Chapman

[_Sir_Charles_]

Mark Sheldon:

Contrary to a report, the #reds (Baker and Jocketty) said there was no decision on Chapman, nor will there be any announcement today.

https://twitter.com/m_sheldon

Good to hear. I was kinda shocked when everyone just assumed that the info from Doc was correct. Something this important...I want a more solid lead than something from Doc.

[edabbs44]

please.

They saw 1000% more of Drew Stubbs and it took three years to decide to trade him.

They see more of every player. At some point we as fans have to recognize the Reds kinda suck at developing. Bailey, Frazier and Stubbs are prime examples.

This is a very disappointing decision, and what is worse to me is, 30 starts by Mike Leake.

fail.

Redszone's history in player evaluation is nothing to brag about.

[RollyInRaleigh]

Even if Chapmans pitches are merely "good" as a starter, a good starter > elite closer.

Opinions are great!

[Trajinous]

Why is it assumed to everyone that Chapman will be a dominant starter?

I'm just saying, it shouldn't be assumed what Chapman is as a starter until he is what he is (whatever that means).

That's why we need to find out!!! Most people like him as a closer only because that's all we've seen for an extended period of time. We have Broxton/Marshall....we don't need a closer like last year when Madson went down.

[redsfandan]

And this summarizes the issue well. Will his pitches be "good" or excellent as a starter.

Most of the posters assume Chapman will be excellent. Frankly, I've seen little substance behind this conclusion.

Yes, he has a great arm. But there are many other factors that make up a great starting pitching. Durability and focus over an extended outing; multiple very effective pitches; ability to have command over extended outing; ability to remain sharp pitching every fifth day. And probably others I've never heard of.

The reason I'm ambivalent is that I think it requires a professional's expertise to look closely at the pitcher and make a conclusion. Just because Chapman has a great arm doesn't mean the right move is to take him away from closing and into the rotation.

Why is it assumed to everyone that Chapman will be a dominant starter?

We don't know if he can do that right now. Maybe Chaps flames out as a starter and it takes the Reds 15 pitiful games to realize that, and games are being blown late. A decision like that could cost the Reds numerous games if Chapman fails, and possibly a playoff spot.

I'm just saying, it shouldn't be assumed what Chapman is as a starter until he is what he is (whatever that means).

I will say again, perfect world, Chapman is one of my 5 starters, and he is a good one. But I recognize that we don't currently live in that world, and Chapman's pedigree as a starter should be discounted as such.

Who assumes that? I don't. All I've wanted is to give the guy a real chance to see whether he can do it. That's all. I don't think I'm the only person that just wants him to have the chance either. Is that so terrible? There's no assumption. None at all.

[Kc61]

Even if Chapmans pitches are merely "good" as a starter, a good starter > elite closer.

We don't agree on this. In the key games I want an elite closer. No matter what the percentages are overall, if the Reds have a small lead late in key pennant race or playoff games, I want Chapman over, say, Broxton. (Assuming they pitch like they did in 2012.)

I've read all the threads on this; but I also watched Dibble and Myers in the 1990 playoffs and World Series.

There are many arguments for Chappy starting and closing. I could live with either decision. But if the Reds think he'll be a good but not excellent starter, I'd rather he close games for them.

[RedEye]

Opinions are great!

It's not really an opinion to say that starters are more valuable than closers.

[Wonderful Monds]

It's not really an opinion to say that starters are more valuable than closers.

It is one to say a merely good starter is better than an elite closer.

[RedEye]

There are many arguments for Chappy starting and closing. I could live with either decision. But if the Reds think he'll be a good but not excellent starter, I'd rather he close games for them.

Why should they be happy with simply thinking something? Why not try it to have an answer? They certainly did that with a lot of other pitchers.

[Patrick Bateman]

Who assumes that?

Please read the post that I quoted (and all of the other ones discussing how much more valuable a dominant starter is than a dominant reliever is).

We know that Chapman is a dominant reliever. The fact that he might not do so as a starter should discount the value of the transition.

I think the point is that the Reds might not like what they see in spring training.... perhaps giving him that initial chance in the regular season does not make sense in their eyes, knowing that every game counts in a contending season.

I have no doubt if we were the Astros, then Chaps would be heading to the rotation.

[dougdirt]

We don't agree on this. In the key games I want an elite closer. No matter what the percentages are overall, if the Reds have a small lead late in key pennant race or playoff games, I want Chapman over, say, Broxton. (Assuming they pitch like they did in 2012.)

I've read all the threads on this; but I also watched Dibble and Myers in the 1990 playoffs and World Series.

There are many arguments for Chappy starting and closing. I could live with either decision. But if the Reds think he'll be a good but not excellent starter, I'd rather he close games for them.

And I watched the 2001 World Series.

[RedEye]

It is one to say a merely good starter is better than an elite closer.

Not in terms of what they contribute to winning baseball games it isn't.

[RedEye]

Redszone's history in player evaluation is nothing to brag about.

Who is doing that?

[westofyou]

Why should they be happy with simply thinking something? Why not try it to have an answer? They certainly did that with a lot of other pitchers.

• Maybe they don't want to lose games experimenting this year because they feel they have the horses to go far and don't want to screw the pooch?
  
• Maybe they tried to get the answer over the last 6 weeks and found it?
  
• Maybe they plan on a slower transformation to starter that isn't as aggressive as the average RZ posters idea of what should go down?
  
• Maybe they are treating him different than other pitchers because they recognize that he is different than other pitchers?
  
• Maybe they are smarter than they are getting credit for?
  
• Maybe they are dumber than a box of rocks and a 90 loss season can only get back the glory of the Bowden/O'Brien era and the brain trust of Bob Boone and Jerry Narron?

[Kc61]

Who assumes that? I don't. All I've wanted is to give the guy a real chance to see whether he can do it. That's all. I don't think I'm the only person that just wants him to have the chance either. Is that so terrible? There's no assumption. None at all.

It's not terrible to experiment. I like to give players a chance.

Just keep in mind that this may not be the best time in Reds' history to engage in a tryout camp. There is no guarantee the Reds will win anything this season; they won't be handed the NL pennant.

On a rebuilding team, this is a no-brainer, let Chapman try out as a starter. On a World Series contender, there's a lot to lose. Like numerous games if the experiment doesn't work.

Worst case scenario - Chapman pitches poorly as a starter. Gets the full chance, several months. Then has trouble re-adjusting to the bullpen in the late season.