Chapman to start? Maybe not

[MikeS21]

Originally Posted by cumberlandreds

Bowden is just stirring the pot. Jocketty is no dummy. He signed Broxton to close. Unless Broxton is injured, he will close and Chapman will start. If Dusty even brings up Chapman in the pen I'm sure he will get a call from Jocketty and remind him why Broxton was signed.

And also a reminder to Dusty why Chapman was signed - not as a a bullpen arm but as a starter.

[traderumor]

Source: Jim Bowden

Response: Consider the source

[RedsManRick]

After listening to Dusty yesterday, I was reminded why I have so little faith in the player usage part of his job. He talked about the role of the leadoff guy by mentioning speed in about 5 different ways; never hinted at getting on base. And then he went in to the Chapman part, citing that he could be both his best starter and best reliever, as if it wasn't obvious that if he's your best starter you'd be a moron to use him in relief.

[traderumor]

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

After listening to Dusty yesterday, I was reminded why I have so little faith in the player usage part of his job. He talked about the role of the leadoff guy by mentioning speed in about 5 different ways; never hinted at getting on base. And then he went in to the Chapman part, citing that he could be both his best starter and best reliever, as if it wasn't obvious that if he's your best starter you'd be a moron to use him in relief.

“There are very few leadoff men around,” Baker said. “A leadoff man keeps the pitcher in the stretch. ... They set the table and also permit you to win games without hitting the ball out of the ballpark. We depend on the home run a lot. And the fact that we have low-scoring games and good pitching, that’s even more important for us to have the leadoff man to win even more one-run ball games than we do.”

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/2...ng-much-better

I didn't turn the timer on, but I'd have it in less than two minutes I located a recent quote refuting your claim. It appears you may have entered obscurantist territory with Dusty. Guys have to be on base to set the table and keep the pitcher in the stretch, or so it seems reasonable to assume that is what he meant.

[RedsManRick]

Originally Posted by traderumor

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/2...ng-much-better

I didn't turn the timer on, but I'd have it in less than two minutes I located a recent quote refuting your claim. It appears you may have entered obscurantist territory with Dusty. Guys have to be on base to set the table and keep the pitcher in the stretch, or so it seems reasonable to assume that is what he meant.

I can see your point; perhaps I was listening through my anti-Dusty filter. Maybe the OBP point is obvious that he doesn't feel the need to make it. But when I hear Dusty talk about keeping the pitcher in the stretch and setting the table on the heels of the points specific to speed, I hear "speed keeps the other team honest" and "manufacture runs small-ball style". Perhaps that says more about me than Dusty...

[RedlegJake]

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

I can see your point; perhaps I was listening through my anti-Dusty filter. Maybe the OBP point is obvious that he doesn't feel the need to make it. But when I hear Dusty talk about keeping the pitcher in the stretch and setting the table on the heels of the points specific to speed, I hear "speed keeps the other team honest" and "manufacture runs small-ball style". Perhaps that says more about me than Dusty...

I like Dusty but he is old school. I agree with you there. If you had 2 20/20 Hitters (hr/sb) one line. 260ba/.410 obp the second. 310ba/.328obp my bet is Dusty picks player 2. Because stinking obp ain't important.

[PuffyPig]

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

And then he went in to the Chapman part, citing that he could be both his best starter and best reliever, as if it wasn't obvious that if he's your best starter you'd be a moron to use him in relief.

Generally absolutely.

But if you had 6 great/good starters, and a weak bullpen, and only one fo those starters could pitch in releif effectively, a case could be made that you'd have a better team even if your best starter became the closer. it would depend on how good your # 5 starter is, and how bad your bulllpen was.

[dfs]

Originally Posted by traderumor

Source: Jim Bowden

Response: Consider the source

Very well put.

C'mon class ...How can you tell if Jim Bowden is not telling the truth?

Ans: His mouth is moving of course.

How quickly we forget.

[westofyou]

Jim Bowden is a tool, but that doesn't mean he should be used as a hammer against Dusty.

[WildcatFan]

Originally Posted by westofyou

Jim Bowden is a tool, but that doesn't mean he should be used as a hammer against Dusty.

Nailed it.

[Vottomatic]

Originally Posted by RedlegJake

I like Dusty but he is old school. I agree with you there. If you had 2 20/20 Hitters (hr/sb) one line. 260ba/.410 obp the second. 310ba/.328obp my bet is Dusty picks player 2. Because stinking obp ain't important.

Just because Dusty said something smart about leadoff hitters doesn't mean he actually believes what he said.

[Brutus]

Jim Bowden is a tool, but that doesn't mean he should be used as a hammer against Dusty.

Originally Posted by WildcatFan

Nailed it.

Not sure if you purposely made this hammer meet nail reference, but regardless, kudos. Well played, Mauer. Well played.

[Blitz Dorsey]

Bowden doesn't understand how the Reds are winning without having several "5-tool" outfielders on the roster.

[Degenerate39]

The Broxton deal would make no sense at all then

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by Blitz Dorsey

Bowden doesn't understand how the Reds are winning without having several "5-tool" outfielders on the roster.

He would refer to both Stubbs and Bruce as 5 tool guys.