Aroldis Chapman and history

[hebroncougar]

OK so he hits the market. He's already said he'd like to re-sign with the Reds. So maybe they sign him to a $7 million deal. I'd do it. It's not like he's going to get $50 million on the open market anyhow.

Worst-case scenario, maybe Chapman as a starter strikes out 10-12 guys per nine innings instead of 17. He'd still be better than anyone the Reds have, with all due respect to Cueto and Latos.

Even assuming he won't be *quite* as dominant as a starter as a reliever, I'd rather he strike out 10-12 guys per nine innings over the course of 180-200 than 17 per 80. And that's assuming he takes that big of a drop as a starter. He might not do that.

You'd give Madsen $7 million in a year he's coming off if Tommy John? That year coming off of that surgery is pretty rough. I'd use Joe Nathan as a comparative fwiw.

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk 2

[Brutus]

You'd give Madsen $7 million in a year he's coming off if Tommy John?

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk 2

Yea I probably would. But your reaction kind of serves my point... even if he hits the market, he's not going to get a large contract. There's no reason the Reds can't get him re-signed at a decent rate -- whatever that rate may be.

[mth123]

Under normal circumstances when it's a matter of figuring a guy out, that might be true. But Aroldis isn't fooling anyone. He's not been successful based on guys not figuring him out. He's not doing anything special whatsoever. Like Hanigan said the other day, 90% of the time, hitters know exactly what's coming. They simply can't hit it. This guy's fastball is truly special because of the release point and the way it pops out of his hand from a shorter distance. I don't care if guys face it once a night or four times a night... they're not going to hit it very often.

Also, while we're talking about assumptions, I don't know how you can possibly say his velocity doesn't hold up past 40 pitches. There is not even remotely enough of a sample size to suggest that. He's not started a single game at this level, and only has a couple dozen starts in the minors.
I don't see how anyone could reasonably expect his K-rate to dip into single digits as a starter for any extended period of time. You don't go from striking out 17 guys to less than half that, even taking into account a small difference as a starter.

And to be perfectly honest, Aroldis' velocity as a reliever seems to do better after he's gotten warmed up and sometimes when he's pitching a second or third straight day. I'd be surprised if his velocity dips as much as you're suggesting.

Precisely my point. I didn't say I know that his velocity will drop after 40 pitches. I said that in the worst case scenario it could be what we find. We certainly don't know that it wouldn't drop off quite a bit. That's where the assumption comes in. You said it yourself. He's not fooling anyone, he's blowing it by them. And if he can't blow it by them in the 4th inning? Then would he go to his secondary stuff? Can he get it over the plate? Will it fool anyone? Honestly, we don't know any of that. I'm not in favor of converting both the pen and one rotation spot from solid (rotation) or great (bullpen) into a pair of question marks. Teams trying to win try to eliminate question marks not create them.

Too many people are assuming that he could be as dominant for 7 or 8 innings as he is for 3 hitters. Why didn't Gossage start? Why didn't Dibble? Lee Smith? Todd Jones? Tom Henke? Billy Wagner? Troy Percival? K-Rod? Brian Wilson? etc. etc. etc. They all blew it by people for an inning or two. Its not automatic they could do it for 7.

[Brutus]

Precisely my point. I didn't say I know that his velocity will drop after 40 pitches. I said that in the worst case scenario it could be what we find. We certainly don't know that it wouldn't drop off quite a bit. That's where the assumption comes in. You said it yourself. He's not fooling anyone, he's blowing it by them. And if he can't blow it by them in the 4th inning? Then would he go to his secondary stuff? Can he get it over the plate? Will it fool anyone? Honestly, we don't know any of that. I'm not in favor of converting both the pen and one rotation spot from solid (rotation) or great (bullpen) into a pair of question marks. Teams trying to win try to eliminate question marks not create them.

Too many people are assuming that he could be as dominant for 7 or 8 innings as he is for 3 hitters. Why didn't Gossage start? Why didn't Dibble? Lee Smith? Todd Jones? Tom Henke? Billy Wagner? Troy Percival? K-Rod? Brian Wilson? etc. etc. etc. They all blew it by people for an inning or two. Its not automatic they could do it for 7.

