Because it would be redundant and repetitive? He also said the change was a "revelation".
Would someone discuss a below average pitch as revelatory?
Because it would be redundant and repetitive? He also said the change was a "revelation".
Would someone discuss a below average pitch as revelatory?
A "revolution" of a pitch.
"Some outstanding" change-ups thrown to batters.
The relevant quotes from my post:
He also showed a plus change in limited time.Two 80 pitches (his slider and fastball) plus an average to plus change would make him, IMO, the pitching prospect with the best tools.
It would make him that. But it doesn't say that he has an average to plus change up. The fact that he says could be somewhere from a 50-70 tells us that right now, its not those things. And again, he slows his arm down to throw it. It isn't plus and parts of it suggest it could be one day, but read the entire things that Frankie said about it, not just the parts that are nice. Here is the entire write up from the article you are referencing:
The last sentence is key. It has actions to one day grade out as plus, meaning that in its current state, its not.Changeup: Chapman's changeup is the obvious surprise in his repertoire. Word was he had the fastball and slider, but the changeup is a revelation. He's going to need to be far more consistent at selling his arm action and staying through the pitch. He spun off a couple of them in warm-ups and lost them high and away to his arm side. He threw some outstanding ones on the edges of the plate against live hitters, however. All coming in at 82 mph, it's going to be downright unfair to big-league hitters if he can throw this pitch for strikes. It has the fading action and differential to one day grade out as a plus offering.
Heh.
Semantics.
Love 'em.
He has the talent to throw a plus change. He has shown an ability to throw a plus change. The key is if he throws it consistently.
I understand he has work left to do. I said as much in my post. (He had shown flashes in limited action doesn't mean he's done with the pitch.)
But you intimated he had no clue what he was doing with his third pitch. He does. He's shown flashes. It's only a matter of time and experience.
Some guys are built for starting, some for relieving. It could be that Chapman, in stuff and temperament, is truly a shutdown reliever. I'm not worried about it, really, because they've got him for 6 years at 30 million, and that's still a decent deal for a dominant bullpenner. There aren't a whole lot of those guys in the league -- at those prices.
If Chapman's future is as Goose Gossage instead of Randy Johnson, he's still the team's top prospect.
All my posts are my opinion - just like yours are. If I forget to state it and you're too dense to see the obvious, look here!
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. |