PDA

View Full Version : Am l the only person who thinks moving Chapman to the rotation is a very risky move?!



BLEEDS
12-16-2012, 12:22 PM
I didn't see much chatter on it, so forgive if it's in another thread... But!:

We take the best closer in baseball, lights out stuff, huge streaks of 0.00 WHIP let alone ERA, can come in for an inning maybe a tad more multiple days in a row and really let her loose 100+ mph. A role he really got comfortable with, and played huge dividends for this team.

Now we ask him to move into the rotation - where by the way we are already pretty darn solid, were it not for a doubleheader, we never had to use a 6th starter all year, had 5 guys not miss a start, really found themselves, especially Homer Bailey - where he will have to change his routine, adjust to going every fifth day, will undoubtedly have to cut back on his mph, add another pitch or two, and have to watch his innings as he transitions, already having fatigue last year. Some on here won't call anyone an "Ace" until he can get to 200+ IP, so expectations will be extremely high, and at the first hint of struggles, fan(atical)s will be voicing their opinions - luckily the mass majority if which don't speak Spanish, but "booo!" is universal.

One could argue we are considerably downgrading one very important aspect of our team - a proven lights out closer/bullpen - for a prospective chance at a possible upgrade to our SP, which last time l checked was already very very good. The downside to taking him out of the bullpen is known; the upside to SP is not, and wrought with obstacles.

Discuss?

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

webbbj
12-16-2012, 12:40 PM
No, closers are over rated largely b/c it is the most misused role in sports. The closer is supposed to be the best reliever and teams dont even think about bringing the closer in for the highest leveraged situations.

texasdave
12-16-2012, 12:46 PM
No, closers are over rated largely b/c it is the most misused role in sports. The closer is supposed to be the best reliever and teams dont even think about bringing the closer in for the highest leveraged situations.


That might be because many times it is impossible to know what the highest-leveraged situation is going to be until after the fact. You would be getting your closer up and down like a yo-yo. There are times when one might make a reasonable guess as to when that highest-leveraged situation is occurring. But I bet it is far fewer times than one might think.

40YrRedsFan
12-16-2012, 01:22 PM
I think Chapman is the kind of pitcher that throws as hard as he can for a short period to get hitters out. I don't think he will succeed trying to pace himself as a starter. Plus, he doesn't have good control, and especially has trouble getting a breaking ball over for strikes. My concern is that he might injure himself by changing his routine and throwing many more pitches as a starter.

WDE
12-16-2012, 02:55 PM
Is this official?

nmculbreth
12-16-2012, 04:48 PM
I don't see much, if any risk in moving Chapman.

After the past few seasons I think we are relatively sure that Chapman's floor is a dominant RP and if he doesn't work out as a SP I don't see any reason why he wouldn't be able to revert to form if he were moved back to the bullpen.

Chapman's ceiling is a legitimate number one SP, which is a far more valuable commodity than even the best closer. If Chapman works out as a starter he's a massive upgrade over Leake in the rotation and the Reds will have one of the best rotations in all of baseball, if he doesn't work out the Reds are pretty much in the same position they were last year.

LeDoux
12-16-2012, 06:28 PM
The only risk I see is injury, and unless Chapman pitches fatigued I see no reason why the injury risk is greater as a SP than out of the bullpen. I do hope they put a pitch count max in place.

redsfanmia
12-16-2012, 06:38 PM
I think the Reds are in position to win the world series next season and I question why they want to take a risk like using Chapman as a starter, he could be dominant or he could throw 4-5 innings every time out taxing our bull pen. I know he is a great closer, leave him there imo.

scott91575
12-16-2012, 07:24 PM
There is a risk to every move. Yet you don't keep a guy at closer until you know he can't start, plain and simple. A starter is way more valuable than a closer. There is risk, but it's the right move. If Chapman can be dominant or even good starter, that is better than even the best closer in the history of baseball.

redsfanmia
12-16-2012, 07:28 PM
There is a risk to every move. Yet you don't keep a guy at closer until you know he can't start, plain and simple. A starter is way more valuable than a closer. There is risk, but it's the right move. If Chapman can be dominant or even good starter, that is better than even the best closer in the history of baseball.

Chapman couldn't even make it the whole season without having fatigue coming out of the bullpen throwing 60 innings, how many starts will he make before he goes on the dl with fatigue?

redsfanmia
12-16-2012, 07:30 PM
Bronson and Lecure both said on WLW that they feel he is better off being left in the bullpen.

scott91575
12-16-2012, 07:30 PM
I think the Reds are in position to win the world series next season and I question why they want to take a risk like using Chapman as a starter, he could be dominant or he could throw 4-5 innings every time out taxing our bull pen. I know he is a great closer, leave him there imo.

