05:52 PM
What I would do, personally, is trade Bailey or Leake to Cleveland for Chris Perez and maybe another lefty (Nick Hagadone?) Both have fallen out of favor in Cleveland and could be useful.

Benihana
11-08-2012, 06:07 PM
What I would do, personally, is trade Bailey or Leake to Cleveland for Chris Perez and maybe another lefty (Nick Hagadone?) Both have fallen out of favor in Cleveland and could be useful.

Trade Bailey for Chris Perez? NFW!!!

I am never a big fan of trading a lot for closers. I think they can be found economically in FA and in converting other pitchers in the organization.

I agree on Marshall- didn't we sign him to that extension thinking he is the closer of the future?

cinreds21
11-08-2012, 06:17 PM
Trade Bailey for Chris Perez? NFW!!!

I am never a big fan of trading a lot for closers. I think they can be found economically in FA and in converting other pitchers in the organization.

I agree on Marshall- didn't we sign him to that extension thinking he is the closer of the future?

And he did poorly. I don't think Bailey is too much to give up. Yes, he had a good year in 2012, but before that he was barely a fourth or fifth starter. I am just not fully sold on his turnaround. Perez is a very under-the-radar closer who doesn't get much publicity (minus him throwing the front office under the bus.) But he's not some horrible closer. A 59/16 K/BB ratio is pretty good. And if you take away his bad August (where his ERA was over 6) he had a really good year.

Benihana
11-08-2012, 06:32 PM
And he did poorly. I don't think Bailey is too much to give up. Yes, he had a good year in 2012, but before that he was barely a fourth or fifth starter. I am just not fully sold on his turnaround. Perez is a very under-the-radar closer who doesn't get much publicity (minus him throwing the front office under the bus.) But he's not some horrible closer. A 59/16 K/BB ratio is pretty good. And if you take away his bad August (where his ERA was over 6) he had a really good year.

I think Perez could be had for much less than Bailey. And if not, I'd pass on Perez.

I wouldn't trade Bailey for any closer in the game, including Krimbel. I don't think it's worth it from a value standpoint.

RedsManRick
11-08-2012, 07:26 PM
I would not be at all surprised to see Jocketty in the market for Justin Upton. Rumor is that the D'backs want good, young starting pitching as the centerpiece. Bailey, Stubbs/Heisey, and prospect(s) for Upton would make a lot of sense, especially given how close Billy Hamilton seems to be as the CF. That said, I think Upton ends up in Texas. A more likely scenario is Denard Span.

DGullett35
11-08-2012, 07:47 PM
I wouldnt trade anyone from the rotation. its highly unlikely that even all 6 of these guys stays healthy like in 2012. Leake will prove to be valuable in some capacity. I would almost consider betting my life that someone will have to fight the injury bug and Im not trying to be a negative nancy but im just being realistic.

MikeThierry
11-08-2012, 07:54 PM
I hope upon hope that Cincy moves Chapman to the rotation. It would be taking a clear strength and putting into an unknown.

757690
11-08-2012, 08:04 PM
I wouldnt trade anyone from the rotation. its highly unlikely that even all 6 of these guys stays healthy like in 2012. Leake will prove to be valuable in some capacity. I would almost consider betting my life that someone will have to fight the injury bug and Im not trying to be a negative nancy but im just being realistic.

Completely agree. The Reds only used 6 starters all year in 2012. That's not going to happen again, in fact, more likely to to the other way, where they use closer to ten starters.

I can even see a situation where Leake and Bailey are the two best Reds starters for a decent period during 2013, due to injury.

Brutus
11-08-2012, 08:07 PM
I hope upon hope that Cincy moves Chapman to the rotation. It would be taking a clear strength and putting into an unknown.

I'm glad you feel that way because it doesn't make any sense.

Do you know what Aroldis Chapman (1.51 ERA), Jason Motte (2.75), J.J. Putz (2.80), Tyler Clippard (3.72) and Frank Francisco (5.53) had in common? Despite their ERAs being all over the map, those five all saved between 85-88% of their save opportunities.

What does that tell us? That you don't need a super-dominant closer to get the job done. There is a point of diminishing returns where all the extra runs saved don't win you extra ballgames. If you have a 3-run lead in the bottom of the 9th, you still win the game whether you shut out the opponent or give up two runs.

So Chapman in the rotation would have a much greater impact.

