"I never argue with people who say baseball is boring, because baseball is boring. And then, suddenly, it isn't. And that's what makes it great." - Joe Posnanski
Thanks for the info. on the slider. I was just going off of my personal observations, which really don't carry much weight; however, what you've presented relative to Chapman's slider doesn't convince me that he would be this dominant if he was in the rotation. That being said, I think it would be a shame if the Reds never gave it a shot.
How do we know he's not Mel Torme?
What level of outcome short of Randy Johnson would be acceptable? Roy Oswalt, dominating but short-lived; Johnny Cueto, everybody's favorite non-ace; or Homer Bailey, above-average starter's innings?
Okay, this blew me away. From FAY of all people.
http://cincinnati.com/blogs/reds/201...pmans-numbers/
He actually used BR and Fangraphs as references. Fay? Anyway, the good stuff is in the link.With the three strikeouts last night, Aroldis Chapman’s strikeout rate per nine innings is at 17.16. That would be the all-time high for a pitcher with more than 50 innings. Chapman has struck out 89 and walked 14 in 46 2/3 innings.
Watching Chapman lately, it seems like anytime he gets ahead in the count, it’s pretty much over. The numbers support that (Source: baseball-reference.com):
Daniel Bard is a tough example to use. Neither Bard nor Chapman did a whole lot of minor league time, but in Bard's time in the minors as a starter, he was brutal. In 2007, at age 22 in A ball (he split Low and High A that year) he walked 78 batters and struck out 48 in 75 innings as a starter and had an ERA over 7.00. He never started again in the minors until this season.
Chapman on the other hand, at the same age in AAA, as a starter, walked 40 and struck out 76 in 65.2 innings.
The two guys are a very tough comparison because of things like that.
I can come up with relievers who went to starters and have been successful. It just doesn't do much for the situation at hand because there simply aren't many comparables for Chapman because of the whole Cuba thing.
Wrong thread
Last edited by GoReds; 07-25-2012 at 06:35 PM.
Need is an interesting word. There's no one thing we "need" to do. Rather, success is the accumulation of a lot little steps forward that increase your chances of winning.
I think taking the chance on Chapman as a starter, on net, increases our chances of winning a world series. If we had a 98 win team that looked like it could coast to a ring, that would be one thing. But we have a team in a dog fight with two others for the division and which hasn't won a playoff game in 17 years.
I'm still in "maximize upside" mode. And given that I think it's a chance that carries very little (though admittedly real) downside risk and a whole bunch of upside.
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.
Here's my $0.02 when it comes to considering a move for Chapman from bullpen to rotation:
First, let's take a look at scarcity. According to this post on LoneStarBall.com, "elite" starters (5.5 WAR or higher) are slightly rarer than "elite" relievers (2.0 WAR or higher) over the last 10 years (based on number, not percentage of players). This would imply that a conversion to starter, assuming Chapman remained elite, would be a lateral move in terms of scarcity. Obviously, if Chapman were not elite as a starter, it would be a downgrade in terms of scarcity. However, the article goes on to bring up another good point:
So, Chapman's two-pitch mix that he has shown for the greater part of being a reliever obviously profiles him as more of a reliever than a starter, and the table illustrates that very clearly. When ESPN ran a sports science explanation of Chapman's mechanics as a pitcher, no red flags were raised about his potential as a starter. Chapman, however, did spend time on the disabled list in 2011 with shoulder inflammation.These numbers show the increased use of fastball/slider combination among relievers compared to starters and their use of more diverse secondary pitches. Though I think it's important to note, the difference between a potential starter and reliever is more than just their ability to throw certain pitches. Each pitchers mechanics and body type has an impact on their durability and ability to manage a starter's workload as well.
Tangotiger posted earlier this season a table of run conversion ratios here. A quote from the article specifically applies to Chapman:
If you reverse-calculate using Chapman's pLI, which is 1.57, one would be expecting him to be giving up runs at about a rate of 0.65 compared to what he would as a starter. That would take his "rERA" of 1.54 to a "sERA" of 2.37. Obviously this is very crude, but it gives a little bit of an idea of what to expect. However, Jason (the author of this post) states that he generally uses a conversion rate of 0.8 to calculate a starter's effectiveness as a reliever. Furthermore, he states this:Taking Aroldis Chapman, the way to understand this is that if you think that Chapman’s run-prevention value over replacement will be equal no matter what his role (or, perhaps more importantly, if you think that the Reds think this), then his innings in the bullpen must be at least 2.43 times as important as his innings as a starter in order to provide equal value. If you think he can be twice as good in the bullpen, then those innings need only be 1.21 times as important.
I could only find one website that discussed his numbers as a starter in the minors. Seamheads.com showed that his numbers as a starter were significantly less thrilling than his numbers as a reliever: FIP- 4.01 vs 1.92, BAA- .244 vs .159, WHIP- 1.46 vs 0.96, and also better numbers in HR/9, GB%, and IFF%. Obviously, this was a very small sample size.So, it should be a pretty rare situation that you’d want to make someone a reliever. Mariano Rivera, Trevor Hoffman, Billy Wagner Papelbon maybe.... guys who are so lights out in relief, that you figure they must have an extra benefit from being a reliever that the others don’t have. And that maybe they would give up runs at 60% of the rate they’d give up as starters (rather than the standard 80%).
All that being said, even if Chapman isn't at the 80% where his ERA would be an eye-popping 1.93 and is at the 60% of elite relievers which would put him at 2.37, he still carries tremendous value.
It should also be considered that the "worst" Reds starter is either Latos or Bailey, both who have a WAR so far this season of 1.2 (Chapman is more than double that already!!), but both of who also possess huge upside- Latos had a 4.0 WAR season two years ago, and Bailey had 109 IP in 2010 for 1.9 WAR, giving him similar upside. Meanwhile, Sean Marshall is the second most valuable Reds reliever, with 0.9 WAR.
So, subjectivity time. I *think* that there is a larger downgrade from Chapman to Marshall than there is upgrade from Chapman to Bailey. When also combined with potential strain related to innings, both over the course of a game and over the course of a season, I *think* that I would leave Chapman in the closer's role for the foreseeable future, or until an opening arose in the rotation.
I also have a handful of gut-related thoughts here:
1) I *prefer* hard-throwing relievers to soft-tossing relievers. Since Chapman is a fastball-first guy and Marshall seems like a curveball-first guy, I greatly prefer Chapman to Marshall in the bullpen. I don't see the Reds as having an effective hard-tosser besides Chapman in the bullpen, even though their bullpen has been very effective this year.
2) Having a guy who is so elite in a relief role makes me *think* that there is a greater value in being able to shorten the game by three outs at the end of several games in a series than any stat that I can immediately find can show.
3) The atmosphere in GABP when Chapman is in, regardless of situation, is different than any that I have ever been exposed to in my entire life as a Reds fan. I can't remember the atmosphere ever being as electric as it is when "good Chapman" comes in.
So, anyway, that's how I kind of understand the situation. I don't think I gave a real answer, but... I don't think there will be one until, if ever, he is tried as a starter.
"I never argue with people who say baseball is boring, because baseball is boring. And then, suddenly, it isn't. And that's what makes it great." - Joe Posnanski
Does anyone know about Chapman's changeup? Is he developing it? He's thrown it 8 percent of the time, but I can't remember seeing one. I thought there was talk of him asking Soto how to throw it, but maybe that was Cueto.
"I never argue with people who say baseball is boring, because baseball is boring. And then, suddenly, it isn't. And that's what makes it great." - Joe Posnanski
Great post Plus Plus!
How do we know he's not Mel Torme?
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. |