Going from starter to bullpen midseason is a fairly easy transition (in fact, Chapman has already done that). The other way around is not.

So if he does not work out as a starter, the Reds can plug Leake back in and Chapman goes to the bullpen.

I would state a team in the position to win a World Series does not waste a pitcher who could possibly be one of the best starters in baseball in the bullpen. You don't trot out Mike Leake every 5 days and let Chapman sit in the pen without knowing if he could start.

scott91575
12-16-2012, 07:34 PM
Chapman couldn't even make it the whole season without having fatigue coming out of the bullpen throwing 60 innings, how many starts will he make before he goes on the dl with fatigue?

So you already have him penciled in for the DL?

The bullpen can be just as if not more stressful on a players arm than starting. Starters have regular schedules with highly restrictive pitch counts. Relievers are up and down warming up all the time, come into multiple games in a row, etc. Bullpen innings are not equal to starter innings.

Guys don't end up being relievers because they can't pitch 200 innings. They go their because their stuff does not translate well to starting.

In all honesty, that would be the better discussion. Chapman's change up was not good last year, and if he hasn't developed it in the offseason then he may not be good at starting. Even then, I want to see it before sending him to the bullpen for the rest of his career.

MoneyInTheBank
12-16-2012, 07:46 PM
IMO, there should be no debate about whether this is a risky move. It's a very risky move. The question should really be: Is the risk worth the reward? THAT debate will go on for pages

redsfanmia
12-16-2012, 07:46 PM
So you already have him penciled in for the DL?

The bullpen can be just as if not more stressful on a players arm than starting. Starters have regular schedules with highly restrictive pitch counts. Relievers are up and down warming up all the time, come into multiple games in a row, etc. Bullpen innings are not equal to starter innings.

Guys don't end up being relievers because they can't pitch 200 innings. They go their because their stuff does not translate well to starting.

In all honesty, that would be the better discussion. Chapman's change up was not good last year, and if he hasn't developed it in the offseason then he may not be good at starting. Even then, I want to see it before sending him to the bullpen for the rest of his career.

I think the lack of a third pitch and his intermittent command problems would be the bigger issues compared to him going to the dl so I agree with you.

I just think Chapman is dominant as a closer and the bullpen was the strength of the club last year so why mess with it?

scott91575
12-16-2012, 08:03 PM
I think the lack of a third pitch and his intermittent command problems would be the bigger issues compared to him going to the dl so I agree with you.

I just think Chapman is dominant as a closer and the bullpen was the strength of the club last year so why mess with it?

because the reward if he is a good starter is huge, and the risk is rather minimal. Even if Chapman is not good, how much worse can he be than Leake? Broxton last year blew what, 1 more game the entire year than Chapman with similar save/hold opportunities.

So this is not as big of a risk as you guys are making it out to be, and could be a massive reward. Give him half a year to start. If he doesn't work out, no big loss. Send him back to the bullpen and call up Leake (who has plenty of options). Heck, maybe Leake develops more in AAA with less pressure. He has not really had an opportunity to do that.

texasdave
12-17-2012, 12:28 AM
IMO, there should be no debate about whether this is a risky move. It's a very risky move. The question should really be: Is the risk worth the reward? THAT debate will go on for pages

If a team is on the cusp or a World Series appearance, how much risk do they want to take on? Even if moving Chapman to the rotation makes the Reds the best regular season team, what does that really mean in the playoffs? What if the Reds treat Chapman like Strasburg and pull him after so many innings and do not use him in the playoffs? A lot of questions for Reds' management to consider.

panzecaz03
12-17-2012, 02:45 AM
He was a starter in Cuba and he was great and thats why the Reds signed him, to start! and last preseason when he was starting he did excellent as well, the only risk I see is injury and I'm thinking we are going to limit his innings and pull him out of the rotation towards the end of the season just as the Nats did with Strasburg.

OGB
12-17-2012, 06:48 AM
Chapman couldn't even make it the whole season without having fatigue coming out of the bullpen throwing 60 innings, how many starts will he make before he goes on the dl with fatigue?

You do realize that
A. He has spent almost the entirety of his life as a starter.
and
B. You can develop arm fatigue in many different ways, such as not being accustomed to pitching on 3 consecutive days.