Frankly you say this now, but when Chapman has a sub-3 ERA as a starter and the Reds still have a guy saving 90% of their games at closer, you won't be so happy.

traderumor
11-08-2012, 08:12 PM
I hope upon hope that Cincy moves Chapman to the rotation. It would be taking a clear strength and putting into an unknown.
So you think the Cardinals would have been better off leaving Wainwright as closer? It is not "unknown," it is a reassignment with the goal of maximizing a players value based on known skills. The worst case scenario is that his maximum value is as closer. Sometimes you have to try things to discover a player's ceiling.

klw
11-08-2012, 08:14 PM
I wouldnt trade anyone from the rotation. its highly unlikely that even all 6 of these guys stays healthy like in 2012. Leake will prove to be valuable in some capacity. I would almost consider betting my life that someone will have to fight the injury bug and Im not trying to be a negative nancy but im just being realistic.

+1
I vehemently agree with you! The Reds were one in the few teams to get through a season with a 5 man rotation without having to rely on a 6th starter (That 1 game was not due to injury) and to expect that to repeat is not realistic. I don't think they should rely on having Corcino or Villareal to fill in for the long term. I think stashing Leake or Cingrani as a 5th man has merit. Unless the Reds fell that Cingrani is ready or an emergency starter is signed and in Louisville, they should not move Leake.

Superdude
11-08-2012, 08:32 PM
+1
I vehemently agree with you! The Reds were one in the few teams to get through a season with a 5 man rotation without having to rely on a 6th starter (That 1 game was not due to injury) and to expect that to repeat is not realistic. I don't think they should rely on having Corcino or Villareal to fill in for the long term. I think stashing Leake or Cingrani as a 5th man has merit. Unless the Reds fell that Cingrani is ready or an emergency starter is signed and in Louisville, they should not move Leake.

I'm generally not one for tying up value in contingency plans, but we almost certainly need a capable 6th starter if Chapman is in the rotation next year so +2. Leake stays, at least until Cingrani or Corcino presents themselves as better options.

Blitz Dorsey
11-08-2012, 09:21 PM
I'm just not buying any of this. I'd be willing to bet a large chunk of cash right now that Aroldis Chapman will be the Reds' closer in 2013.

mth123
11-08-2012, 10:38 PM
Keep them all and make Leake the swingman. I'd wager he'll end-up with at least 10 starts and over 100 IP.

_Sir_Charles_
11-08-2012, 10:45 PM
And he did poorly. I don't think Bailey is too much to give up. Yes, he had a good year in 2012, but before that he was barely a fourth or fifth starter. I am just not fully sold on his turnaround. Perez is a very under-the-radar closer who doesn't get much publicity (minus him throwing the front office under the bus.) But he's not some horrible closer. A 59/16 K/BB ratio is pretty good. And if you take away his bad August (where his ERA was over 6) he had a really good year.

No. He didn't do poorly. That is a common misconception IMO. He had some crummy luck that's for sure. But the guy was missing a bunch of bats, his babip was incredibly high during that period IIRC too. He wasn't given a long enough chance to show what he could do (may 19th the switch was made).

16 games as closer. 7 saves, 1 blown save. 13-3 record during those 16 games. 21 k's, 3 bb's. 25 ground balls, 18 fly balls.

I can't find the babip stat for that period, but I'd take those numbers from a closer any day of the week in our ballpark.

Blitz Dorsey
11-09-2012, 10:18 AM
No. He didn't do poorly. That is a common misconception IMO. He had some crummy luck that's for sure. But the guy was missing a bunch of bats, his babip was incredibly high during that period IIRC too. He wasn't given a long enough chance to show what he could do (may 19th the switch was made).

16 games as closer. 7 saves, 1 blown save. 13-3 record during those 16 games. 21 k's, 3 bb's. 25 ground balls, 18 fly balls.

I can't find the babip stat for that period, but I'd take those numbers from a closer any day of the week in our ballpark.

This is where BABIP can be a flawed stat IMO. A ball put in play against a soft-tossing lefty would seem to have a better chance of "finding a hole" than a ball put in play against a flamethrower. The problem with BABIP is that it pretends that the odds are the same once the ball is put into play no matter which pitcher you are facing. I would love to see the numbers over a long period of time, but I would not be surprised at all to learn that Sean Marshall's BABIP is consistently higher than that of Aroldis Chapman's. Once it becomes "consistent" it's no longer "bad luck."

_Sir_Charles_
11-09-2012, 10:30 AM
This is where BABIP can be a flawed stat IMO. A ball put in play against a soft-tossing lefty would seem to have a better chance of "finding a hole" than a ball put in play against a flamethrower. The problem with BABIP is that it pretends that the odds are the same once the ball is put into play no matter which pitcher you are facing. I would love to see the numbers over a long period of time, but I would not be surprised at all to learn that Sean Marshall's BABIP is consistently higher than that of Aroldis Chapman's. Once it becomes "consistent" it's no longer "bad luck."

