ESPN Power Rankings: Nationals, Reds 1-2

[WildcatFan]

Originally Posted by mattfeet

I fail to understand how they can rank NYY #3 going into 2013 with a straight face. That blows my mind.

They may not hit AT ALL.

A starting lineup that includes Ichiro, Youk, Gardner (whom I love), Jeter, Teixiera, and a catcher-to-be-named-later could be royally bad.

[REDREAD]

Originally Posted by Dom Heffner

Broxton is not the answer at closer....maybe if this were 2007...

It will certainly be interesting to see how this plays out.
I think Broxton will be good enough to close, but he's obviously a step down from Chapman.
People bring up a good point about save percentage over the course of the season. Someone pointed out that Chapman's actual save percentage last year was only marginally better than others. This team is pretty deep in the bullpen and rotation. I am guessing even a Danny Graves type closer might be adequate. As long as Broxton isn't 2011 Coco, we probably still win the division.
If we make the playoffs though, save situations will be a little bit more tense than if Chapman was in there.

[PuffyPig]

Originally Posted by REDREAD

I am guessing even a Danny Graves type closer might be adequate. As long as Broxton isn't 2011 Coco, we probably still win the division.

The difference in save % between the 2011 Cordero and the 2012 Chapman is that the 2011 Cordero had one more save opportunity and one more blown save. Though Chapman had an additional 6 holds that needs to be calculated into the equation, since one of his blown saves came in a hold situation prior to him being closer.

[Kc61]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

If Broxton the Reds from 2012 shows up, he can close. If Broxton the Royal from 2012, be worried.

Frankly, I'm not even sure about Broxton the Red. It's hard to be confident in any closer when you had Chapman in 2012. Nobody would be that dominant.

The solace, to me, is Hoover. If Brox has trouble, I could see Hoover moving into the closer position. He has the stuff.

The other point is that Chapman could still wind up closing. It's a long shot but Walt said Aroldis might begin the season in the pen (to keep innings down) and if that happens, who knows. Leake could start off hot and the Reds might not change things.

And, of course, they could use Marshall although I think he's better as a set up man for a number of reasons.

So there are back up plans, even with no additional personnel.

[REDREAD]

Originally Posted by PuffyPig

The difference in save % between the 2011 Cordero and the 2012 Chapman is that the 2011 Cordero had one more save opportunity and one more blown save. Though Chapman had an additional 6 holds that needs to be calculated into the equation, since one of his blown saves came in a hold situation prior to him being closer.

I didn't realize it was that close.
Another strong point that Broxton will probably be more than adequate as closer.

[_Sir_Charles_]

Originally Posted by REDREAD

It will certainly be interesting to see how this plays out.
I think Broxton will be good enough to close, but he's obviously a step down from Chapman.
People bring up a good point about save percentage over the course of the season. Someone pointed out that Chapman's actual save percentage last year was only marginally better than others. This team is pretty deep in the bullpen and rotation. I am guessing even a Danny Graves type closer might be adequate. As long as Broxton isn't 2011 Coco, we probably still win the division.
If we make the playoffs though, save situations will be a little bit more tense than if Chapman was in there.

Then again, looking at the possible offense...we might not even HAVE a save situation all year. :O)

[RedEye]

Are we sure that save percentage is the best indication of overall RP performance?

I am all behind moving Chapman to the rotation, but I don't think counting stats are the best way to gauge whether or not his replacement(s) will be successful. In fact, one of the main problems I have with the Broxton signing is that it seems to be mostly based on the "proven closer" dictum with no reference to actual projections for performance for next year. My hunch is that prior to throwing away an additional $21 million on Broxton, Marshall and Hoover were already equal if not better candidates for the closer position on the roster -- and the team threw away some money for a clichéd "need" that was greatly exaggerated.

The only convincing counter-argument I've seen on other threads is see is that Walt is constructing a "Dusty proof" roster, and part of that involves getting said "proven closer." But that's another argument -- and mostly just makes me think the Reds need a new manager.

[Scrap Irony]

Originally Posted by RedEye

Are we sure that save percentage is the best indication of overall RP performance?

No, but what he's doing does make some sense.

Despite Chapman's dominance, the fact is, he blew almost the same amount of saves as Cordero (who was anything but dominant) two year ago.

That tells you pretty much all you need to know about closers and value-- if used as both Cordero and Chapman (mostly) were.

Broxton can likely close at that same level in 2012, thereby saving Chapman's dominance for another role-- that of fifth starter.

[RedEye]

Originally Posted by Scrap Irony

Broxton can likely close at that same level in 2012, thereby saving Chapman's dominance for another role-- that of fifth starter.

I agree that now that Broxton is on the team, he is one of several decent options for replacing Chapman. I'm just not sure that getting him as the replacement merited the extra $21 million. There were already options on the roster.

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by RedEye

I agree that now that Broxton is on the team, he is one of several decent options for replacing Chapman. I'm just not sure that getting him as the replacement merited the extra $21 million. There were already options on the roster.

I think that's a good thing. I like having other options in case Big Jon falters. I would have said the same thing if they'd named either Hoover or Marshall closer

[RedEye]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

I think that's a good thing. I like having other options in case Big Jon falters. I would have said the same thing if they'd named either Hoover or Marshall closer

It is a good thing to have several options, yes. But I think they already had at least two in-house, no? I think they overpaid for Broxton.

I do like the signing, but only because it makes Chapman's place in the rotation more likely.

[*BaseClogger*]

Did I ever push for a "Guns of Broxton" nickname? And if I didn't, why not?

[RedEye]

Originally Posted by *BaseClogger*

Did I ever push for a "Guns of Broxton" nickname? And if I didn't, why not?

Not bad. I'm partial to "Brox the Ox" too.

[MikeThierry]

Originally Posted by Scrap Irony

No, but what he's doing does make some sense.

Despite Chapman's dominance, the fact is, he blew almost the same amount of saves as Cordero (who was anything but dominant) two year ago.

That tells you pretty much all you need to know about closers and value-- if used as both Cordero and Chapman (mostly) were.

Broxton can likely close at that same level in 2012, thereby saving Chapman's dominance for another role-- that of fifth starter.

If you're the opposing team, you feel more comfortable about coming back against Broxton or Cordero than you did Chapman. Last year when the Cards were down in the 9th, I was at the point of turning off the TV because it was over. Now, I'll watch with anticipation against a guy (Broxton) who've the Cardinals have had decent success off of. I would think that mentality goes for a lot of teams. Rather than facing a guy who is nearly unhittable, they are now more comfortable being down in the 9th against Broxton.

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by RedEye

It is a good thing to have several options, yes. But I think they already had at least two in-house, no? I think they overpaid for Broxton.

I do like the signing, but only because it makes Chapman's place in the rotation more likely.

I know where you're coming from but it's half of what Cordero was paid and Cordero was not a huge waste of money. In hindsight he gave us pretty much what he was signed to do. And hey, it's not our money. If this makes Cast feel better, have at it