Don't you?

coachpipe
12-17-2012, 07:47 AM
No...This is a BAD idea for the Reds...Heres why...Chapman could barely pitch 70 innings last year before he was fatigued....how is he supposed to throw 150? As you saw when Chapman became fatigued his velocity took a major hit..went from 101 to anywhere from 92-96. Still a pretty good fastball..but not untouchable. Now for everyone who said...well he was a starter in cuba and thats what we got him for...well Cuba is equivalent to low A ball...did you look at his numbers...not the most impressive numbers when we are talking about low A ball..completely different splits if it were major league talent. But back to the point. Chapman has 1 pitch he can control for a strike. This isnt a video game..you cant just give him pitches and have him be good. He could rarely ever control his slider last season..thats why he rarely threw it. And most of the time it was thrown just to mix things up and he followed with the fastball. Starting and Closing are completely different...you can survive on throwing only fastballs because the whole game the batters are seeing another pitcher throw 92 and a lot of junk balls...so when you bring someone in that is completely different than the last pitcher and he is throwing 100...yea its pretty difficult to time when you only get to see him once. Now lets throw him in the rotation....he isnt going to throw 98 + as a starter...thats just not going to happen...So it will be more like 94-95..which is still really good...but for MLB hitters that is very hittable. So the 1st time through the lineup he will be fine...but the second and third time through the lineup...they will be more comfortable against him..and with him not being able to control those other pitches (well he only really has a slider the changeup still has yet to bee seen) that well..you sit fastball..let him throw those other pitches..when was the last time chapman didnt throw a fastball to a batter? And then not to mention when he does get fatigued..because lets be honest...its going to happen..that fastball will drop even more...think baseball..dont think oh this guy throws fast so hes going to be awesome and the next randy johnson..think smart..take some time to really think about this...Just listen to Bronson and leCure...listen to thesee pitchers who know what it takes to become a starter and everything that comes along with it. Look at all the pitchers that have attempted this feet and not succeded. Chapman is not a waste in the bullpen..Its a guaranteed win when he comes on the field....now that isnt the case...why change this? Its not worth it

coachpipe
12-17-2012, 07:56 AM
http://www.wcpo.com/dpp/sports/baseball/reds/column-aroldis-chapman-is-not-ready-to-be-a-starter

Interesting article stating pretty much everything i just did

swaisuc
12-17-2012, 08:09 AM
I'm torn on this. I absolutely believe it's a risky move. I also question where it leaves the back end of our bullpen if/when he is starting. I think it's going to be a headache to play games with his innings all year to keep him available for October.

I do think there is additional upside to having your best pitchers in the rotation though so it might be worth the risk. I'm not sure. Obviously, there is a decent chance it goes flawlessly and we look back on this as a great move and pretend the risks weren't there.

Girevik
12-17-2012, 08:51 AM
Of course there is some risk involved, but the risk is minimal compared to the potential reward. I think it's WELL worth what risk there if for many of the some reasons others have mentioned.

- Closer is overrated. A very good SP is worth more than a CL. An ace is worth WAY more.

- Chapman was a starter his entire career before coming to the Reds. (Remember, those that saw him last year in Spring Training before Mason went down said he was not just the best SP in the Reds camp, but the best in all of the AZ teams they had seen)

- If it doesn't work out, you can move him back to the pen very easily.

- I think the tired arm he had last year was due to pitching too often, not too many innings. I think he may be better suited to through more innings and then have a longer rest.

scott91575
12-17-2012, 10:11 AM
http://www.wcpo.com/dpp/sports/baseball/reds/column-aroldis-chapman-is-not-ready-to-be-a-starter

Interesting article stating pretty much everything i just did

That had to be one of the worst articles I have ever read.

First, his statement comparing starters pitch numbers vs. bullpen pitch numbers is simply ignorant. You can't compare the two. Just ask yourself this, why don't bullpen pitchers throw 100+ innings?

70+ innings out of the bullpen is a heavy workload on any pitcher.

Second, control is an issue with Chapman because he has not thrown more than 2 innings in MLB? WTF? Control was vastly improved last year, and his BB/9 rate was above average (above as in better than average). So not only is his point wrong, but the point he hasn't pitched more than 2 innings makes no sense. It wasn't his job to pitch more than 2 innings.

Third, pitches has been mentioned here. This should be his key to starting, although there have been successful pitchers in the past who have done well starting with only 2 real pitches as long as they are really good pitches.

Fourth, closers are simply not that important. Everybody with half a brain knows that. There is a reason the greatest closer in the history of baseball was only the 16th highest paid pitcher last year, and money being spent on closers is falling even further behind starters.

