Yet, even as a reliever, he's on the way to setting all sorts of records for a reliever in the history of baseball. So yeah, I'd say it's extremely hard to find another Chapman... considering no one in the history of baseball has struck out as many batters per nine innings as Chapman currently has done. There are many other guys every single season that have a .940 OPS. In fact, the Reds have one well over that and two others that are very close to that. No one in baseball has had the kind of season Chapman is having... ever.
So yeah, it's a lot easier to find another Stanton than it is to find another Chapman. Even as a reliever. And Chapman is still likely going to be a starter.
"This isnít stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner
He's been a starter all his life. He started games as recently as March. It's not like someone that's been a reliever that has never done it. That's never been the question. I don't believe for a second someone of his talent is going to struggle as a starter. Dusty said repeatedly this spring Chapman was great as a starter. I have no doubts he'll be successful. How successful? TBD. But I am of no concern he'll be anything less than a top-of-the-rotation arm.
Guy just launched another upper decker
Aroldis Chapman is having an elite season for his position. But his position simply isn't used enough.
And considering he was a starter all throughout spring training, and it only was a TJ surgery of their closer that changed their minds, I don't think it's fair to hold 2012 against them for why Chapman isn't starting.
No, those don't count. A lot of relievers started in the minor leagues. This is his second full season in the Majors and part of a third for him. Until the Reds actually start him in the Majors, he is a reliever.
The Reds rationale that taking Chapman and moving him to the bullpen because their closer went down tells me that they weren't sure about him starting.
Considering we're discussing the Reds' intent, I'd say those 13 starts he made in 2010 are quite relevant.
Further, it wasn't just Madson. It was also Masset. And Bray. Yet, three of their bullpen arms get hurt, and yet we're supposed to believe their moving him is evidence they weren't sure of him starting? That's very strange logic, Doug. They had five starters this year. They didn't need him in the rotation, they needed him in the bullpen on short notice. It's not even debatable as to why they moved him... they said that several times. Dusty said on a few occasions he was in line to make the rotation if Madson had not gotten hurt.
No, they don't count because they came 2 and a half years ago. That is like saying that Sam LeCure is a starter too. He isn't. Does Chapman have the potential to be a starter? Sure. But he isn't right now, nor has he ever been a starter as a Major Leaguer. He shouldn't be counted on as a starter. We don't know that he can go 6 innings on a consistent basis and maintain his stuff and control. He has never done it before in his life.
That was a blast.
Look, it's not a given that they move him back, although they continue to say they are going to. But it is absolutely a given he was a starter in the spring and that the only reason he got moved to the bullpen is because three of their expected high-leverage relievers all got hurt. That part isn't a mystery.
We just are not going to agree on that. At the end, I believe Stanton > Chapman. Simple as that.