Originally Posted by scott91575
The #5 spot in the rotation was broke. Leake had the 4th worst ERA out of all eligible starters in the NL. That is broke despite the fact the team was winning. Outside of the leadoff spot, it was the biggest glaring weakness on the team. If Chapman is a good starter to even league average, the improvement in that spot in the rotation will more than make up for any loss at closer (assuming Broxton is league average).
Yes, and no. I'm in favor of putting Chapman in the rotation, because if he's in and Leake's out, the rotation is better. But in fairness to Leake, the bolded part really isn't true IMHO. Comparing apples to apples, very few #5 starters will show up on that "eligible for the ERA title" list because the typical #5 guy doesn't pitch well enough to hold the job. Most teams don't have four rotation-worthy horses, much less five. Here's a good article about fifth starters from Hardball Times -- a few years old but some things don't change much:
When a team can get 180 innings of 1.5 WAR pitching out of its fifth-best guy, as the Reds did with Leake, it's not at a competitive disadvantage. Far from it, as long as we're not paying too much money for it. And that's without getting into the whole measuring-a-pitcher-by-his-ERA thing, which I'll set aside for now except to say that he comes off a little better (but only a little) with the advanced stats.
But nonetheless, I'm not arguing the point that he's the guy to bump out of the rotation if Chapman's going in.