Chapman to bullpen now official

[Nasty_Boy]

Yes it was broken.

Save situation stats are rather meaningless, and Marshall's reign as closer is a perfect example. Lets examine it more closely.

First, he had a 5.02 ERA at the time that he was switched to the set up role. There is no way a contending team can have a closer with a 5.02 ERA all season.

Second, he had one game that he lost after entering when the score was tied. Not a blown save, but actually worse. He also held a tie once, so make that 9 out of 11 when the game was on the line.

Third, he had one game where he came in with a two run lead, gave up a run, and had to be bailed out by Ondrusek. It was a save situation that he failed to convert, but because the lead never changed hands, he gets a hold instead of a blown save. So now 9 out of 12 with the game on the line.

Fourth, he had one game where he came in with a three run lead, gave up two runs and had to be bailed out by Arredondo. Same as above. 9 out of 13 in save situations.

69% when the game is on the line and a 5.02 ERA. Looks broke to me.

While I too wanted Chapman moved to the closer role last year, and I realize the positive effect it had having him closing... What kind of difference do you expect between having Chapman close compared to some combination of Broxton, Hoover, Marshall? The points on Marshall are well taken, and I expected that to brought up but couldn't it also have been a small sample size that probably wasn't indicative of how Marshall was capable of pitching. As filthy and nasty as Chapman was last season, he wasn't perfect... He probably won't be perfect this season either.

[AtomicDumpling]

Yes it was broken.

Save situation stats are rather meaningless, and Marshall's reign as closer is a perfect example. Lets examine it more closely.

First, he had a 5.02 ERA at the time that he was switched to the set up role. There is no way a contending team can have a closer with a 5.02 ERA all season.

Second, he had one game that he lost after entering when the score was tied. Not a blown save, but actually worse. He also held a tie once, so make that 9 out of 11 when the game was on the line.

Third, he had one game where he came in with a two run lead, gave up a run, and had to be bailed out by Ondrusek. It was a save situation that he failed to convert, but because the lead never changed hands, he gets a hold instead of a blown save. So now 9 out of 12 with the game on the line.

Fourth, he had one game where he came in with a three run lead, gave up two runs and had to be bailed out by Arredondo. Same as above. 9 out of 13 in save situations.

69% when the game is on the line and a 5.02 ERA. Looks broke to me.

Sean Marshall is one of the best relievers in baseball by any measure and would make a fantastic closer. Let's not forget about his multiple seasons of great success just so we can focus on a few games that fit a narrative. Wasn't his BABIP during that small sample size something like .450 or a similarly unlucky and unsustainable number? Even with the terrible luck he still only blew one save.

Marshall would make a great closer, but I prefer he stay in a setup role because that is a more important role for the team. He can come in and face the heart of the lineup's lefty batters and set them down whenever the game is on the line, rather than mopping up a game that is already locked up like the closer does.

[The Operator]

I just do not get the arguments about his secondary pitches not being fully developed, or the fact that we don't know with 1000% certainty that he'll be a lock-down Cy Young starter.

The fact is - he has NEVER been given the chance. His secondary pitches aren't fully developed? Gee, I wonder why. You yank a guy out of the starting rotation mid-season during his first season in the country and have him throwing 1-inning stints for the next 2.5 seasons in a role where he's basically encouraged to do nothing but air out his fastball - and then complain he hasn't developed his secondary offerings?

And yes, we don't know with absolute certainty he'd be a #1 starter - so that's perfect justification for giving up on the idea and saying "screw it, make him the closer."?

This would be the equivalent of Tampa Bay putting David Price in the bullpen after 2008 because he was successful as the closer, and they still didn't know for sure he'd be a future Cy Young winner as the anchor of their rotation. I mean, after all - it wasn't broke, why fix it?

Look at it this way. The Reds can go out on the FA market and grab a good closer for 10-12M - what's the going rate for TOR starting pitchers? A team with limited resources like The Reds should make the most out of their resources, even if they have proven to have more money available recently than we would have thought - we still aren't The Yankees.


