Originally Posted by scott91575
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.