There's no evidence to suggest his velocity will drop off after 40 pitches, though. And certainly not enough to think it will be more than a couple MPH.

Remember this guy has been a starter all his life. It's not like starting is uncharted territory for him. Unlike the guys you mentioned, Chapman is in the bullpen because the Reds needed him there, not because he couldn't hack it as a starter. He was a starter in spring training and pitched really well as a starter.

[mth123]

There's no evidence to suggest his velocity will drop off after 40 pitches, though. And certainly not enough to think it will be more than a couple MPH.

Remember this guy has been a starter all his life. It's not like starting is uncharted territory for him. Unlike the guys you mentioned, Chapman is in the bullpen because the Reds needed him there, not because he couldn't hack it as a starter. He was a starter in spring training and pitched really well as a starter.

His inning high is 125. He never started against big league hitters. As a starter in AAA, he really wasn't all that hot. As for spring training, he went 2 innings twice, 3 innings a couple of times, went 5 really good innings once. Of course those were line-ups sprikled with AA players and even when he went through a line-up a second time, it wasn't always the same hiitters he faced the first time.

He's completely untested as a starter against any type of competition that remotely approaches major league caliber. We know no more about Chapman's chances at success as a starter than we do Daniel Corcino's or Kyle Lotzkar's. We certainly don't know that "worst case scenario maybe Chapman as a starter strikes out 10-12 guys per nine innings instead of 17. He'd still be better than anyone the Reds have, with all due respect to Cueto and Latos." It may prove true, but we certainly have very little idea right now. Worst case is far worse than that.

[Brutus]

His inning high is 125. He never started against big league hitters. As a starter in AAA, he really wasn't all that hot. As for spring training, he went 2 innings twice, 3 innings a couple of times, went 5 really good inings once. Of course those were line-ups filled with AA players and even when he went through a line-up a second time, it wasn't always the same hiitters he faced the first time.

He's completely untested as a starter against any type of competition that remotely approaches major league caliber. We know no more about Chapman's chances at success as a starter than we do Daniel Corcino's or Kyle Lotzkar's. We certainly don't know that "worst case scenario maybe Chapman as a starter strikes out 10-12 guys per nine innings instead of 17. He'd still be better than anyone the Reds have, with all due respect to Cueto and Latos." It may prove true, but we certainly have very little idea right now. Worst case is far worse than that.

Guys with his talent that have been starters all their lives don't fall of the face of the earth with their production. This isn't a guy that projected as only a reliever. I understand a small bit of skepticism. But only a healthy dose. The doomsday thinking if he were to be converted full-time seems to be unfounded.

He started 13 games in AAA in 2010, and struck out about 12 batters per nine innings. He did struggle with his control, but that wasn't just a starting issue but rather an issue he'd been struggling with in Cincinnati as a reliever as well. Those issues seem like they're behind him.

If a guy can strike out 12/9 in Louisville in his first season as a pro, that seems like a great indication he'll do fine as a starter.

[mth123]

Guys with his talent that have been starters all their lives don't fall of the face of the earth with their production. This isn't a guy that projected as only a reliever. I understand a small bit of skepticism. But only a healthy dose. The doomsday thinking if he were to be converted full-time seems to be unfounded.

He started 13 games in AAA in 2010, and struck out about 12 batters per nine innings. He did struggle with his control, but that wasn't just a starting issue but rather an issue he'd been struggling with in Cincinnati as a reliever as well. Those issues seem like they're behind him.

If a guy can strike out 12/9 in Louisville in his first season as a pro, that seems like a great indication he'll do fine as a starter.

Its not doomsday thinking. I'm not saying he's certain to fail. I'm saying its not automatic that he'll be any good. I'm saying he's a question mark as a starter not some one who is a certainty to have 12 K per 9 and be the best starter we have. He'd be a question mark next year in a spot where we don't have a question mark now. It would also turn the job he's doing now from Cy Young candidate into a question mark. The Reds are trying to win. The idea of creating more question marks on purpose seems nutty to me.

