...the 2-2 to Woodsen and here it comes...and it is swung on and missed! And Tom Browning has pitched a perfect game! Twenty-seven outs in a row, and he is being mobbed by his teammates, just to the thirdbase side of the mound.
There are lots of pitchers who throw very hard who likely couldn't cut is as a starter.
The Braves must think that Krimel couldn't.
Now none of this means he can't be a starter, but you stated you don't get the mindset of those who would prefer a Krimel over a Verlander. No one would. It's just that many don't know if you would get a Verlander.
Maximize Chapman's talent, let him start.
Chapman could be successful as a starter, but the clock is ticking on his time in Cincinnati and it will take some time for him to transition, if he actually can. He definitely will have to come up with a third pitch that he can consistently throw for strikes. I also agree with the comment that a failed attempt at starting could weigh very heavy on a seemingly fragile psyche, returning to the closer role. I honestly wonder what the kid really wants to do.
Talent is God Given: be humble.
Fame is man given: be thankful.
Conceit is self given: be careful.
Latos 2011 fWAR- 3.3
Kimbrel 2012 fWAR- 3.6
Kimbrel 2011 fWAR- 3.2
Chapman 2012 fWAR- 3.3
Chapman 2011 fWAR- let's not talk about it.
Fangraphs also has written articles that I had sourced in previous Chapman-to-the-bullpen discussions that say that fWAR for SP and RP aren't interchangeable, and that WPA is a better predictor of wins added by a RP than WAR is.
My view is that right now, we have a sure-fire top 3 closer in MLB. If he is converted to SP, then a new closer needs to be identified and implemented, the back end of the bullpen should be reworked, and a new home needs to be found for one (or both) of Bailey and Leake. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that he either thrives as a starter and becomes Latos, Bumgarner, or Samardzjia (let alone Verlander), and there is no guarantee that if he fails as a starter that he can just put his Kimbrel mask back on and return to being a dominant closer.
I truly feel that the Chapman to starter ship has sailed in the eyes of the management (like it or not)in terms of his role with the Reds for now; the team is competitive and it doesn't make sense, no matter how much Lance McAllister or Mo Egger want you to believe, to fundamentally change the current squad. I would rather use time and energy getting more of a sure thing, such as a Garza or Haren, and keep Chapman as insurance that games only last eight innings.
"Would you rather have a Verlander or a Kimbrel?" is not the correct question to ask.
A more accurate and fair question would be "You have a Craig Kimbrel-like closer on your team. Would you risk removing him from that role in the hopes that he becomes a successful starter?"
Honestly, I am fine with whatever the Reds do at this junction. If I were in charge 3 years ago, I would have strictly brought him up as a starter unless he showed me that it just wasn't in the cards. If I was in the GM chair today, I'd be inclined to let him carry on as a closer, though I could be convinced otherwise, depending on my available options to upgrade the staff/bullpen/closer via trades/FA.
I respect the view that the Reds should concentrate on finding a very strong closer this off-season and start Chapman next year. I think that might be an ideal solution.
I don't think much of the view to let Chappy start and "the bullpen will take care of itself."
This isn't a Baseball America top prospects list. Team balance and needs are important too.
If the Reds had Madson of 2011, I'd easily want Chapman to start.
Broxton as closer? Not for me, let Chapman close.
Somebody else as closer? Depends on who.
Why don't the Braves make Kimbrel a starter?