Turn Off Ads?
Page 6 of 46 FirstFirst ... 234567891016 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 684

Thread: Chapman

  1. #76
    The Big Dog mth123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    14,873

    Re: Chapman

    I think people are asking the wrong question. To me its obvious that Chapman at his best is more valuable as a starter. The real question is whether Chapman as a starter is going to be good, meh or awful. Many don't want to acknowledge that all three outcomes are possible and just assume that he'll be as good three times through the order as he is for three hitters, but that is what the Reds are trying to guage right now. I think the only way to find out is to try it for 3 or 4 months. But if it fails, it could undermine the season. I see why its not an automatic choice, but I'm in favor of trying it. I wouldn't be surprised if he struggles the second time through the order though. I think many here don't acknowledge that possibility.
    "All I can tell them is pick a good one and sock it." --BABE RUTH

    Having better players makes "the right time" or "the big hit" happen a lot more often. PLUS PLUS

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #77
    Miami Redhawks Redhook's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    2,257

    Re: Chapman

    Quote Originally Posted by mth123 View Post
    I think people are asking the wrong question. To me its obvious that Chapman at his best is more valuable as a starter. The real question is whether Chapman as a starter is going to be good, meh or awful. Many don't want to acknowledge that all three outcomes are possible and just assume that he'll be as good three times through the order as he is for three hitters, but that is what the Reds are trying to guage right now. I think the only way to find out is to try it for 3 or 4 months. But if it fails, it could undermine the season. I see why its not an automatic choice, but I'm in favor of trying it. I wouldn't be surprised if he struggles the second time through the order though. I think many here don't acknowledge that possibility.
    I would venture to guess that most believe Chapman will struggle this season. Maybe a little, maybe a lot. It'll be interesting, amazing, frustrating, etc.

    While I'm a strong proponent for trying Chapman as a starter, I realize that doing this may not be best for this year's team; however, I believe the potential upside for year's to come is too great not to try it. Plus, if the Reds plan correctly, they could have an unbelievable starter in the rotation for the playoffs. I'm hoping that the Reds plan for Chapman is to ease him along so they would have him for the playoffs (opposite of Strasburg). Chapman loves big moments. I believe he'd rise to the occasion and dominate in the playoffs as a starter. I'd be pretty upset if the Reds don't plan accordingly and he's not available for the playoffs.

    All in all, this year's Reds team is pretty strong. They should be able to weather Chapman's ups and downs as a starter so I'm all for trying it.
    "....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.

  4. #78
    Unsolicited Opinions traderumor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Right Down Broadway
    Posts
    18,682

    Re: Chapman

    Quote Originally Posted by Redhook View Post
    I would venture to guess that most believe Chapman will struggle this season. Maybe a little, maybe a lot. It'll be interesting, amazing, frustrating, etc.

    While I'm a strong proponent for trying Chapman as a starter, I realize that doing this may not be best for this year's team; however, I believe the potential upside for year's to come is too great not to try it. Plus, if the Reds plan correctly, they could have an unbelievable starter in the rotation for the playoffs. I'm hoping that the Reds plan for Chapman is to ease him along so they would have him for the playoffs (opposite of Strasburg). Chapman loves big moments. I believe he'd rise to the occasion and dominate in the playoffs as a starter. I'd be pretty upset if the Reds don't plan accordingly and he's not available for the playoffs.

    All in all, this year's Reds team is pretty strong. They should be able to weather Chapman's ups and downs as a starter so I'm all for trying it.
    I think you make a very important point. That is why I would not be surprised to see the Reds use Leake as the 5th starter early in the season, use Chapman in the bullpen for multiple innings in addition to one inning stints, but not closing on a regular basis. Then, he gets a start, modest pitch count in the 75 pitch range, build from there.
    Can't win with 'em

    Can't win without 'em

  5. Likes:

    mth123 (03-14-2013)

  6. #79
    Charlie Brown All-Star IslandRed's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Melbourne, FL
    Posts
    4,856

    Re: Chapman

    Quote Originally Posted by scott91575 View Post
    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.
    Referring to the boldface part, that would be way more teams than you'd think. For a team to have five guys who are simultaneously better than him and healthy is pretty uncommon. And I'm including playoff teams -- studies have been done that show the typical playoff team does well to go .500 in games their fifth-best guy(s) starts. (The Reds went 16-14 in Leake's starts last year.)