Like I have stated over and over again, no team ever keeps a guy in the bullpen unless they know he can't start (very limited exceptions and that normally deals with teams that have 5 top of the line starters which the Reds don't have). The Reds need to find out if Chapman can start. People here saying the Reds should do the opposite simply need to look at David Price and Adam Wainwright. Should the Rays and the Cards kept those guys in the bullpen? Same situation. Both teams were pennant contenders, both of those guys played well in the bullpen when they fist came up to the majors, and both were supposed to be starters before being forced into bullpen work short term.

coachpipe
12-17-2012, 10:39 AM
I would LOVE to see Chapman succeed..Im not disagreeing with you that the closer role is overrated...but at the same time it can be argued that it shortens the game. Im sure the Yanks will disagree about the closer role not being important..but the problem chapman has is consistency and stamina...If he can sort those two things out...he will be a dominant starter..but another problem the Reds face with this situation that everyone seems to be forgetting is Dusty Baker is the Reds manager. I know I know..he gets a bad wrap for ruining pitchers arms...but there is also a reason for that...He has a history of ruining pitchers arms. Is Dusty going to know when to bull Chapman out of a game? Most managers..or even fans will probably agree with this rule of thumb...atleast this is what i was always taught... If you have a 1-2 run lead and your starting pitcher is going into the 7th/8th inning...you HAVE to be warming someone up...If he allows the first batter on...you get ready to put in the reliever.. Too many instances have occurred where Dusty keeps that pitcher in..then he gives up another hit..and you have 1st and 3rd..no one out..and then he brings the reliever in..sometimes you just have to pull him to get that W. I hope Chapman stays healthy and the whole reds pitching staff and coaches are watching him every second of every pitch to know when to slow him down/rest him/ anything to keep him healthy..Players..especially pitchers who are trying to prove something are going to be hesitant to tell coaches something doesnt feel right and the coaches have to make sure they can spot when something is wrong...Even if I or anyone doesnt agree with this..Jockety is already moving Chapman to the rotation..Is it Ironic Baker doesnt want this move because he might be scared he may ruin another arm? just came to mind..IDk..but Jockety is already having him be a starter..They just havent decided on when in the season...Personally after seeing how strasburg was shut down last year..I sort of hope they throw him in a long relievers role to start the season..and slowly work on his innings then by playoff time they hopefully wont have to shut him down

LeDoux
12-17-2012, 05:12 PM
If a team is on the cusp or a World Series appearance, how much risk do they want to take on? Even if moving Chapman to the rotation makes the Reds the best regular season team, what does that really mean in the playoffs? What if the Reds treat Chapman like Strasburg and pull him after so many innings and do not use him in the playoffs? A lot of questions for Reds' management to consider.

That's true, but couldn't they "shut him down" by placing him in the bullpen after the all-star break?

DirtyBaker
12-17-2012, 05:49 PM
Yes, but the reward potential outweighs the risk. He's had some time in the minors as well as last year's spring training and if there was a time to make the switch it is now.

Set him free.

redsfanmia
12-17-2012, 06:06 PM
You do realize that
A. He has spent almost the entirety of his life as a starter.
and
B. You can develop arm fatigue in many different ways, such as not being accustomed to pitching on 3 consecutive days.

Don't you?

Most if not all pitchers in the bigs spent their entire career as a starter.

Did he pitch 200+ innings a year in Cuba on a 5 day schedule? I am not sure.

scott91575
12-17-2012, 10:31 PM
Most if not all pitchers in the bigs spent their entire career as a starter.

Did he pitch 200+ innings a year in Cuba on a 5 day schedule? I am not sure.

None of the Reds starters pitched over 200 innings on a 5 day schedule until they started pitching in the bigs, and there are numerous very successful pitchers that pitched in the bullpen and then moved to starters. Chapman's starting routine was not different than Mike Leake before he became a starter in the major leagues.

Oh, and certainly not all pitchers spend their entire career as a starter. I assume you mean starter, and even then I just gave you David Price and Adam Wainwright who didn't start as a starter. That would be a Cy Young winner and a Cy Young runner up. RA Dickey was a reliever. Roy Halladay made 25 relief appearances with the Jays in his early days. John Smoltz, of course, spent time as a closer before coming back to be an All Star starter again.

scott91575
12-17-2012, 10:42 PM
I would LOVE to see Chapman succeed..Im not disagreeing with you that the closer role is overrated...but at the same time it can be argued that it shortens the game. Im sure the Yanks will disagree about the closer role not being important..but the problem chapman has is consistency and stamina...If he can sort those two things out...he will be a dominant starter..but another problem the Reds face with this situation that everyone seems to be forgetting is Dusty Baker is the Reds manager. I know I know..he gets a bad wrap for ruining pitchers arms...but there is also a reason for that...He has a history of ruining pitchers arms. Is Dusty going to know when to bull Chapman out of a game? Most managers..or even fans will probably agree with this rule of thumb...atleast this is what i was always taught... If you have a 1-2 run lead and your starting pitcher is going into the 7th/8th inning...you HAVE to be warming someone up...If he allows the first batter on...you get ready to put in the reliever.. Too many instances have occurred where Dusty keeps that pitcher in..then he gives up another hit..and you have 1st and 3rd..no one out..and then he brings the reliever in..sometimes you just have to pull him to get that W. I hope Chapman stays healthy and the whole reds pitching staff and coaches are watching him every second of every pitch to know when to slow him down/rest him/ anything to keep him healthy..Players..especially pitchers who are trying to prove something are going to be hesitant to tell coaches something doesnt feel right and the coaches have to make sure they can spot when something is wrong...Even if I or anyone doesnt agree with this..Jockety is already moving Chapman to the rotation..Is it Ironic Baker doesnt want this move because he might be scared he may ruin another arm? just came to mind..IDk..but Jockety is already having him be a starter..They just havent decided on when in the season...Personally after seeing how strasburg was shut down last year..I sort of hope they throw him in a long relievers role to start the season..and slowly work on his innings then by playoff time they hopefully wont have to shut him down