I disagree. Some batters are going to square up a baseball from time to time no matter what. But Marshall's got fantastic swing n' miss stuff. When they DO hit the ball, it's on the ground most often. And we've got one of the best IF defenses in the majors.

While you could label Marshall as a "soft tosser", the fact that he throws mostly breaking balls makes his FB look alot faster to the hitter. He throws it around 92 or so IIRC, but after a large helping of that NASTY breaking ball...that heater must look like 95+.

Regardless, there weren't that many hard hit balls off of Marshall those first few weeks. If they were hit a foot to the right or left, a large portion of them would've been outs. That screams poor luck to me. Oh well, it's a moot point anyway. I'm really not sure why I'm arguing about it. LOL. Boring week I guess. :O)

_Sir_Charles_
11-09-2012, 10:32 AM
Oooh, cool. I found this. Really highlights my point. The second graph, look at the first half of 2012. Yikes. That's Marshall's time as a closer. That's some crappy luck right there.

http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs.aspx?playerid=5905&position=P&page=7&type=full

(didn't realize I could just post the graph...well, here it is)
http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs/5905_P_daily_full_7_20121003.png

RedsManRick
11-09-2012, 11:22 AM
This is where BABIP can be a flawed stat IMO. A ball put in play against a soft-tossing lefty would seem to have a better chance of "finding a hole" than a ball put in play against a flamethrower. The problem with BABIP is that it pretends that the odds are the same once the ball is put into play no matter which pitcher you are facing. I would love to see the numbers over a long period of time, but I would not be surprised at all to learn that Sean Marshall's BABIP is consistently higher than that of Aroldis Chapman's. Once it becomes "consistent" it's no longer "bad luck."

Randy Johnson had a career BABIP of .291. Jamie Moyer has a career BABIP of .283.

If inducing weak contact was all about velocity, it would be a very different game.

And speaking of "consistent", Marshall has a career BABIP of .294. His BABIP in April was .400 and in May it was .444. If that was all we looked at, we might wonder if he was just getting beat around legitimately. But these outputs don't exist in a bubble. All of his other peripherals were very much in line with his career norms. Personally, I find it much, much more likely that he simply had an unsustainable stretch of "bad luck" (combination of more hard contact than usual, bad defense, balls finding holes) than that he experienced a temporary shift of true talent to the point of being unable to induce any weak contact while still striking out a ton, not walking many and keeping the ball in the yard.

As for Chapman's career BABIP, he may very well end up in the historically low range. But I wouldn't bet on it, nor rely on that as any type of argument in regards to what role he should pitch in.

Sea Ray
11-09-2012, 11:37 AM
One thing I don't do is blindly throw him into the rotation. He has to earn it like anyone else. That means that he has to show that he can change speeds and throw enough strikes to get to 7 innings. If he doesn't show those things then he will fail and why set him (and the team) up for failure? I haven't seen enough from him to say that I think he can be a better starter than closer. As a starter he'll have to win with a 94-96 mph FB. That will require two other pitches that he can throw for strikes. I'm not sure he can do that but I have no problem giving him the chance to show me

Patrick Bateman
11-09-2012, 11:49 AM
Varying BAPIP's generally have more to do with unpredictable movement than it does velocity.

Ie. guys like Rivera, knuckelballers, etc. are the guys that seem to post low BAPIP's over large sample sizes because hitters have to adjust their swings last second.

Blitz Dorsey
11-09-2012, 11:52 AM
OK, fair enough. I think you guys (Sir Charles, RedsManRick) correctly outlined that it WAS bad luck for Marshall in 2012 during his brief time as the Reds' closer. I'm with you on that.

However, would you not agree that with someone like Chapman, there are less hard-hit balls in play than there is with someone like, say, Mike Leake? I just think that while BABIP is a good and useful stat, it does have one flaw and that is pretending like it's the same no matter the pitcher you are facing. Someone like Chapman is going to get a lot more bleeders and break a lot more bats than someone like Leake who we see getting rocked quite often. So, that's where BABIP goes wrong. Overall, I'm glad the stat exists though. It definitely has its place.

To get back to the premise of this thread, it's clear "Chapman To The Rotation?" is by far the biggest storyline of the offseason. Makes things interesting for sure.

Patrick Bateman
11-09-2012, 12:02 PM
I think there's no question that Mike Leake's poor BAPIP was not indicative of luck. The home run rate and BAPIP were likely more due to horrendous pitch location and poor movement.

