Turn Off Ads?
Page 5 of 46 FirstFirst 12345678915 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 684

Thread: Chapman

  1. #61
    KungFu Fighter AtomicDumpling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Hamilton, OH
    Posts
    2,709

    Re: Chapman

    Quote Originally Posted by Kc61 View Post
    I don't agree with the way you framed the question. A starting pitcher may be more valuable than a reliever typically. But Chapman wasn't just a reliever. I think you have to weigh his value as a starter against his value as a top closer.

    And while, as Doug often points out, a single reliever isn't that critical, I think differently about premium late inning relievers. Guys who regularly cover the 8th or 9th inning effectively. Not the same thing as a middle man innings eater.

    The problem here, of course, is that Chapman's success level as a starter is unknown. So it's trading a relatively sure thing in the bullpen to something more questionable in the rotation.

    To me, this one is for the professionals. They have to project how good a starter Chappy can be. If they believe he has enough different pitches, stamina, etc., and is likely to be a first rate starter, the decision is made.

    If they think the odds of him being a first rate starter is in the 50-50 range, I think he stays in the pen.
    I am not disagreeing with you, but I am not sure there is such a beast as a "sure thing" closer. The role of closer is one of the riskiest, most fluid positions in sports. Very few relievers last very long as a closer, much less a dominant closer. The turnover rate at closer is scary as hell. Of the 30 pitchers who entered last year as the closer only 9 of them are still expected to close this year. Go back a couple of years and I think only 4 of the 30 closers in 2010 are still closers. Even the best most dominant closers don't last. Guys like Mariano Rivera and Trevor Hoffman are very few and far between. Just because Chapman pitched great as a closer last year is far from a guarantee that he would continue to do so. Is it worth the risk of keeping him at closer when he really only has to protect about 20 one-run leads per season? Many of his outings come with the Reds holding leads of multiple runs when a stud reliever is not required to close out the game. One other fact, Francisco Cordero was a mediocre reliever yet his save percentage as a Red was higher than Chapman's is. You just don't need a dominant pitcher to be the closer and it might not be the best way to utilize a dominant pitcher.

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #62
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    913

    Re: Chapman

    Quote Originally Posted by traderumor View Post
    It wasn't broke last season. This is a new season. It is very clear in baseball roster construction that a starting pitcher is much, much more valuable than a reliever, so when you have one with the potential of Chapman to add to the rotation, you improve what you have. That isn't breaking anything, that's upgrading.
    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). People love having a good closer because losses in the 9th inning hurt way more than other losses, but most games are won or lost in the 8 innings prior.

  4. Likes:

    cincyinco (03-20-2013), TRF (03-13-2013)

  5. #63
    It's showtime! RedEye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    7,941
    Quote Originally Posted by The Operator View Post
    If Chapman is in the bullpen, it will make the Broxton signing look incredibly silly.

    Because a) Chapman will close, making Broxton a 21M$ set-up guy. or b) Broxton will close, meaning the Reds will be wasting one of the game's best arms as a middle reliever.
    Any spot in the bullpen is probably a waste for one of MLB's best arms.
    "Iíll kind of have a foot on the back of my own butt. Thatís just how I do things.Ē -- Bryan Price, 10/22/2013

  6. #64
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    913

    Re: Chapman

    Quote Originally Posted by Kc61 View Post
    I don't agree with the way you framed the question. A starting pitcher may be more valuable than a reliever typically. But Chapman wasn't just a reliever. I think you have to weigh his value as a starter against his value as a top closer.

    And while, as Doug often points out, a single reliever isn't that critical, I think differently about premium late inning relievers. Guys who regularly cover the 8th or 9th inning effectively. Not the same thing as a middle man innings eater.

    The problem here, of course, is that Chapman's success level as a starter is unknown. So it's trading a relatively sure thing in the bullpen to something more questionable in the rotation.

    To me, this one is for the professionals. They have to project how good a starter Chappy can be. If they believe he has enough different pitches, stamina, etc., and is likely to be a first rate starter, the decision is made.

    If they think the odds of him being a first rate starter is in the 50-50 range, I think he stays in the pen.
    The difference between the best closers and the bottom half in the game over a long enough timeline is only about 10% in save percentage (low 90's to low 80's save percentage). Most closers will get about 40 to 50 chances to close. So 4 to 5 games difference, but not all blown saves turn into losses. 1 out of every 3 blown saves turns into a win. So you are looking at 3 game difference between a below average closer and one of the best in the game. If Chapman is only an average starter, I am willing to bet he could easily turn around 3 games started by Leake, and if he is a top 25th percentile starter there is no doubt he would make that up with ease.

  7. #65
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    West Central Ohio
    Posts
    219

    Re: Chapman

    Quote Originally Posted by dougdirt View Post
    The #5 rotation spot is broke. The Reds are trying to fix it. The bullpen, with or without Chapman won't be broke.
    The 5 spot is broke, and WJ & company know it. This is going to happen, and it should make the reds better. Do we want chappy as a game 5 starter in the World Series or Leake?
    Pete Rose will be leaving the Montreal Expos to become player - manager for the Cincinnati Reds

  8. #66
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Bridgetown
    Posts
    1,508

    Re: Chapman

    If all your left with Mike Leake as your 5th starter its okay but if you have better options you should at least test it out.