[Brutus]

Its not doomsday thinking. I'm not saying he's certain to fail. I'm saying its not automatic that he'll be any good. I'm saying he's a question mark as a starter not some one who is a certainty to have 12 K per 9 and be the best starter we have. He'd be a question mark next year in a spot where we don't have a question mark now. It would also turn the job he's doing now from Cy Young candidate into a question mark. The Reds are trying to win. The idea of creating more question marks on purpose seems nutty to me.

With his talent, I think it's a near-automatic he'll be good. It remains to be seen if he'll be great. But someone with his talent... there's just very little chance he wouldn't be a plus starter.

[mth123]

With his talent, I think it's a near-automatic he'll be good. It remains to be seen if he'll be great. But someone with his talent... there's just very little chance he wouldn't be a plus starter.

Nothing's automatic.

[Brutus]

Nothing's automatic.

Which is why I said "near"

I really don't understand the issue. If he doesn't work out or if the Reds' bullpen truly suffers (which I seriously doubt both), they can move him back rather easily. It's not a hard transition to move him back to the pen if necessary.

So really, I don't understand what the harm is in trying.

[mth123]

Which is why I said "near"

I really don't understand the issue. If he doesn't work out or if the Reds' bullpen truly suffers (which I seriously doubt both), they can move him back rather easily. It's not a hard transition to move him back to the pen if necessary.

So really, I don't understand what the harm is in trying.

So, in the try it and if he sucks move him back to the pen scenario, you make a rotation spot for him by dealing off Leake or Bailey. You dig a hole for the team by suffering through half a season to see how it goes and when you decide to move him back to the pen you have a hole in the rotation and no one to fill it. Yeah. No harm in that at all. If you think "trying it" is a risk free move, you're deluding yourself.

[757690]

Its not doomsday thinking. I'm not saying he's certain to fail. I'm saying its not automatic that he'll be any good. I'm saying he's a question mark as a starter not some one who is a certainty to have 12 K per 9 and be the best starter we have. He'd be a question mark next year in a spot where we don't have a question mark now. It would also turn the job he's doing now from Cy Young candidate into a question mark. The Reds are trying to win. The idea of creating more question marks on purpose seems nutty to me.

He's not a complete question mark. Everyone knows his skill level right now, and it's elite. We know he has the stamina to pitch deep into games, we just don't know how effective he will be. Will he maintain the same control? Will he be able to work in off speed pitches more? It's not like he will turn into Jimmy Anderson if he becomes a starter.

The worst pitcher I can remember who threw close to as hard as Chapman is Bobby Witt. He could hit triple digits, but had no control. I think that's Chapman's floor. And while Witt was a disappointment, he was roughly a league average starter for most of his career.

[757690]

So, in the try it and if he sucks move him back to the pen scenario, you make a rotation spot for him by dealing off Leake or Bailey. You dig a hole for the team by suffering through half a season to see how it goes and when you decide to move him back to the pen you have a hole in the rotation and no one to fill it. Yeah. No harm in that at all. If you think "trying it" is a risk free move, you're deluding yourself.

Absolutely no need to trade any starter if they move Chapman to the rotation. Who wouldn't want to go into spring training with six options for the rotation?

[mth123]

He's not a complete question mark. Everyone knows his skill level right now, and it's elite. We know he has the stamina to pitch deep into games, we just don't know how effective he will be. Will he maintain the same control? Will he be able to work in off speed pitches more? It's not like he will turn into Jimmy Anderson if he becomes a starter.

The worst pitcher I can remember who threw close to as hard as Chapman is Bobby Witt. He could hit triple digits, but had no control. I think that's Chapman's floor. And while Witt was a disappointment, he was roughly a league average starter for most of his career.

I'm glad you're so confident. I don't think we have any idea how he'd do against big league hitters beyond 3 innings or so.

[mth123]

Absolutely no need to trade any starter if they move Chapman to the rotation. Who wouldn't want to go into spring training with six options for the rotation?

They aren't going to arb with Bailey or Leake for them to be long relievers. They may keep them going into spring. I can't see them keeping one in the pen during the season.