I am not normally that guy, and this is honest constructive criticism. Please use some better punctuation than ellipses (which are incorrectly used every single time). That is really hard to read, and I had to simply stop in the middle because it becomes a confusing run on mess.

OGB
12-18-2012, 03:34 AM
To those throwing the "tired arm" thing out there like some kind of conspiracy theory, keep in mind that he was A) never once diagnosed with a "tired arm" and B) it didn't end his season.
You're essentially projecting an imaginary hindrance on him because you think he should stay the closer.
If Chapman didn't have the stamina or pitches to be a big league starter, the Reds' brass wouldn't have signed him to a 6 year contract, they wouldn't have had him working as a starter last spring, and they wouldn't be planning on moving him again this offseason. End of story.

TSJ55
12-18-2012, 08:24 AM
...If Chapman didn't have the stamina or pitches to be a big league starter, the Reds' brass wouldn't have signed him to a 6 year contract, they wouldn't have had him working as a starter last spring, and they wouldn't be planning on moving him again this offseason. End of story.

I've avoided this thread b/c it's already on record that I think attempting to move Chapman to the rotation is a mistake. For all of the reasons already stated and additionally my belief that he is more thrower than pitcher and doesn't possess the mental skillset to start.

All that re-stated, I just can't let "End of story" be the end of the story. Just b/c Red's brass thinks something doesn't make it gospel. Are you implying they've never made a bonehead move? All the decisions ever made in the front office were the right ones? Come on man...

redsfanmia
12-18-2012, 03:08 PM
None of the Reds starters pitched over 200 innings on a 5 day schedule until they started pitching in the bigs, and there are numerous very successful pitchers that pitched in the bullpen and then moved to starters. Chapman's starting routine was not different than Mike Leake before he became a starter in the major leagues.

Oh, and certainly not all pitchers spend their entire career as a starter. I assume you mean starter, and even then I just gave you David Price and Adam Wainwright who didn't start as a starter. That would be a Cy Young winner and a Cy Young runner up. RA Dickey was a reliever. Roy Halladay made 25 relief appearances with the Jays in his early days. John Smoltz, of course, spent time as a closer before coming back to be an All Star starter again.

Danny Graves did this too and it ruined his career.

Captain13
12-18-2012, 04:05 PM
I would be curious to see how many of the people that don't want to move him to the rotation are the same ones who complained the last two seasons that the Reds were "wasting" Chapman in the bullpen.

I, for one, thought the bullpen was a bad idea (I was wrong). Chapman was a starter in Cuba, signed as a starter, and paid as a starter...lets make him a starter. I see 60 innings as a closer or 180 innings as a starter, sounds like 3x the return on a starter.

SweetLou1990
12-18-2012, 07:46 PM
I am very concerned that Chapman has a high risk of injury no matter where he is. I think that he is the most dominant reliever in baseball, so why mess with it?

But, I also wonder... " What could have Chapman done as the game 2 starter in the NLDS against the Giants, instead of barely getting, what 2 appearances, can't remember if it was meaningful....

So, instead we may have a rotation of Cueto, Latos, Chapman, Arroyo & Bailey. Bailey last Sept pitched like a solid #2 (or even 1), but with him in the 4 or 5 spot, this could be one helluva rotation.

I hate to admit it I(because I fear the injuries that he appears to be susceptable to), but the risk may be worth the reward.

Bob Sheed
12-19-2012, 02:44 PM
Hard Throwing relief pitcher with fatigue and control problems.

Sure, let's make him a starter.

What could go wrong?

scott91575
12-19-2012, 10:51 PM
Danny Graves did this too and it ruined his career.

Danny Graves ruined his career by being Danny Graves. His year after starting was not much different than the years before in the bullpwn. Graves just got old and was not good to start with.

