Chapman

[RedEye]

In this case, anyone who believes that removing Chapman from the bullpen, inserting him into the rotation is the only choice without acknowledging the risks involved. In previous cases, many different posters.

I haven't seen anyone claim that the switch of Chapman is risk-free.

One idea that many have failed to learn is that there is often a good reason why a well seasoned, professional FO like this does what they do. And why they are where they are. These guys have been killing it over the past few years and deserve every benefit of the doubt.

Well, we'll see. As I mentioned before, I just hope they give a well-seasoned reason for why they make the choice they do. I'll root for the team no matter what, obviously. But if they don't ever try him as a starter, I'll always wonder what might have been.

[Kc61]

Which was exactly my point, since the OP referred to watching the Reds in 1990.

Actually, you make my point.

Mariano Rivera gave up a big hit in the World Series. Yet the Yankees didn't convert him to starter. The Yankees recognized his value as a closer; that he was better suited to close; and they kept him there all the way to the Hall of Fame.

Elite starters fail. Good starters fail. Elite closers fail. Good closers fail. That's not the issue.

The issue is expectations and the judgment to decide where someone will likely perform best. It's reasonable to decide Chappy will perform best as closer. And if that's the call, I say keep him there.

The constant demeaning of relief pitching is belied by the 1990 World Series. If top relievers perform like top relievers it is extremely valuable.

Sometimes they will fail, which proves nothing except that these people are human. And sometimes starters will fail. Yes.

[RedEye]

Elite starters fail. Good starters fail. Elite closers fail. Good closers fail. That's not the issue.

From what he's written before, I would say Doug would agree with this, too. Who wouldn't? He was responding in-kind to a previous post that brought up the example of 1990 as proof positive that closers are more valuable to winning a World Series.

[dougdirt]

Actually, you make my point.

Mariano Rivera gave up a big hit in the World Series. Yet the Yankees didn't convert him to starter. The Yankees recognized his value as a closer; that he was better suited to close; and they kept him there all the way to the Hall of Fame.

Elite starters fail. Good starters fail. Elite closers fail. Good closers fail. That's not the issue.

The issue is expectations and the judgment to decide where someone will likely perform best. It's reasonable to decide Chappy will perform best as closer. And if that's the call, I say keep him there.

The constant demeaning of relief pitching is belied by the 1990 World Series. If top relievers perform like top relievers it is extremely valuable.

Sometimes they will fail, which proves nothing except that these people are human. And sometimes starters will fail. Yes.

Top relievers performing like them as a group, yes. One individual reliever? Not so much.

Starters will fail plenty. Everyone player fails plenty. Their object is to make an out or avoid making an out. They are actually all pretty bad at that.

[RollyInRaleigh]

From what he's written before, I would say Doug would agree with this, too. Who wouldn't? He was responding in-kind to a previous post that brought up the example of 1990 as proof positive that closers are more valuable to winning a World Series.

There have been plenty of other posts stating that good starting pitchers are always more valuable than relief pitchers, proof positive. It's not that simple, either way.

[Caveat Emperor]

70 high leverage innings can be just as valuable as 200 regular innings. Of course, the way Baker uses a closer, we can't assume the Reds closer will get 70 high leverage innings. That's why I like RMR's idea of using Chapman as the fireman, instead of the closer.

Innings are innings.

And the odds of the Reds using Chapman that way are next to zero. If he's in the bullpen, he's pitching the 9th no matter what.

[dougdirt]

Ok, let's just assume that Chapman goes out and gives you 70 innings with a 2.06 ERA (16 earned runs).

What would he have to provide, ERA wise, in say, 150 innings, to be more valuable than the above line as a reliever?

[Caveat Emperor]

Ok, let's just assume that Chapman goes out and gives you 70 innings with a 2.06 ERA (16 earned runs).

What would he have to provide, ERA wise, in say, 150 innings, to be more valuable than the above line as a reliever?

Are those 70 important, high-leverage innings or 70 moderate / above-average leverage innings?

[M2]

I'm still playing catch up here. So there was a report that Chapman was going back to the pen, but the official word at the moment is that no final decision has been made, right?

[Caveat Emperor]

I'm still playing catch up here. So there was a report that Chapman was going back to the pen, but the official word at the moment is that no final decision has been made, right?

Official word is "No decision has yet been made."

Baker won't comment on how many innings Chapman will throw tomorrow.

[dougdirt]

Are those 70 important, high-leverage innings or 70 moderate / above-average leverage innings?

They are "closer" innings.

[RedEye]

There have been plenty of other posts stating that good starting pitchers are always more valuable than relief pitchers, proof positive. It's not that simple, either way.

Right. But this is not the argument that Doug was making with that post.

[dougdirt]

Official word is "No decision has yet been made."

Baker won't comment on how many innings Chapman will throw tomorrow.

You forgot to add that Baker was offended that he was even asked the question about how many innings Chapman would throw.

[Wonderful Monds]

Hardly fair to cherry pick the greatest reliever of all time and compare him to a debatably "good" pitcher who used to be terrible.

1) it's pretty fair considering Chapman just put up one of the greatest relief seasons ever, not surprising considering he may be the hardest throwing human ever.

2) I would not say that Homer Bailey is "debatably good" by any measure. He's pretty clearly a good starting pitcher.

[Caveat Emperor]

1) it's pretty fair considering Chapman just put up one of the greatest relief seasons ever, not surprising considering he may be the hardest throwing human ever.

Chapman's 2012 wasn't even the best relief season of the year.