  9. #67
    Box of Frogs edabbs44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    16,296

    Re: Chapman

    Quote Originally Posted by SweetLou1990 View Post
    The 5 spot is broke, and WJ & company know it. This is going to happen, and it should make the reds better. Do we want chappy as a game 5 starter in the World Series or Leake?
    There is no game 5 starter in the WS.

  10. Likes:

    bigredmechanism (03-12-2013), jmac (03-12-2013)

  11. #68
    Box of Frogs edabbs44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    16,296

    Re: Chapman

    Quote Originally Posted by dougdirt View Post
    Yes. Leake isn't the guy who is going to figure something out and become Johnny Cueto/Mat Latos. I don't want to accept that Leake is good for a #5 starter when we could make Bronson Arroyo the #5 starter and it be a rather significant upgrade over Leake.
    Big statement on Leake, could be right. But I don't think that anyone can be certain that he has maxed out. Don't forget, Leake in rotation also equals Chapman over the last guy in the pen. Massive upgrade there.

  12. #69
    It's showtime! RedEye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    7,941

    Re: Chapman

    Quote Originally Posted by R_Webb18 View Post
    If all your left with Mike Leake as your 5th starter its okay but if you have better options you should at least test it out.
    I still fail to understand why this is not the obvious consensus.
    "Iíll kind of have a foot on the back of my own butt. Thatís just how I do things.Ē -- Bryan Price, 10/22/2013

  13. #70
    Miami Redhawks Redhook's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Cincy
    Posts
    2,257

    Re: Chapman

    Keeping Chapman in the pen is like putting all your money under your mattress. While safe and cozy, neither is maximizing their potential.
    "....the two players I liked watching the most were Barry Larkin and Eric Davis. I was suitably entertained by their effortless skill that I didn't need them crashing into walls like a squirrel on a coke binge." - dsmith421

    www.kylevoska.com - Golfer? Check out my blog for golf tips.

  14. Likes:

    Homer Bailey (03-13-2013), Number_Fourteen (03-13-2013)

  15. #71
    Charlie Brown All-Star IslandRed's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Melbourne, FL
    Posts
    4,838

    Re: Chapman

    Quote Originally Posted by scott91575 View Post
    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:

    http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/bl...ifth-nl-style/

    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.
    Not all who wander are lost

  16. Likes:

    UCBrownsfan (03-12-2013)

  17. #72
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    239

    Re: Chapman

    "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. "

    Yup... 80 Starting spots in the NL last year, Leake finished 43rd in ERA.
    3 year average: 9-7, 4.23 ERA, 160 IP, 1.3 WAR - along with a good bat, his average year would make him the Reds #1 through the early 2000's. Doing that pitching at GABP. My big desire for AC as a starter is playoff time.

  18. #73
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    913

    Re: Chapman

    Quote Originally Posted by IslandRed View Post
    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:

    http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/bl...ifth-nl-style/

    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.
    OK, let's go with something reasonably low. Let's say 100 innings. Mike Leake comes in at #11 worst. Not good any way you slice it, and the fact he got so many innings is more of the fact the Reds didn't have any better options. Most of the guys with performance like Leake get replaced, and the only ones in the league that didn't were on teams similar to the Reds with no better options or the guy is a two time Cy Young winner.

    As far as pitching WAR goes, hey, Bud Norris is a freaking 1.5 WAR pitcher with less innings than Leake. I think pitching WAR is broken and even bad pitchers can get a decent WAR with enough innings.

    The simple fact is almost every team in the league would have at least tried someone else besides Leake in the 5 spot, but the Reds had so few options they were stuck with him there despite performance that would dictate being replaced.

    edit: You also have to take into account many other staffs had injuries forcing poor pitchers into duty while the Reds had none. If every other staff was healthy like the Reds it would be worse for Leake. For a #5 on a staff with no injuries, his numbers were simply poor. If Leake was a part time #5 like many others or forced into the #5 role due to injury I would say his numbers are fine. Yet that is not the case.
    Last edited by scott91575; 03-12-2013 at 11:54 PM.

  19. #74
    Stat geek...and proud
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    New Paris, OH
    Posts
    2,518
    If you aren't starting him, you might as well trade him for value, because you aren't getting equivalent value with him in the bullpen.

    People worry about injury risk if he starts. What about the injury risk of him closing? Relievers that throw very hard tend to burn out quickly, with a few exceptions, Wagner being the first guy I thought of. Most of the guys who were successful in that role long term weren't blazing fastball pitchers.

    Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
    numbersinthereds.blogspot.com I actually made a post on 7/24/14. I promise.

  20. Likes:

    AtomicDumpling (03-13-2013)

  21. #75
    Moderator The Operator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Carlisle, OH
    Posts
    2,712

    Re: Chapman

    Quote Originally Posted by RedEye View Post
    Any spot in the bullpen is probably a waste for one of MLB's best arms.
    You'll get no argument from me there.

    I was just pointing to how silly it would look to have a setup man earning closer money, or have a talent like Chapman pitching middle relief. Either way, Chapman is being wasted in the bullpen IMO - but at least as a closer there's *some* saving grace to it, albeit not much.
    Last edited by The Operator; 03-13-2013 at 05:22 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by BCubb2003 View Post
    Don't worry. I'd say the game threads are about league average.
    2013 Reds Record when I attend: 5-4
    2012 Reds Record when I attend: 10-7


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25