HometownHero
12-19-2012, 11:36 PM
Its very risky but when you have an arm like this you're forced to give it a shot as a SP because if it pans out you can have a #1 level SP which are worth tons. I just hope it works better than Neftali Feliz did this year when the Rangers tried to do the same thing.

OGB
12-19-2012, 11:59 PM
I've avoided this thread b/c it's already on record that I think attempting to move Chapman to the rotation is a mistake. For all of the reasons already stated and additionally my belief that he is more thrower than pitcher and doesn't possess the mental skillset to start.

All that re-stated, I just can't let "End of story" be the end of the story. Just b/c Red's brass thinks something doesn't make it gospel. Are you implying they've never made a bonehead move? All the decisions ever made in the front office were the right ones? Come on man...

I used "end of story" as a figure of speech, so my apologies. That said, believe what you want about the Reds' front office ability to evaluate their own players, but I'm tired of forum members just tossing things out as fact that they've completely fabricated. This takes me back to the dozen or more simpletons who said Bailey would never succeed because he was a head case. All of that was based off of one Enquirer article years ago where some minor league guy made some kind of offhand remark about Homer being stubborn, or something like that.

TSJ55
12-20-2012, 07:30 AM
I used "end of story" as a figure of speech, so my apologies.

No apology necessary to be sure. No offense taken.


That said, believe what you want about the Reds' front office ability to evaluate their own players, but I'm tired of forum members just tossing things out as fact that they've completely fabricated. This takes me back to the dozen or more simpletons who said Bailey would never succeed because he was a head case.

I have to assume you're not grouping me in with the simpletons since I used "I think." and "my belief". As in, it's my opinion that... and not a fact. Ironically, the only factual type language I see is your "End of Story" You also didn't really address my question about Reds front office ever making a mistake.


All of that was based off of one Enquirer article years ago where some minor league guy made some kind of offhand remark about Homer being stubborn, or something like that.

I don't read the Enquirer so I'm not aware of this article.

If they decide that Chappy should start, I hope it works out. I will gladly have a huge slice of humble pie in exchange for a big time dominant starter. I simply don't think he has the toolset to start. Heck, he may even be unstable enough that he can't recover from the attempted change. Only time will tell.

texasdave
12-20-2012, 08:48 AM
I used "end of story" as a figure of speech, so my apologies. That said, believe what you want about the Reds' front office ability to evaluate their own players, but I'm tired of forum members just tossing things out as fact that they've completely fabricated. This takes me back to the dozen or more simpletons who said Bailey would never succeed because he was a head case. All of that was based off of one Enquirer article years ago where some minor league guy made some kind of offhand remark about Homer being stubborn, or something like that.


I think Homer Bailey's stubborness is pretty well-documented. Some guy by the name of Dusty Baker said as much as recently as October of 2012.



Q. Each of your starters has a different personality or makeup or something. What stands out about Homer Bailey both to you in personality and make up and why did he blossom so much this year?

DUSTY BAKER: Number one, I think he blossomed because he has remained healthy for the first time in his career. You hope that a person blossoms and matures just through natural living and learning from your mistakes.
Our guys are different. I urge them to be different. You don't want everybody to be cloned to be the same on your team. That's not what life is all about. We have guys from different walks of life, different countries, different states, different one guy drives a truck, one guy drives a BMW and the other guy drives whatever. I urge them to be themselves and I've said many times, his strength is also his weakness sometimes where he's a bit stubborn sometimes, but that's a good trait if you can direct it to the right direction.

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20121008&content_id=39608220&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb

OGB
12-20-2012, 01:39 PM
I think Homer Bailey's stubborness is pretty well-documented. Some guy by the name of Dusty Baker said as much as recently as October of 2012.



http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20121008&content_id=39608220&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb

I feel like you just helped make my point. Where from that statement or any other past remarks would one get "headcase."

OGB
12-20-2012, 01:45 PM
No apology necessary to be sure. No offense taken.



I have to assume you're not grouping me in with the simpletons since I used "I think." and "my belief". As in, it's my opinion that... and not a fact. Ironically, the only factual type language I see is your "End of Story" You also didn't really address my question about Reds front office ever making a mistake.



I don't read the Enquirer so I'm not aware of this article.

If they decide that Chappy should start, I hope it works out. I will gladly have a huge slice of humble pie in exchange for a big time dominant starter. I simply don't think he has the toolset to start. Heck, he may even be unstable enough that he can't recover from the attempted change. Only time will tell.
I was talking about people in general, not you in particular.

Chapman was given time off last year after a stretch of ineffective relief pitching. How that leads people to believe he's incapable of throwing a starters ininngs is beyond me. This is a guy who was a starter until a few seasons ago and spent all last offseason/spring training in that role.

texasdave
12-20-2012, 02:03 PM
I wonder if Hal McCoy would know more than a poster on a message board?



