My take on Aroldis Chapman tonight

[Sea Ray]

I think Chapman is as advertised. He hits 100 with his FB but struggles with off speed pitches but that doesn't mean we throw him in the bullpen. They need to develop him as a starter because starters are far more valuable than relievers. It wouldn't be unheard of to kick off his big league career in the pen. They did the same thing with Mario Soto and Jose Rijo and the Rays did this as well with David Price.

Chapman's skills would be wasted as a closer. He needs to control his off speed stuff just like Randy Johnson and Nolan Ryan before him. He is not ready for the bigs yet. This is not news.

[dougdirt]

It was just one game, but he didn't appear to have any control issues last night. His strike-to-ball ratio was 2-to-1 and he regularly pitched inside to righties and lefties. One of the three walks he allowed was a 10-pitch at bat with four foul balls after he got two strikes.

Strike to ball ratio doesn't tell us much though, especially for a guy who has the stuff that flat out overmatches most hitters in the lineup. Like I noted, last night was his best control game so far and he wasn't all that good.

I have charted his games in the past and he was missing the catchers target big time, often, in those games. Yet his strike rate was 'average' if you just looked at his strikes/balls because it counts the times guys swung at a fastball at their eyes or a foot outside because they had to start their swing early to catch up to a 95+ MPH fastball.

[dougdirt]

Call me crazy but I'd still like to see Chapman eased in via the bullpen. Let him work on things under the tutelage of our best pitching coach without the pressure and pitch counts that come as a starter.

I am for this too.... just not until he throws about 100 innings as a starter in the minors.

[RS17TIMES]

Strike to ball ratio doesn't tell us much though, especially for a guy who has the stuff that flat out overmatches most hitters in the lineup. Like I noted, last night was his best control game so far and he wasn't all that good.

I have charted his games in the past and he was missing the catchers target big time, often, in those games. Yet his strike rate was 'average' if you just looked at his strikes/balls because it counts the times guys swung at a fastball at their eyes or a foot outside because they had to start their swing early to catch up to a 95+ MPH fastball.

What did you see, hear or read that suggested his control wasn't all that good last night? I sat directly behind home plate for all six innings last night and I can say with confidence that his control was good.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about the strike-to-ball ratio being a sign of a pitcher's control. I would point out, though, that I don't think you should hold it against Chapman when a hitter chases a pitch out of the zone. The goal isn't always to get a strike by throwing the ball over the plate. Sometimes it's to throw a pitch out of the strike zone that will hopefully get the hitter to chase it. Chapman was able to do that a few times last night with two strikes, and that's a good sign.

[dougdirt]

What did you see, hear or read that suggested his control wasn't all that good last night? I sat directly behind home plate for all six innings last night and I can say with confidence that his control was good.

I watched the game from home. He was missing Corky Millers initial target a bit too much for me to say his control was good last night. I can say that with confidence.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about the strike-to-ball ratio being a sign of a pitcher's control. I would point out, though, that I don't think you should hold it against Chapman when a hitter chases a pitch out of the zone. The goal isn't always to get a strike by throwing the ball over the plate. Sometimes it's to throw a pitch out of the strike zone that will hopefully get the hitter to chase it. Chapman was able to do that a few times last night with two strikes, and that's a good sign.

Why shouldn't I hold it against him if a hitter chases the pitch out of the zone when the target set up by the catcher that he was supposed to hit was well within the zone? Sure, its result is good, but he certainly missed his spot. If the catcher sets up or slaps the dirt to try and let the pitcher know, throw it outside/inside or in the dirt to get the guy to chase, then that is fine. But when the catcher shows the target at point X and then the pitch is 12-18 inches from point X, its not good control even if the end result is good.

[mth123]

He may not be ready as a starter, but it sounds as if the scout feels he could be a dominating reliever as soon as this season.

That might work nicely for the Reds. They've got plenty of rotation options, and it would allow for an easier transition to the bigs for Chapman -- fewer innings, less pressure, etc.

Ultimately he's going to start.

125 IP in the AAA rotation and a call-up to the pen when the team deals off Arthur Rhodes to a contender for a position player to help out. (I think Rhodes to Tampa Bay, who only seems to lack a lefty bullpen arm to be real threat, for Reid Brignac is a match made in heaven).

[RS17TIMES]

I watched the game from home. He was missing Corky Millers initial target a bit too much for me to say his control was good last night. I can say that with confidence.


Why shouldn't I hold it against him if a hitter chases the pitch out of the zone when the target set up by the catcher that he was supposed to hit was well within the zone? Sure, its result is good, but he certainly missed his spot. If the catcher sets up or slaps the dirt to try and let the pitcher know, throw it outside/inside or in the dirt to get the guy to chase, then that is fine. But when the catcher shows the target at point X and then the pitch is 12-18 inches from point X, its not good control even if the end result is good.

I guess we have different expectations, or maybe different definitions of what's considered hitting a spot and good control. Anyway, he's only going to get better, which is a good thing for the Reds and their fans.