I don't think it has a lot to due with his lack of velocity compared to Chapman. Guys like Arroyo don't throw 100 either.

Blitz Dorsey
11-09-2012, 05:10 PM
Yeah, I never used the word "velocity." That was used by others. My point was that it's no coincidence that the BABIP for Chapman and Leake are so vastly different. It's not just that Chapman throws with excellent velocity (although that's a big part of it). He's just flat out nasty.

So, if you take a pitcher with "nasty" stuff and a pitcher with "Mike Leake" stuff ... how can you view both of those pitchers exactly the same when it comes to measuring BABIP? Aren't there going to be more rocket shots off a pitcher like Leake? Of course. And that's exactly why BABIP is a flawed stat, IMO.

Sea Ray
11-09-2012, 05:40 PM
Yeah, I never used the word "velocity." That was used by others. My point was that it's no coincidence that the BABIP for Chapman and Leake are so vastly different. It's not just that Chapman throws with excellent velocity (although that's a big part of it). He's just flat out nasty.

So, if you take a pitcher with "nasty" stuff and a pitcher with "Mike Leake" stuff ... how can you view both of those pitchers exactly the same when it comes to measuring BABIP? Aren't there going to be more rocket shots off a pitcher like Leake? Of course. And that's exactly why BABIP is a flawed stat, IMO.

More significantly, a guy like Leake will have a lot more balls in play to begin with. For example Leake might give up 2 hits per inning, Chapman one but they'd have identical BAbip.

Leake Inning:

2 hits
2 groundouts
1K
____
4 balls in play/ 2 hits

Chapman Inning:

1 hit
1 flyout
2Ks
______

2 balls in play/ 1 hit

Their BAbip are identical but Chapman is the much more effective pitcher, so what does the stat tell you?

_Sir_Charles_
11-09-2012, 06:03 PM
Oooh, cool. I found this. Really highlights my point. The second graph, look at the first half of 2012. Yikes. That's Marshall's time as a closer. That's some crappy luck right there.

http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs.aspx?playerid=5905&position=P&page=7&type=full

(didn't realize I could just post the graph...well, here it is)
http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs/5905_P_daily_full_7_20121003.png

Hmmm...that's odd. The graph was posted here earlier. Now it's gone. Oh well, you can still see it...just follow the link, it's the second graph. Weird though.

_Sir_Charles_
11-09-2012, 06:10 PM
OK, fair enough. I think you guys (Sir Charles, RedsManRick) correctly outlined that it WAS bad luck for Marshall in 2012 during his brief time as the Reds' closer. I'm with you on that.

However, would you not agree that with someone like Chapman, there are less hard-hit balls in play than there is with someone like, say, Mike Leake? I just think that while BABIP is a good and useful stat, it does have one flaw and that is pretending like it's the same no matter the pitcher you are facing. Someone like Chapman is going to get a lot more bleeders and break a lot more bats than someone like Leake who we see getting rocked quite often. So, that's where BABIP goes wrong. Overall, I'm glad the stat exists though. It definitely has its place.

To get back to the premise of this thread, it's clear "Chapman To The Rotation?" is by far the biggest storyline of the offseason. Makes things interesting for sure.

I would say that a guy like Chapman there are fewer balls hit at all, hard or not.

But for me, the way I look at it is, the harder the pitch...the harder the hit. The transference of velocity from the pitcher to the bat seems to match up somewhat. A hard hit ball off of a "soft tosser", all of the velocity off the bat (okay, MORE of the velocity) is generated by the hitter. A ball hit off of a 99 mph fastball goes farther/faster it seems. At least that's how I perceive it. I've got no data to back that up. If anybody could verify that, jump on in.

dougdirt
11-09-2012, 07:01 PM
I would say that a guy like Chapman there are fewer balls hit at all, hard or not.

But for me, the way I look at it is, the harder the pitch...the harder the hit. The transference of velocity from the pitcher to the bat seems to match up somewhat. A hard hit ball off of a "soft tosser", all of the velocity off the bat (okay, MORE of the velocity) is generated by the hitter. A ball hit off of a 99 mph fastball goes farther/faster it seems. At least that's how I perceive it. I've got no data to back that up. If anybody could verify that, jump on in.

Most of the power is supplied by the bat speed of the hitter. The pitch velocity does supply some of it, but a very small amount when compared to the bat speed and cleanness of contact.

_Sir_Charles_
11-09-2012, 07:40 PM
Most of the power is supplied by the bat speed of the hitter. The pitch velocity does supply some of it, but a very small amount when compared to the bat speed and cleanness of contact.