Hal McCoy was just on Charlie Steiner's XM show.

When asked about Homer Bailey he said....."Homer is a little bit of a headcase. He doesn't like to listen to people. He might get a dose of Louisville..."

redsfanmia
12-20-2012, 04:37 PM
Danny Graves ruined his career by being Danny Graves. His year after starting was not much different than the years before in the bullpwn. Graves just got old and was not good to start with.

Graves was a good closer, he is the Reds all time leader in saves.

drowg14
12-20-2012, 05:48 PM
Graves was a good closer, he is the Reds all time leader in saves.

Graves was a bad closer. His career K/9 is 4.78. His career ERA over 4. His career FIP 4.66. And any value he lost, he lost because he was overused when he was a RP before he ever became a starter. You don't use your closer 90 innings a year and expect him to not decline. This is evident in his 2004 season, when he was put back into the bullpen for one more decent year where he had a 3.95 era (albeit it a 4.82 fip). So starting him did not "ruin his career." The reason he had so many saves, is because he got opportunities. When a professional pitcher comes in with a 3 run lead, he should be able to keep it, or he shouldn't be a professional pitcher.

redsfanmia
12-20-2012, 07:22 PM
Graves was a bad closer. His career K/9 is 4.78. His career ERA over 4. His career FIP 4.66. And any value he lost, he lost because he was overused when he was a RP before he ever became a starter. You don't use your closer 90 innings a year and expect him to not decline. This is evident in his 2004 season, when he was put back into the bullpen for one more decent year where he had a 3.95 era (albeit it a 4.82 fip). So starting him did not "ruin his career." The reason he had so many saves, is because he got opportunities. When a professional pitcher comes in with a 3 run lead, he should be able to keep it, or he shouldn't be a professional pitcher.

He was a 2 time all star and i am sure not all of his saves were of the 3 run lead variety. People hate on Graves because of how it ended, he was a good pitcher period.

scott91575
12-24-2012, 01:33 AM
He was a 2 time all star and i am sure not all of his saves were of the 3 run lead variety. People hate on Graves because of how it ended, he was a good pitcher period.

His 2004 all star year was a joke. 2000 was a good year, the only good year of his entire career (his only year of ERA below 3, which is not good for a relief pitcher and especially a closer). 1 good year does not mean he was a good pitcher, especially when every metric says his good year was incredibly lucky.

Saves are a joke, especially since his save rate was not good. I don't see records for blown saves from his earlier years, but when it was recorded his save percentage was just under 82%. In the NL that would place him at 12th out of 16 closers last year. Not good. Any pitcher can accumulate saves given enough opportunities.

By baseball reference calculation, his career WAR is -0.1. In other words, his entire career could be replicated by a replacement level player. He was not a good pitcher, and the only reason he has any saves is the Reds bullpen was just a complete dumpster fire for a decade.

Graves was at best mediocre.

MoneyInTheBank
12-24-2012, 10:17 AM
His 2004 all star year was a joke. 2000 was a good year, the only good year of his entire career (his only year of ERA below 3, which is not good for a relief pitcher and especially a closer). 1 good year does not mean he was a good pitcher, especially when every metric says his good year was incredibly lucky.

Saves are a joke, especially since his save rate was not good. I don't see records for blown saves from his earlier years, but when it was recorded his save percentage was just under 82%. In the NL that would place him at 12th out of 16 closers last year. Not good. Any pitcher can accumulate saves given enough opportunities.

By baseball reference calculation, his career WAR is -0.1. In other words, his entire career could be replicated by a replacement level player. He was not a good pitcher, and the only reason he has any saves is the Reds bullpen was just a complete dumpster fire for a decade.

Graves was at best mediocre.

His career WAR is 5.2. His WAA is -0.1. So he could be replaced by an average player, not a replacement level.

He had a 5 year stretch as a very good pitcher. Before and after, he was absolutely dreadful.

scott91575
12-24-2012, 11:23 AM
His career WAR is 5.2. His WAA is -0.1. So he could be replaced by an average player, not a replacement level.

He had a 5 year stretch as a very good pitcher. Before and after, he was absolutely dreadful.