Oh, one more thing. Did The Twins make a mistake by moving Johan Santana to the rotation? He was a pretty good reliever, if I remember right. Jose Rijo did some relieving back in the day before ultimately becoming the guy who mowed down the A's twice in a 4-game series during 1990. Should they have just left them in the bullpen since they didn't know for sure he'd be a great starting pitcher?

Why should anyone ever invest the money to go to college if they don't know with absolute certainty that they'll be able to get a great job and pay back their loans? Because maybe you WILL.

It's small-minded thinking to not even TRY something because you might not be wildly successful at it.

[TSJ55]

It's small-minded thinking to not even TRY something because you might not be wildly successful at it.

I 100% agree with this quote but I do not think it's what caused AC to be made the closer. I personally think that the Reds figured out in the very short amount of time that AC is simply not a starting pitcher.

They're not going to come out and say "We don't believe Aroldis has what it takes to mentally compete in the MLB as a starting pitcher. However, Aroldis does seem to be born to close. That is where we have decided he will serve this team the best."

[dougdirt]

I 100% agree with this quote but I do not think it's what caused AC to be made the closer. I personally think that the Reds figured out in the very short amount of time that AC is simply not a starting pitcher.

They're not going to come out and say "We don't believe Aroldis has what it takes to mentally compete in the MLB as a starting pitcher. However, Aroldis does seem to be born to close so that is where we have decided he will serve this team the best."

If your thinking is right, and I am not saying it isn't, what did he show last spring that was so different this spring? Why did he take a step backward?

[mth123]

I just do not get the arguments about his secondary pitches not being fully developed, or the fact that we don't know with 1000% certainty that he'll be a lock-down Cy Young starter.

The fact is - he has NEVER been given the chance. His secondary pitches aren't fully developed? Gee, I wonder why. You yank a guy out of the starting rotation mid-season during his first season in the country and have him throwing 1-inning stints for the next 2.5 seasons in a role where he's basically encouraged to do nothing but air out his fastball - and then complain he hasn't developed his secondary offerings?

And yes, we don't know with absolute certainty he'd be a #1 starter - so that's perfect justification for giving up on the idea and saying "screw it, make him the closer."?

This would be the equivalent of Tampa Bay putting David Price in the bullpen after 2008 because he was successful as the closer, and they still didn't know for sure he'd be a future Cy Young winner as the anchor of their rotation. I mean, after all - it wasn't broke, why fix it?

Look at it this way. The Reds can go out on the FA market and grab a good closer for 10-12M - what's the going rate for TOR starting pitchers? A team with limited resources like The Reds should make the most out of their resources, even if they have proven to have more money available recently than we would have thought - we still aren't The Yankees.


Oh, one more thing. Did The Twins make a mistake by moving Johan Santana to the rotation? He was a pretty good reliever, if I remember right. Jose Rijo did some relieving back in the day before ultimately becoming the guy who mowed down the A's twice in a 4-game series during 1990. Should they have just left them in the bullpen since they didn't know for sure he'd be a great starting pitcher?

Why should anyone ever invest the money to go to college if they don't know with absolute certainty that they'll be able to get a great job and pay back their loans? Because maybe you WILL.

It's small-minded thinking to not even TRY something because you might not be wildly successful at it.

Nobody is saying it's not possible, it's simply a rebuttal to those claiming this is crazy because the next Randy Johnson is more valuable than a top closer. Everyone knows that. The problem is we know he's a top closer, there are lots of questions as to whether he'll be any good as a starter. The decision to cast aside the value we know he has for the value he might have isn't so automatic for a team trying to win now. If this was 2009, it would be the no brainer that people are presenting it as. This team has a lot to lose if it doesn't work out. It would weaken the pen and the rotation if he becomes a guy who struggles to get through the middle innings. It seems like many are presenting this as if it's automatic that he'll be Randy Johnson. He could be Daniel Cabrera. You're correct that we don't know and that makes it a gamble and there are legit reasons for not gambling with a team coming off of a 97 win season.

[TSJ55]

I honestly don't know Doug. I'm not in any position to know. It's all pure opinion based on seeing AC throw, his on field personality and body language, what we read about his off field personality and how I interpret it. That added the fact that he said he wanted to close. 100% speculation on my part about why the Reds made the decision they did. I, (in the minority around here I know) am VERY glad they did.

