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

[drowg14]

Originally Posted by redsfanmia

Graves was a good closer, he is the Reds all time leader in saves.

Graves was a bad closer. His career K/9 is 4.78. His career ERA over 4. His career FIP 4.66. And any value he lost, he lost because he was overused when he was a RP before he ever became a starter. You don't use your closer 90 innings a year and expect him to not decline. This is evident in his 2004 season, when he was put back into the bullpen for one more decent year where he had a 3.95 era (albeit it a 4.82 fip). So starting him did not "ruin his career." The reason he had so many saves, is because he got opportunities. When a professional pitcher comes in with a 3 run lead, he should be able to keep it, or he shouldn't be a professional pitcher.

[redsfanmia]

Originally Posted by drowg14

Graves was a bad closer. His career K/9 is 4.78. His career ERA over 4. His career FIP 4.66. And any value he lost, he lost because he was overused when he was a RP before he ever became a starter. You don't use your closer 90 innings a year and expect him to not decline. This is evident in his 2004 season, when he was put back into the bullpen for one more decent year where he had a 3.95 era (albeit it a 4.82 fip). So starting him did not "ruin his career." The reason he had so many saves, is because he got opportunities. When a professional pitcher comes in with a 3 run lead, he should be able to keep it, or he shouldn't be a professional pitcher.

He was a 2 time all star and i am sure not all of his saves were of the 3 run lead variety. People hate on Graves because of how it ended, he was a good pitcher period.

[scott91575]

Originally Posted by redsfanmia

He was a 2 time all star and i am sure not all of his saves were of the 3 run lead variety. People hate on Graves because of how it ended, he was a good pitcher period.

His 2004 all star year was a joke. 2000 was a good year, the only good year of his entire career (his only year of ERA below 3, which is not good for a relief pitcher and especially a closer). 1 good year does not mean he was a good pitcher, especially when every metric says his good year was incredibly lucky.

Saves are a joke, especially since his save rate was not good. I don't see records for blown saves from his earlier years, but when it was recorded his save percentage was just under 82%. In the NL that would place him at 12th out of 16 closers last year. Not good. Any pitcher can accumulate saves given enough opportunities.

By baseball reference calculation, his career WAR is -0.1. In other words, his entire career could be replicated by a replacement level player. He was not a good pitcher, and the only reason he has any saves is the Reds bullpen was just a complete dumpster fire for a decade.

Graves was at best mediocre.

[MoneyInTheBank]

Originally Posted by scott91575

His 2004 all star year was a joke. 2000 was a good year, the only good year of his entire career (his only year of ERA below 3, which is not good for a relief pitcher and especially a closer). 1 good year does not mean he was a good pitcher, especially when every metric says his good year was incredibly lucky.

Saves are a joke, especially since his save rate was not good. I don't see records for blown saves from his earlier years, but when it was recorded his save percentage was just under 82%. In the NL that would place him at 12th out of 16 closers last year. Not good. Any pitcher can accumulate saves given enough opportunities.

By baseball reference calculation, his career WAR is -0.1. In other words, his entire career could be replicated by a replacement level player. He was not a good pitcher, and the only reason he has any saves is the Reds bullpen was just a complete dumpster fire for a decade.

Graves was at best mediocre.

His career WAR is 5.2. His WAA is -0.1. So he could be replaced by an average player, not a replacement level.

He had a 5 year stretch as a very good pitcher. Before and after, he was absolutely dreadful.

[scott91575]

Originally Posted by MoneyInTheBank

His career WAR is 5.2. His WAA is -0.1. So he could be replaced by an average player, not a replacement level.

He had a 5 year stretch as a very good pitcher. Before and after, he was absolutely dreadful.

You are correct, I looked at the column next to it. Still not exactly good over an 11 year career, and even in his 5 year stretch as a "very good pitcher" he had some average years. I would say he had 2, at the very best 3 years in that 5 year stretch that could be considered good. Yet let's face it people, how many closers with an ERA over 3 and WHIP of 1.25 to 1.35 are considered "very good." In those "very good" years his ERA was over 3 for 4 of them, and his WHIP between 1.25 and 1.35. Those numbers, for a bullpen pitcher, simply do not say to me he was very good. He was an above average pitcher in that time frame with one really good year (a really good year with lots of luck on his side). Then he became a poor pitcher. Happens all the time in baseball and most likely had little to do with him starting for a year. On top of that, Graves was a reliever in the minors too. He only had 3 starts in his minor league career before being called up (he went on to start 17 more games in the minors after leaving the Reds). It was obviously determined at lower levels Graves shouldn't start, but was forced into starting. Chapman is just the opposite, a starter who was forced into the bullpen. So it's an apples to oranges comparison.

