Should the Reds consider dealing Chapman for offensive help?

[BluegrassRedleg]

In 13 games this season against expected NL contenders STL, WASH and ATL, Chapman has 2 appearances, 2 innings of work.

I know people went back and forth on the whole starter/closer debate, and it's not my intent to get that all worked up again, but it's frustrating to see a $30M arm sit down in the bullpen for an entire series while the offense is woefully inconsistent.

We all love to see Chapman come in and blow people away, but the guy has 15 IP all season. We're 35 games in, and one of our most talented players is rarely on the field.

If the Reds see Chapman as simply a closer, would it not make more sense to make him the crown jewel of a deal that could bring them some much-needed offensive help? Can a small market club afford to have someone like him sitting around instead of playing?

If I'm nuts here, convince me why.

[klw]

Chapman is still on pace to pitch 70 innings for the season. That is pretty solid usage for a reliever these days- especially a closer.

In terms of offense, look at the schedule the next 3 weeks for the Reds. It gets considerably softer. I expect a nice run for the Reds to occur the rest of May.

[Kc61]

In 13 games this season against expected NL contenders STL, WASH and ATL, Chapman has 2 appearances, 2 innings of work.

I know people went back and forth on the whole starter/closer debate, and it's not my intent to get that all worked up again, but it's frustrating to see a $30M arm sit down in the bullpen for an entire series while the offense is woefully inconsistent.

We all love to see Chapman come in and blow people away, but the guy has 15 IP all season. We're 35 games in, and one of our most talented players is rarely on the field.

If the Reds see Chapman as simply a closer, would it not make more sense to make him the crown jewel of a deal that could bring them some much-needed offensive help? Can a small market club afford to have someone like him sitting around instead of playing?

If I'm nuts here, convince me why.

The Reds have some pretty good offensive players, could just use some bolstering. Don't need to acquire a major star at the expense of major pitching.

Let's settle for a couple of solid guys who would cost prospects or secondary players. Maybe trade middle relief too.

Would think trading a star like Chapman perhaps goes too far right now.

[westofyou]

No

[reds44]

The Reds are 6th in baseball and 2nd in the NL in runs.

[TOBTTReds]

The Reds are 6th in baseball and 2nd in the NL in runs.

This teams offensive numbers can be twisted though. You could have just as easily have said that the Reds have scored 2 or fewer runs in 13 of our games this year (which I believe is near tops in the league). We've also scored double digits 5 times, which is probably near the tops.

A simple stat that you provide doesn't really explain the offenses success or failures. We have scored 38% of our runs in 5 games.

[westofyou]

This teams offensive numbers can be twisted though. You could have just as easily have said that the Reds have scored 2 or fewer runs in 13 of our games this year (which I believe is near tops in the league). We've also scored double digits 5 times, which is probably near the tops.

A simple stat that you provide doesn't really explain the offenses success or failures. We have scored 38% of our runs in 5 games.

True, still the sample is small and trying to get offense by dumping pitching seems a little too robbing Peter to pay Paul 5 weeks into the season

[DocRed]

Sure, if we could get Bryce Harper or Mike Trout for him I say go for it!

[TOBTTReds]

True, still the sample is small and trying to get offense by dumping pitching seems a little too robbing Peter to pay Paul 5 weeks into the season

I totally agree.

[nate]

This teams offensive numbers can be twisted though. You could have just as easily have said that the Reds have scored 2 or fewer runs in 13 of our games this year (which I believe is near tops in the league). We've also scored double digits 5 times, which is probably near the tops.

A simple stat that you provide doesn't really explain the offenses success or failures. We have scored 38% of our runs in 5 games.

That's not really surprising because that's how math works. Higher numbers = a higher percentage. Every team is going to look like this. If you play 10 games, score 10 runs in 1 game and 10 runs in the other 9, you've scored 50% of your runs in 10% of your games.

Put another way, the Reds have scored 38% of their runs in 15% of their games.

As a comparison, the NL has scored 43% (the closest percentage I could find to 38%) of it's runs in 20% of it's games.

The Reds have scored 2 or fewer runs in 38% of their games.

The NL has scored 2 or fewer runs in 35% of their games.

The Reds have scored 5 or more runs in 50% of their games.

The NL has scored 5 or more runs in 39% of their games.

The Reds have scored 1 run in 24% (8) of their games. Then again, they score 4 runs or higher 56% of the time while the league only does that 51% of the time.

[TOBTTReds]

That's not really surprising because that's how math works. Higher numbers = a higher percentage. Every team is going to look like this. If you play 10 games, score 10 runs in 1 game and 10 runs in the other 9, you've scored 50% of your runs in 10% of your games.

Put another way, the Reds have scored 38% of their runs in 15% of their games.

As a comparison, the NL has scored 43% (the closest percentage I could find to 38%) of it's runs in 20% of it's games.

The Reds have scored 2 or fewer runs in 38% of their games.

The NL has scored 2 or fewer runs in 35% of their games.

The Reds have scored 5 or more runs in 50% of their games.

The NL has scored 5 or more runs in 39% of their games.

The Reds have scored 1 run in 24% (8) of their games. Then again, they score 4 runs or higher 56% of the time while the league only does that 51% of the time.

All of this is exactly my point. I wasn't saying our offense was good or bad in my post. Just saying that you can explain our offense with stats in 50 different ways, and make them look any way you want, like they score x % of runs in 5 games.

But thanks for letting me know how math works, that was really informative for me.

[BluegrassRedleg]

The Reds are 6th in baseball and 2nd in the NL in runs.

By my rough count, they've scored 2 or fewer runs in 15 of 35 games.

[reds44]

By my rough count, they've scored 2 or fewer runs in 15 of 35 games.

Which means they've scored a lot of runs in all the other games.

[_Sir_Charles_]

Pitching and defense. That's how you win.

I think fans are still in the high-offense mindset of a few years ago. We've got multiple players slumping...the worst thing in the world we can do is to overreact now. This team is built for the long haul and to compete for division titles and championships...let them play.

[BluegrassRedleg]

I think fans are still in the high-offense mindset of a few years ago.

Not at all. And, just to clarify, this is not an "OMG the sky is falling!" post.

Completely agree with emphasis on pitching. It's the difference between what we were five years ago (and for the greater part of two lost decades) and what we are now. Great pitching gives you a chance every time you go out there.

I'm not advocating we gut the team's pitching and go back to Bowdenball. You have a rock-solid rotation with or without Chapman. That's not changing. But after watching what happened to them the last two trips to the playoffs and seeing a lot of the same tendencies pop up through the first 35 games this season, I can't see how the offense isn't a valid concern. (Note concern, not panic.)

They have a great commodity in Chapman. Could he bring better value to the club as part of a deal?