    Again, it's fine that he's getting bumped out for Chapman, and giving the Reds the rare possibility of having a rotation where all five guys are really good, but that doesn't mean Leake is replacement level or something. We've seen replacement level. We've seen what other teams typically run out at #5. Those guys really suck. A #5 guy who can take the ball all year and generally keep his team in the game has value. Not huge value, but value nonetheless.
    Not all who wander are lost

  7. #80
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    913

    Re: Chapman

    Quote Originally Posted by IslandRed View Post
    Referring to the boldface part, that would be way more teams than you'd think. For a team to have five guys who are simultaneously better than him and healthy is pretty uncommon. And I'm including playoff teams -- studies have been done that show the typical playoff team does well to go .500 in games their fifth-best guy(s) starts. (The Reds went 16-14 in Leake's starts last year.)

    Again, it's fine that he's getting bumped out for Chapman, and giving the Reds the rare possibility of having a rotation where all five guys are really good, but that doesn't mean Leake is replacement level or something. We've seen replacement level. We've seen what other teams typically run out at #5. Those guys really suck. A #5 guy who can take the ball all year and generally keep his team in the game has value. Not huge value, but value nonetheless.
    Leake had by far the most run support on the Reds team, and only contending teams in the NL I can think of that are not going with a different option at #5 are the Giants (stuck with Zito's contract) and the Phillies (who are playing a game of rotating #5 guys because they don't have anything else to go with). The Braves have a top prospect, so do the Cards, the Nats #5 is much better, the Dodgers spent a ton of getting Ryu, and the DBacks have a top prospect. So you have one team that went .500 last year who would take Leake, and another team stuck with a contract they are desperately trying to get any value out of (I won't get into Lincecum). I am not saying Leake has zero value, but every single contending team would be looking to improve over him every chance they get.

    Like I stated, Leake is not bad as an emergency #5 (in other words, stuck with him for a multitude of reasons). Yet every good team in the league would be looking to replace him too. I am not saying it would be easy, but Leake is in no way a guy you look at and say "well, we are good at that spot in the rotation, let's stick with him." Wanting to replace a guy and doing it when you have any kind of other options does not mean he is a replacement level player. "Replacement level" players are garbage. I think you are confusing the terminology. Just because a guy performs above your average minor leaguer does not mean he should be your #5 guy, and W-L for pitchers is a horrible statistic for comparison reasons. Run support plays a huge role.

  8. #81
    Viva la Rolen kaldaniels's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    8,086

    Re: Chapman

    Leake was a 1.0 WAR batter/baserunner last year. Only fair to include that as it is a strength of his.

    Best in the league.

  9. #82
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    913

    Re: Chapman

    Quote Originally Posted by kaldaniels View Post
    Leake was a 1.0 WAR batter/baserunner last year. Only fair to include that as it is a strength of his.

    Best in the league.
    and that works out to about 7-9 more hits the entire year vs. your average hitting pitcher with that many at bats. He only had 12 more hits that Cueto, and Cueto is an awful hitter even for a pitcher (Cueto did have 6 more at bats). Plus Leake only walked 1 time all year, so he doesn't get any bump in OBP. Leake is only going to hit about 2 times every 5 days. His hitting is of such minimal benefit it really isn't much of a bump. I would rather a pitcher give up 7-9 hits less than get 7-9 more hits in the least important spot in the lineup. Giving up 7-9 less hits is very doable with even a minor improvement in the pitching spot.
    Last edited by scott91575; 03-13-2013 at 05:14 PM.

  10. #83
    Viva la Rolen kaldaniels's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    8,086

    Re: Chapman

    Quote Originally Posted by scott91575 View Post
    and that works out to about 7-9 more hits the entire year vs. your average hitting pitcher with that many at bats. He only had 12 more hits that Cueto, and Cueto is an awful hitter even for a pitcher (Cueto did have 6 more at bats). Plus Leake only walked 1 time all year, so he doesn't get any bump in OBP. Leake is only going to hit about 2 times every 5 days. His hitting is of such minimal benefit it really isn't much of a bump. I would rather a pitcher give up 7-9 hits less than get 7-9 more hits in the least important spot in the lineup. Giving up 7-9 less hits is very doable with even a minor improvement in the pitching spot.
    I'm not drawing any conclusions, but it should be factored in.