[MoneyInTheBank]

Originally Posted by scott91575

You are correct, I looked at the column next to it. Still not exactly good over an 11 year career, and even in his 5 year stretch as a "very good pitcher" he had some average years. I would say he had 2, at the very best 3 years in that 5 year stretch that could be considered good. Yet let's face it people, how many closers with an ERA over 3 and WHIP of 1.25 to 1.35 are considered "very good." In those "very good" years his ERA was over 3 for 4 of them, and his WHIP between 1.25 and 1.35. Those numbers, for a bullpen pitcher, simply do not say to me he was very good. He was an above average pitcher in that time frame with one really good year (a really good year with lots of luck on his side). Then he became a poor pitcher. Happens all the time in baseball and most likely had little to do with him starting for a year. On top of that, Graves was a reliever in the minors too. He only had 3 starts in his minor league career before being called up (he went on to start 17 more games in the minors after leaving the Reds). It was obviously determined at lower levels Graves shouldn't start, but was forced into starting. Chapman is just the opposite, a starter who was forced into the bullpen. So it's an apples to oranges comparison.

A reliever that can throw 80 innings with an ERA of 3.3 is very good. All Star worthy? No, but very good nonetheless. I have a hard time believing that a 5 year stretch in someone's career can be attributed to luck.

[OGB]

Originally Posted by texasdave

I wonder if Hal McCoy would know more than a poster on a message board?

"Doesn't like listening to people," doesn't make you a head case. Rob Dibble was a head case. Milton Bradley was a head case. Homer has never been reported to have disciplinary problems with the team or do anything but get along with his teammates.

[Fireball]

If Chapman didn't have a history of being a starting pitcher in Cuba, then I would agree that there might be some risk. It's not as if he hasn't started before and the Reds are trying some wild new idea to turn him into a starter. Up until mid-2010, Chapman was exclusively a starting pitcher.

In my opinion, the greatest risk to this move is that Chapman sucks in the rotation. You know he's one of the best closers in the league, but a great starting pitcher is going to help your team a LOT more than a great closer. That is just a fact. But, if Chapman isn't good in the rotation, you just put him back in the bullpen where you know he dominates.

You just can't take the chance that you have Randy Johnson and you waste him in the bullpen.

[faffy42]

If I were manager I would keep Chapman in the closer role. He's a proven stud there. Why mess with what is working? Not sure we will see the same results with Broxton.

[dubc47834]

Originally Posted by Fireball;2791778[B

]If Chapman didn't have a history of being a starting pitcher in Cuba[/B], then I would agree that there might be some risk. It's not as if he hasn't started before and the Reds are trying some wild new idea to turn him into a starter. Up until mid-2010, Chapman was exclusively a starting pitcher.

In my opinion, the greatest risk to this move is that Chapman sucks in the rotation. You know he's one of the best closers in the league, but a great starting pitcher is going to help your team a LOT more than a great closer. That is just a fact. But, if Chapman isn't good in the rotation, you just put him back in the bullpen where you know he dominates.

You just can't take the chance that you have Randy Johnson and you waste him in the bullpen.

In Cuba he did start games, but if you go back and look at his innings pitched for each year it is telling. Only in 2008-09 did he average over 5 innings per start, that year his ERA was 4.03, not bad but not great either. He had 130 K's in 118 innings pitched, which is outstanding. Outside of that year he was pretty lackluster as a starter.

Im all for giving him a shot at starting, I just don't think it will work. I would rather have him as the closer. In my opinion he could be the next M. Rivera, he is that dominant. But his History as a starter in Cuba doesn't prove much to me, from everything that I read he was a get to the 5th guy and they would pull him. Just my opinion tho!!!

[smixsell]

I think that, unless he takes to starting in the big leagues like a fish to water, it might be wise just to leave him in the bullpen this year.

I see us as being major WS contenders this year, and am generally against tinkering with one of our most valuable pieces, our SUTDOWN closer, at such a time as this.

Give him a quick look (Spring training and 5-10 regular season starts?), and unless he is LIGHTS OUT as a starter, then return him to the pen.