I was considering the "cleanness of contact" to be equal. But thanks regardless. I'm sure it's just one of those things you see several times and start to think it's the norm. A big FB pitcher comes in and gives up a homer...invariably it's an absolute BOMB.

It just seemed to me that if the swing is the same, the contact is the same and the only difference is the pitch velocity, then the harder thrower would be giving up the harder hit ball. But it's just a VERY small bit of the puzzle.

dougdirt
11-09-2012, 08:56 PM
I was considering the "cleanness of contact" to be equal. But thanks regardless. I'm sure it's just one of those things you see several times and start to think it's the norm. A big FB pitcher comes in and gives up a homer...invariably it's an absolute BOMB.

It just seemed to me that if the swing is the same, the contact is the same and the only difference is the pitch velocity, then the harder thrower would be giving up the harder hit ball. But it's just a VERY small bit of the puzzle.

All things being equal, velocity will make a difference, but even 5 MPH on a fastball the difference is going to only be a couple of extra feet.

_Sir_Charles_
11-09-2012, 09:25 PM
I guess we'll chalk this up to "observational bias" and call it a day. :O)

Wonderful Monds
11-09-2012, 09:46 PM
One thing I don't do is blindly throw him into the rotation. He has to earn it like anyone else. That means that he has to show that he can change speeds and throw enough strikes to get to 7 innings. If he doesn't show those things then he will fail and why set him (and the team) up for failure? I haven't seen enough from him to say that I think he can be a better starter than closer. As a starter he'll have to win with a 94-96 mph FB. That will require two other pitches that he can throw for strikes. I'm not sure he can do that but I have no problem giving him the chance to show me

Why? As I have already pointed out in other threads, Chapman the starter doesn't need to dial it down anymore, because Chapman the closer already did for the sake of command. He already throws significantly lower than max effort.

Sea Ray
11-10-2012, 08:48 AM
Why? As I have already pointed out in other threads, Chapman the starter doesn't need to dial it down anymore, because Chapman the closer already did for the sake of command. He already throws significantly lower than max effort.

My point is that Chapman the starter must pitch totally differently than what we saw from him as a closer. There's a reason Dusty didn't use him more than an inning. He can't throw 95% FBs and be a good starter for us

traderumor
11-10-2012, 09:45 AM
My point is that Chapman the starter must pitch totally differently than what we saw from him as a closer. There's a reason Dusty didn't use him more than an inning. He can't throw 95% FBs and be a good starter for us
I don't know that it will be fastball after fastball, but I don't think it will "totally differently." It will still be FB first, at a very high percentage, with offspeed for show and occasional putaway pitch.

mth123
11-10-2012, 10:18 AM
I think the issue is how long he can go with the hard stuff. At 98+, hitters don't really have time to be too selective. If he's working at 94 or 95, I think a lot of guys will lay off that swing and miss slider. He doesn't really get the slider over the plate. If hitters have time to recognize the slider (and getting multiple PAs per game against him will help), then a lot of those K's will convert to walks (or favorable counts where they can sit on the fastball) and we'll have another Volquez on our hands.

I'm all for giving it a try, but Chapman is far from a sure thing as a starting pitcher. Just taking his peripherals as a reliever and assuming they'll hold up multiple times through a batting order just isn't how it works.

OldRightHander
11-10-2012, 09:02 PM
Have him work with Soto and get that circle change going and he could be absolutely devastating.

757690
11-10-2012, 09:42 PM
I think the issue is how long he can go with the hard stuff. At 98+, hitters don't really have time to be too selective. If he's working at 94 or 95, I think a lot of guys will lay off that swing and miss slider. He doesn't really get the slider over the plate. If hitters have time to recognize the slider (and getting multiple PAs per game against him will help), then a lot of those K's will convert to walks (or favorable counts where they can sit on the fastball) and we'll have another Volquez on our hands.

I'm all for giving it a try, but Chapman is far from a sure thing as a starting pitcher. Just taking his peripherals as a reliever and assuming they'll hold up multiple times through a batting order just isn't how it works.

I share your skepticism, but to be honest, if he can't get his slider over more regularly than he did in 2012, Chapman will get hit hard whether he is a starter or reliever.

Superdude
11-10-2012, 11:40 PM
My point is that Chapman the starter must pitch totally differently than what we saw from him as a closer. There's a reason Dusty didn't use him more than an inning. He can't throw 95% FBs and be a good starter for us

We already know Jocketty and Co. told him to drop the third pitch and Hanigan probably feels very little need to mess with the slider when no one can touch his fastball on most nights. The million dollar question is can he pitch like a starter if asked to do so.