Am l the only person who thinks moving Chapman to the rotation is a very risky move?!

[BLEEDS]

I didn't see much chatter on it, so forgive if it's in another thread... But!:

We take the best closer in baseball, lights out stuff, huge streaks of 0.00 WHIP let alone ERA, can come in for an inning maybe a tad more multiple days in a row and really let her loose 100+ mph. A role he really got comfortable with, and played huge dividends for this team.

Now we ask him to move into the rotation - where by the way we are already pretty darn solid, were it not for a doubleheader, we never had to use a 6th starter all year, had 5 guys not miss a start, really found themselves, especially Homer Bailey - where he will have to change his routine, adjust to going every fifth day, will undoubtedly have to cut back on his mph, add another pitch or two, and have to watch his innings as he transitions, already having fatigue last year. Some on here won't call anyone an "Ace" until he can get to 200+ IP, so expectations will be extremely high, and at the first hint of struggles, fan(atical)s will be voicing their opinions - luckily the mass majority if which don't speak Spanish, but "booo!" is universal.

One could argue we are considerably downgrading one very important aspect of our team - a proven lights out closer/bullpen - for a prospective chance at a possible upgrade to our SP, which last time l checked was already very very good. The downside to taking him out of the bullpen is known; the upside to SP is not, and wrought with obstacles.

Discuss?

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk 2

[webbbj]

No, closers are over rated largely b/c it is the most misused role in sports. The closer is supposed to be the best reliever and teams dont even think about bringing the closer in for the highest leveraged situations.

[texasdave]

Originally Posted by webbbj

No, closers are over rated largely b/c it is the most misused role in sports. The closer is supposed to be the best reliever and teams dont even think about bringing the closer in for the highest leveraged situations.

That might be because many times it is impossible to know what the highest-leveraged situation is going to be until after the fact. You would be getting your closer up and down like a yo-yo. There are times when one might make a reasonable guess as to when that highest-leveraged situation is occurring. But I bet it is far fewer times than one might think.

[40YrRedsFan]

I think Chapman is the kind of pitcher that throws as hard as he can for a short period to get hitters out. I don't think he will succeed trying to pace himself as a starter. Plus, he doesn't have good control, and especially has trouble getting a breaking ball over for strikes. My concern is that he might injure himself by changing his routine and throwing many more pitches as a starter.

[WDE]

Is this official?

[nmculbreth]

I don't see much, if any risk in moving Chapman.

After the past few seasons I think we are relatively sure that Chapman's floor is a dominant RP and if he doesn't work out as a SP I don't see any reason why he wouldn't be able to revert to form if he were moved back to the bullpen.

Chapman's ceiling is a legitimate number one SP, which is a far more valuable commodity than even the best closer. If Chapman works out as a starter he's a massive upgrade over Leake in the rotation and the Reds will have one of the best rotations in all of baseball, if he doesn't work out the Reds are pretty much in the same position they were last year.

[LeDoux]

The only risk I see is injury, and unless Chapman pitches fatigued I see no reason why the injury risk is greater as a SP than out of the bullpen. I do hope they put a pitch count max in place.

[redsfanmia]

I think the Reds are in position to win the world series next season and I question why they want to take a risk like using Chapman as a starter, he could be dominant or he could throw 4-5 innings every time out taxing our bull pen. I know he is a great closer, leave him there imo.

[scott91575]

There is a risk to every move. Yet you don't keep a guy at closer until you know he can't start, plain and simple. A starter is way more valuable than a closer. There is risk, but it's the right move. If Chapman can be dominant or even good starter, that is better than even the best closer in the history of baseball.

[redsfanmia]

Originally Posted by scott91575

There is a risk to every move. Yet you don't keep a guy at closer until you know he can't start, plain and simple. A starter is way more valuable than a closer. There is risk, but it's the right move. If Chapman can be dominant or even good starter, that is better than even the best closer in the history of baseball.

Chapman couldn't even make it the whole season without having fatigue coming out of the bullpen throwing 60 innings, how many starts will he make before he goes on the dl with fatigue?

[redsfanmia]

Bronson and Lecure both said on WLW that they feel he is better off being left in the bullpen.

[scott91575]

Originally Posted by redsfanmia

I think the Reds are in position to win the world series next season and I question why they want to take a risk like using Chapman as a starter, he could be dominant or he could throw 4-5 innings every time out taxing our bull pen. I know he is a great closer, leave him there imo.

Going from starter to bullpen midseason is a fairly easy transition (in fact, Chapman has already done that). The other way around is not.

So if he does not work out as a starter, the Reds can plug Leake back in and Chapman goes to the bullpen.

I would state a team in the position to win a World Series does not waste a pitcher who could possibly be one of the best starters in baseball in the bullpen. You don't trot out Mike Leake every 5 days and let Chapman sit in the pen without knowing if he could start.

[scott91575]

Originally Posted by redsfanmia

Chapman couldn't even make it the whole season without having fatigue coming out of the bullpen throwing 60 innings, how many starts will he make before he goes on the dl with fatigue?

So you already have him penciled in for the DL?

The bullpen can be just as if not more stressful on a players arm than starting. Starters have regular schedules with highly restrictive pitch counts. Relievers are up and down warming up all the time, come into multiple games in a row, etc. Bullpen innings are not equal to starter innings.

Guys don't end up being relievers because they can't pitch 200 innings. They go their because their stuff does not translate well to starting.

In all honesty, that would be the better discussion. Chapman's change up was not good last year, and if he hasn't developed it in the offseason then he may not be good at starting. Even then, I want to see it before sending him to the bullpen for the rest of his career.

[MoneyInTheBank]

IMO, there should be no debate about whether this is a risky move. It's a very risky move. The question should really be: Is the risk worth the reward? THAT debate will go on for pages

[redsfanmia]

Originally Posted by scott91575

So you already have him penciled in for the DL?

The bullpen can be just as if not more stressful on a players arm than starting. Starters have regular schedules with highly restrictive pitch counts. Relievers are up and down warming up all the time, come into multiple games in a row, etc. Bullpen innings are not equal to starter innings.

Guys don't end up being relievers because they can't pitch 200 innings. They go their because their stuff does not translate well to starting.

In all honesty, that would be the better discussion. Chapman's change up was not good last year, and if he hasn't developed it in the offseason then he may not be good at starting. Even then, I want to see it before sending him to the bullpen for the rest of his career.

I think the lack of a third pitch and his intermittent command problems would be the bigger issues compared to him going to the dl so I agree with you.

I just think Chapman is dominant as a closer and the bullpen was the strength of the club last year so why mess with it?