  11. #84
    Stat Wanker Hodiernus RedsManRick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Guelph, ON
    Posts
    16,093

    Re: Chapman

    Quote Originally Posted by kaldaniels View Post
    I'm not drawing any conclusions, but it should be factored in.
    If we're talking about this year and forward, it only matters if it's predictive. Something tells me his .400+ BABIP isn't sustainable in the long run.
    Games are won on run differential -- scoring more than your opponent. Runs are runs, scored or prevented they all count the same. Worry about scoring more and allowing fewer, not which positions contribute to which side of the equation or how "consistent" you are at your current level of performance.

  12. #85
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    913

    Re: Chapman

    Quote Originally Posted by RedsManRick View Post
    If we're talking about this year and forward, it only matters if it's predictive. Something tells me his .400+ BABIP isn't sustainable in the long run.
    Especially since he is not a home run hitter or a speedster.

  13. #86
    Viva la Rolen kaldaniels's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    8,086

    Re: Chapman

    Quote Originally Posted by RedsManRick View Post
    If we're talking about this year and forward, it only matters if it's predictive. Something tells me his .400+ BABIP isn't sustainable in the long run.
    Which makes me wish you had chimed in about his xFIP while he was getting trashed.

    I'm no Leake fan but the criticism was a bit much earlier.

  14. #87
    Viva la Rolen kaldaniels's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    8,086

    Re: Chapman

    Speaking of xFIP, how about this fun nugget.

    From 2010-2012, ranking qualified pitchers in xFIP...

    Mike Leake falls in between 2 guys named Cain and Cueto.

  15. #88
    No half measures, Walter RedEye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    8,213
    Quote Originally Posted by The Operator View Post
    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.
    Isn't there some evidence that having a high paid closer is actually just throwing money at an arbitrary role when what really matters are high leverage situations -- many of them at other times in the game?
    "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

  16. #89
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    913

    Re: Chapman

    Quote Originally Posted by kaldaniels View Post
    Speaking of xFIP, how about this fun nugget.

    From 2010-2012, ranking qualified pitchers in xFIP...

    Mike Leake falls in between 2 guys named Cain and Cueto.
    and yet his FIP places him in between such names as Freddy Garcia and Randy Wells (two guys signed to minor league deals simply hoping to make a major league team).

    xFIP is a terrible stat for home run prone pitchers, and Leake is certainly that. It corrects for home runs to reduce the instability factor, but it also eliminates the negative effects that home run prone pitchers have. It also poorly predicts pitchers that keep the ball in the ball park like Cain and Cueto (especially Cueto since he pitches in a HR prone ballpark).

    FIP and xFIP have their place, but both have their failings. While the overall correlation is good, there are often outliers. For xFIP, as mentioned, it has poor correlation for home run prone pitchers since it eliminates actual home runs given up and replaces it with the league average. For pitchers that have historically average home run per fly ball rates it is a good predictor. Yet in 3 years, Leake has shown that his home run per fly ball rate has been consistently high and therefore xFIP is a poor predictor for him. He would certainly benefit from moving to a ballpark that is much bigger than GABP, but as far as the Reds are concerned, he is still not a good fit for the rotation.

    For the record, I find stats that attempt to normalize stats by using league averages as laughable. Of course they correlate better. They predict pitchers will continually return to the norm, which, over a long enough time will happen for the majority of pitchers. It's prediction correlation will be strong because most pitchers will be around the norm and return there for most of their career. It's a self fulfilling prophecy, and I find it funny. You can make all kinds of predictors that correlate as long as you know the norm and use that in your calculation. In my eyes that is a simple predictor that any fool can come up with. It's actually statistics voodoo. You create a stat based on existing stats to predict future stats which will often be very similar year to year. When you normalize everything to land in the high percentage of the bell curve you will have a strong correlation. Yet it fails horribly with the outliers, and those are often the things people really need a prediction for. It doesn't take a genius to look at HR/FB rate of a pitcher, see a spike one year, and realize it's an outlier for that pitcher. xFIP, IMO, is a simple stat used by people wanting a quick and easy number without actually wading through all the numbers to find the true outliers.
    Last edited by scott91575; 03-14-2013 at 05:02 AM.

  17. #90
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Columbus
    Posts
    733

    Re: Chapman

    The way I look at it, there's a reason that the top starting pitchers make more money that the top closers on the market, and SP are always much fmore sought after at the trade deadline. They are simply way more valuable to a team than a closer. I think it's foolish not to explore the possibility that Chapman could be an ace in waiting.

    Besides, I don't see the risk. If it fails you move him back to the pen and you've got a bullpen arm you can trade.
    Sto Pro Veritate

  18. Likes:

    CySeymour (03-14-2013), RedEye (03-14-2013), remdog (03-14-2013)


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