[GIDP]

Bullpen or what ever

sorry its just too good of a quote to not use

[RS17TIMES]

Here's a possible explanation for why I had Chapman at 103 last night and nobody else had him above 101.

[dougdirt]

Here's a possible explanation for why I had Chapman at 103 last night and nobody else had him above 101.

I don't buy into that explanation for a second. The pitch is generally measured at 40-45 feet, before the 'late movement' happens. If it was measuring how fast the pitch was as it crossed home plate, it would have registered at 92-93 MPH.

Also, for future reference, the site frowns upon linking to ones own site within threads. You can put it in the signature and its cool, but linking to your own articles is generally frowned upon.

[RS17TIMES]

I don't buy into that explanation for a second. The pitch is generally measured at 40-45 feet, before the 'late movement' happens. If it was measuring how fast the pitch was as it crossed home plate, it would have registered at 92-93 MPH.

Also, for future reference, the site frowns upon linking to ones own site within threads. You can put it in the signature and its cool, but linking to your own articles is generally frowned upon.

I apologize. I didn't see anything when I signed up about rules prohibiting linking to one's own site. If I missed a Terms of Service or similar page where that's posted, I apologize.

You've been refuting everything I've said today, so if I'm not welcome for some reason, just say so. No need to tell me I'm violating site rules. Just be honest if that's the case. Others seem to enjoy my discussion and reading my blog, but if I've done something wrong, please tell me.

As for the explanation about the 103 reading, I know more than nothing about doppler radar, so when I heard this, it made sense. What you said also makes sense, but I tend to believe a man who basically has a radar gun on his hip 12 months a year.

[OnBaseMachine]

From Jamie Ramsey's blog:

"Chapman was very impressive. He did everything we want him to. He also had command of his change-up, his breaking ball pitches, and he worked six innings for the first time this season....Chapman not only pitched well, he got to work on his defense. He made two bad pitches, but he kept his composure." - Louisville manager Rick Sweet (The Times Leader)

"(Chapman) threw electric stuff. He's tall and lanky and he's very good...It was not a fun at-bat. If you're going to choose someone to hit against, it wouldn't be Chapman. Anyone who throws 100 mph anytime he chooses is very special." - Scranton's David Winfree who belted 1 of the 2 homers allowed by Chapman
(The Times Leader)

http://ramsey.mlblogs.com/archives/2...ort-42910.html

[dougdirt]

I apologize. I didn't see anything when I signed up about rules prohibiting linking to one's own site. If I missed a Terms of Service or similar page where that's posted, I apologize.

You've been refuting everything I've said today, so if I'm not welcome for some reason, just say so. No need to tell me I'm violating site rules. Just be honest if that's the case. Others seem to enjoy my discussion and reading my blog, but if I've done something wrong, please tell me.

As for the explanation about the 103 reading, I know more than nothing about doppler radar, so when I heard this, it made sense. What you said also makes sense, but I tend to believe a man who basically has a radar gun on his hip 12 months a year.

I just know that it has been brought up on the site in the past and figured I would toss it to you as well. No problem at all with you here. The more the better.

As for the radar gun, the only reason I dispute what he says is that with the inception of Pitch F/X data we know that pitches for sure are moving much slower at the home plate than they are when they are leaving the pitchers hand. Pitch F/X readings are generally slightly higher than radar gun readings because of where they are initially measured (50 feet for PFX, and as noted 40-45 feet for radar guns). The difference is that with Pitch FX we also get an 'end speed' and pitches lose about 10% of their velocity from the measurement of 50 feet from home plate to crossing home plate. If the movement on the pitches were the cause for the misread, the reading would have come out much lower since it would read the speed in the last 10-15 feet and thus be about 90% of peak velocity, which if you got a 103, would have been about 110 MPH.

I would believe much more that perhaps you just happened to get an earlier reading, say at the point of release and the others around you picked up the normal 40-45 foot mark. That makes sense to me. The movement misread just doesn't add up given what we know.

I really hope you don't have any hard feelings because I have disagreed with you. Nothing was meant to be malicious at all, simply just disagreeing that is all. Hope you stick around. Just because we disagreed the first time we interacted doesn't mean its likely we will continue to.

[RS17TIMES]

Just got a text from my friend who covers the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre team who talked to the scout about my 103 reading. He said that scout, Phil Rossi of the Marlins, and Gene "Stick" Michael of the Yankees both told him today that 103 could easily have been a legit speed for Chapman last night. So, maybe no explanation is needed.

[dougdirt]

From Jamie Ramsey's blog:

"Chapman was very impressive. He did everything we want him to. He also had command of his change-up, his breaking ball pitches, and he worked six innings for the first time this season....

http://ramsey.mlblogs.com/archives/2...ort-42910.html

I will agree with the second part of that. I thought he threw his offspeed pitches much better than he had in his previous starts, at least in terms of locating them. It was his fastball he was struggling with last night from what I saw.