You are correct, I looked at the column next to it. Still not exactly good over an 11 year career, and even in his 5 year stretch as a "very good pitcher" he had some average years. I would say he had 2, at the very best 3 years in that 5 year stretch that could be considered good. Yet let's face it people, how many closers with an ERA over 3 and WHIP of 1.25 to 1.35 are considered "very good." In those "very good" years his ERA was over 3 for 4 of them, and his WHIP between 1.25 and 1.35. Those numbers, for a bullpen pitcher, simply do not say to me he was very good. He was an above average pitcher in that time frame with one really good year (a really good year with lots of luck on his side). Then he became a poor pitcher. Happens all the time in baseball and most likely had little to do with him starting for a year. On top of that, Graves was a reliever in the minors too. He only had 3 starts in his minor league career before being called up (he went on to start 17 more games in the minors after leaving the Reds). It was obviously determined at lower levels Graves shouldn't start, but was forced into starting. Chapman is just the opposite, a starter who was forced into the bullpen. So it's an apples to oranges comparison.

MoneyInTheBank
12-24-2012, 02:37 PM
You are correct, I looked at the column next to it. Still not exactly good over an 11 year career, and even in his 5 year stretch as a "very good pitcher" he had some average years. I would say he had 2, at the very best 3 years in that 5 year stretch that could be considered good. Yet let's face it people, how many closers with an ERA over 3 and WHIP of 1.25 to 1.35 are considered "very good." In those "very good" years his ERA was over 3 for 4 of them, and his WHIP between 1.25 and 1.35. Those numbers, for a bullpen pitcher, simply do not say to me he was very good. He was an above average pitcher in that time frame with one really good year (a really good year with lots of luck on his side). Then he became a poor pitcher. Happens all the time in baseball and most likely had little to do with him starting for a year. On top of that, Graves was a reliever in the minors too. He only had 3 starts in his minor league career before being called up (he went on to start 17 more games in the minors after leaving the Reds). It was obviously determined at lower levels Graves shouldn't start, but was forced into starting. Chapman is just the opposite, a starter who was forced into the bullpen. So it's an apples to oranges comparison.

A reliever that can throw 80 innings with an ERA of 3.3 is very good. All Star worthy? No, but very good nonetheless. I have a hard time believing that a 5 year stretch in someone's career can be attributed to luck.

OGB
12-26-2012, 06:50 PM
I wonder if Hal McCoy would know more than a poster on a message board?

"Doesn't like listening to people," doesn't make you a head case. Rob Dibble was a head case. Milton Bradley was a head case. Homer has never been reported to have disciplinary problems with the team or do anything but get along with his teammates.

Fireball
12-27-2012, 03:29 PM
If Chapman didn't have a history of being a starting pitcher in Cuba, then I would agree that there might be some risk. It's not as if he hasn't started before and the Reds are trying some wild new idea to turn him into a starter. Up until mid-2010, Chapman was exclusively a starting pitcher.

In my opinion, the greatest risk to this move is that Chapman sucks in the rotation. You know he's one of the best closers in the league, but a great starting pitcher is going to help your team a LOT more than a great closer. That is just a fact. But, if Chapman isn't good in the rotation, you just put him back in the bullpen where you know he dominates.

You just can't take the chance that you have Randy Johnson and you waste him in the bullpen.

faffy42
01-07-2013, 08:38 AM
If I were manager I would keep Chapman in the closer role. He's a proven stud there. Why mess with what is working? Not sure we will see the same results with Broxton.

dubc47834
01-07-2013, 11:37 AM
]If Chapman didn't have a history of being a starting pitcher in Cuba[/B], then I would agree that there might be some risk. It's not as if he hasn't started before and the Reds are trying some wild new idea to turn him into a starter. Up until mid-2010, Chapman was exclusively a starting pitcher.

In my opinion, the greatest risk to this move is that Chapman sucks in the rotation. You know he's one of the best closers in the league, but a great starting pitcher is going to help your team a LOT more than a great closer. That is just a fact. But, if Chapman isn't good in the rotation, you just put him back in the bullpen where you know he dominates.

You just can't take the chance that you have Randy Johnson and you waste him in the bullpen.

In Cuba he did start games, but if you go back and look at his innings pitched for each year it is telling. Only in 2008-09 did he average over 5 innings per start, that year his ERA was 4.03, not bad but not great either. He had 130 K's in 118 innings pitched, which is outstanding. Outside of that year he was pretty lackluster as a starter.

Im all for giving him a shot at starting, I just don't think it will work. I would rather have him as the closer. In my opinion he could be the next M. Rivera, he is that dominant. But his History as a starter in Cuba doesn't prove much to me, from everything that I read he was a get to the 5th guy and they would pull him. Just my opinion tho!!!

smixsell
01-10-2013, 08:36 PM
I think that, unless he takes to starting in the big leagues like a fish to water, it might be wise just to leave him in the bullpen this year.

I see us as being major WS contenders this year, and am generally against tinkering with one of our most valuable pieces, our SUTDOWN closer, at such a time as this.

Give him a quick look (Spring training and 5-10 regular season starts?), and unless he is LIGHTS OUT as a starter, then return him to the pen.