Re: If the Reds do convert Chapman...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
_Sir_Charles_
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.
Re: If the Reds do convert Chapman...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Blitz Dorsey
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.
Re: If the Reds do convert Chapman...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
_Sir_Charles_
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.
Re: If the Reds do convert Chapman...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dougdirt
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.
Re: If the Reds do convert Chapman...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
_Sir_Charles_
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.
Re: If the Reds do convert Chapman...
I guess we'll chalk this up to "observational bias" and call it a day. :O)
Re: If the Reds do convert Chapman...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wonderful Monds
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
Re: If the Reds do convert Chapman...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sea Ray
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.
Re: If the Reds do convert Chapman...
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.
Re: If the Reds do convert Chapman...
Have him work with Soto and get that circle change going and he could be absolutely devastating.
Re: If the Reds do convert Chapman...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
mth123
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.
Re: If the Reds do convert Chapman...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sea Ray
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.