Originally Posted by WildcatFan
Prove to us that Chapman is better in the closer's role than in the starter's role.
It's impossible to prove that because we don't know. He was signed as a starter. He started a few times in the minors and had success. He moved to the bullpen out of necessity and was VERY good there. But that doesn't mean he fizzled out as a starter.
If you're scared to find out who he is as a starter because of what could happen to his head if he's not successful, that's absolutely fine. But we can't say he's better as a closer than a starter because we just don't know.
The easy response is: Prove to us that Chapman is better in the starter's role than in the closer's role.
It's something that can't be "proven" one way or the other because some guys are just different/better/worse as starters compared to relievers. I fully wanted Chapman to be a starter for the Reds. But now that he's established himself as one of the game's elite closers, I'm sitting back and enjoying the ride. He just had one of the best seasons in MLB history and that's not even stretching it. Maybe the Reds' brass feels that his body wouldn't hold up as a starter with how hard he throws? I don't know. I just don't want to argue with what's clearly working.