I feel like preparing as a starter, even if he fails, does nothing but make him better as a closer. He spent all spring working as a starter this year, and is having far and away the best season of his career in the bullpen. It's his time spent in the bullpen that's hurting his chances as a starter; not the other way around IMO.Originally Posted by edabbs44
Chapman is 18 of 22 this year (saves/(saves+blown saves)). That is just 82%. Of the 16 pitchers with at least 12 saves this year, that ranks 11th.
Those stats don't indicate how much of a game-changer he is at the back of the bullpen.
How is he "changing the game" in a way that's not reflected there. Whether he strikes out the side or gives up two hits a walk and run, if the outcome of the game is a win, what's the difference?
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.
I dunno. Chapman had one rough stretch when he also was dealing with personal stuff off the field. If people are honest, he is the most dominant closer in baseball, other than that short of period of time with the one rough stretch. This is one of those situations where the eyes, not stats, apply.
The difference is a 1.54 ERA and giving the other guys only eight frames to score.
Maybe we should trade him for Joel Hanrahan.
Has this thread really gone five pages without mention of Daniel Bard?
Before the season, the Reds and the Red Sox each had new closers supported by high-strikeout, mildly control-challenged flamethrowing setup men who had histories as starters. Before the season, each of the Reds and the Red Sox anticipated converting their high-strikeout setup men to starters. Before the season, each of the Reds and the Red Sox had their expected closers go down for injury. The Reds kept their setup man in the pen, where he thrived. The Red Sox continued the conversion, and their setup man flamed out as a starter in MLB, continued to flame as a start in AAA, and now is trying to regain his relieving groove. Put simply, the Red Sox took an asset and squandered it for the whole year.
There is no reasonable question that Chapman's value would be the highest as a a Randy-Johnson-like starter -- if he can do it. But that is a big if -- as is the re-conversion to reliever if starting doesn't suit.
With the benefit of hindsight, it seems pretty clear that the Reds have handled Chapman in the way that has maximized his value to the club -- and the value of the Reds' other pitching assets -- this year.
2013 is a different story. Let's enjoy this ride while we can.
I agree, Doug.
Given the choice of having a Justin Verlander pitcher over 200 innings or Craig Kimbrel pitch 85, I go with Verlander for over 200.
"No matter how good you are, you're going to lose one-third of your games. No matter how bad you are you're going to win one-third of your games. It's the other third that makes the difference." ~Tommy Lasorda
Another way to look at it would be, if you have a million bucks in your pocket are you flying to Vegas to throw it on black?
In Vegas you have a 49% chance of doubling your money and 51% chance losing it all.
In this situation, the odds are much different. Let's call the upside still 2x value. What are the possibilities?
20% you double up the value
30% you go up 1.5x
30% you hold steady
20% you go down by .5
10% you lose it all
We can play with the math as much as we want. I think the above is generously conservative. The upside is more than 2x and I don't see a 10% chance of complete loss. I think the downside risk is basically getting put back in the bullpen. Short of injury, I can't see why it would harm him otherwise. But even the conservative scenario above, the expected return is a gain of 25%.
If I won a million bucks and was asked if I want to roll the dice -- when rolling the dice produces, on average, a 25% return, I'd do that in a heartbeat.
I think the heart of the matter here is that you see there being a very significant chance Chapman gets ruined in the process. I certainly don't and I doubt Doug does.
Last edited by RedsManRick; 07-25-2012 at 04:21 PM.
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.
I agree Chapman's been better than his save percentage indicates, but Doug's right in that save percentage is really the only way to retrospectively judge closer's production.
Why do you believe him spending time as a starter takes away what he can do in the bullpen? From my view, it's like throwing a million dollars on black, the ball landing on red, and getting my million dollars back. A bet you take every time right?
Daniel Bard says otherwise.
Neftali Feliz also encountered arm issues this year. No idea if it was related to the move to the rotation, but you never know.
Posting Permissions
|
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. |
Reply With Quote