Chapman

[Wonderful Monds]

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

Oh, it most certainly is, whether you like it or not.

[RedEye]

Oh, it most certainly is, whether you like it or not.

How so? Closers are overrated.

[Wonderful Monds]

And I watched the 2001 World Series.

One example does not a point make.

[Trajinous]

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

No.

A 162 game season consists of 1458 innings. A 200-inning starting pitcher is responsible for 13.7% of the inning's work. A 70-inning closer is responsible for 4.3% of the total innings. It's hard to say that a closer has a similar impact to a club's success based on their participation compared to starters.

[edabbs44]

History has shown that flamethrowing closers have very short life expectancies.

While this may be true, the reasons for why their life expectancies may be "short" could be for reasons that don't apply to Aroldis.

[redsfandan]

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.

So, you're a glass half full guy huh.

Suggesting that they could lose 'numerous games' as a result is kinda silly imo,

[Wonderful Monds]

No.

A 162 game season consists of 1458 innings. A 200-inning starting pitcher is responsible for 13.7% of the inning's work. A 70-inning closer is responsible for 4.3% of the total innings. It's hard to say that a closer has a similar impact to a club's success based on their participation compared to starters.

You're missing the point. You're assuming same quality of innings pitched.

I don't think it's ridiculous to assert that Mariano Rivera is more valuable than, say, Homer Bailey.

[RedEye]

[*]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?

I find it hard to believe that Chapman will be worse than Mike Leake. And "Bad Arroyo" screws the pooch pretty regularly too. Not to mention the enigma that is David Bailey.

[*]Maybe they tried to get the answer over the last 6 weeks and found it?

Maybe. But not in games that count. His performance certainly hasn't shown anything conclusive statistically and there have been no injuries.

[*]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?

I could get behind that, but he doesn't have THAT long a contract either.

[*]Maybe they are treating him different than other pitchers because they recognize that he is different than other pitchers?

Tautologies don't really get us anywhere.

[*]Maybe they are smarter than they are getting credit for?

Or maybe they are dumber. We just don't know, do we?

[*]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?[/LIST]

Are you implying that I've said they are dumber than a box of rocks?

[RedEye]

You're missing the point. You're assuming same quality of innings pitched.

I don't think it's ridiculous to assert that Mariano Rivera is more valuable than, say, Homer Bailey.

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

[Kc61]

So, you're a glass half full guy huh.

Suggesting that they could lose 'numerous games' as a result is kinda silly imo,

Not at all. What's silly is to project success without a firm basis for it.

A major league starter usually starts about 30 times in a season, barring injury. If that starter does poorly, he can cause the team to lose numerous games.

Have you ever turned on the ballgame in the second inning and found the Reds down 4 runs? I have too often to count. I'd like to avoid that while Chapman is undergoing some experiment.

Again, you think it's silly because you are assuming Chapman will be very good to elite as a starter right out of the chute. If it goes the other way, the Reds could suffer as a team.

I'd rather avoid that result, unless the pros within the organization are comfortable that the guy is ready to do well as a starter.

[RedEye]

One example does not a point make.

Neither does negating a point. Or negating the negation of one. See what I did there?

[RollyInRaleigh]

• 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?

I remember a time when this kind of post was the norm. You make way too much sense.

[757690]

You're missing the point. You're assuming same quality of innings pitched.

I don't think it's ridiculous to assert that Mariano Rivera is more valuable than, say, Homer Bailey.

Exactly.

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.

[dougdirt]

One example does not a point make.

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

[edabbs44]

Who is doing that?

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.

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.