[RedsManRick]

I just do not get the arguments about his secondary pitches not being fully developed, or the fact that we don't know with 1000% certainty that he'll be a lock-down Cy Young starter.

The fact is - he has NEVER been given the chance. His secondary pitches aren't fully developed? Gee, I wonder why. You yank a guy out of the starting rotation mid-season during his first season in the country and have him throwing 1-inning stints for the next 2.5 seasons in a role where he's basically encouraged to do nothing but air out his fastball - and then complain he hasn't developed his secondary offerings?

Exactly. I keep hearing about how he throws 80% fastballs and that his changeup isn't good. But in a relief role, where you can be very effective throwing your best pitch 80% of the time, why would you throw more pitches than you need to? You can't expect a guy to develop the repertoire of a starter pitching one inning 3 times a week.

And it sounds like that's basically what it came down to. The Reds felt like he still needs to develop to reach his potential as a starter and if he's only a #3/4 type starter this year, it's reasonable to suggest that it makes the Reds a worse team in the short-term. But the arguments against his potential as a starter based on how he pitched as a reliever are pretty short-sighted.

[membengal]

The Operator, for the mother lovin' win.

Not much else to add to that.

Wish they had gone a different direction. Hope that this direction works out great, but I will always wonder what might have been.

Time to practice shielding my eyes on days Mike Leake pitches.

[OGB]

The Fish would do that deal in a second. I wouldn't as a Reds fan.

Chapman + one of those guys would probably get them to "listen on Stanton." All three of them would be highway robbery.

I would offer Chapman, Ludwick and their choice of Cingrani/Corcino for Stanton right now though just to see if they bite. It would be the perfect time for such a move.

You've got to be out of your mind

[IslandRed]

If your thinking is right, and I am not saying it isn't, what did he show last spring that was so different this spring? Why did he take a step backward?

My guess -- and it is only a guess -- is, after spending most of 2012 closing, he realized he liked that more than he ever did starting. Seeing action more frequently instead of having four days off, maxing out instead of pacing himself, the adrenaline rush of getting that final out... a guy can get used to that pretty easily. And he made the All-Star Game. So whereas last spring he may still have had the mindset that he needed to start, maybe this spring he felt like, no, I don't.

If he wasn't fully committed to starting, if his head and heart weren't in it, it probably wasn't going to work. Maybe that is what the Reds management was observing all spring. Of course, they wouldn't come right out and say so.

Unlike TSJ55, this wouldn't have been my first choice, I would rather have seen him start. But I don't want to see him start even if the Reds don't think it will work out. Sometimes, at the collision of baseball theory and actual human beings, the human wins.

[757690]

One thing to consider is that making Chapman the closer, is that this will mean less wear and tear on his arm, and likely a longer career. Generally closers don't have long careers, but that's mostly because they are usually damaged starters to begin with.

This might result in more overall value for the Reds from Chapman, with more immediate value, and for more years than if he were a starter.

[RedFanAlways1966]

One thing to consider is that making Chapman the closer, is that this will mean less wear and tear on his arm, and likely a longer career. Generally closers don't have long careers, but that's mostly because they are usually damaged starters to begin with.

This might result in more overall value for the Reds from Chapman, with more immediate value, and for more years than if he were a starter.

If the REDS can still afford him after the 2014 season. Or some other team will thank the REDS for taking care of their possible new TOR starter...

[Kc61]

Why should anyone ever invest the money to go to college if they don't know with absolute certainty that they'll be able to get a great job and pay back their loans? Because maybe you WILL.

It's small-minded thinking to not even TRY something because you might not be wildly successful at it.

People don't TRY everything. They make a judgment. They analyze the situation. They compare the likelihood of success with the potential costs of failure.

The Reds weren't small minded. They exercised judgment.

The Reds are hardly guilty of small minded thinking. They got Choo and moved him to CF to add his offense -- they thought out of the box and were willing to TRY something.

Here, there are many reasons why a switch to starter for Chapman might not be wise. And there are reasons to TRY it. The Reds weighed these reasons and even if fans disagree I think it's presumptuous to make them sound stupid or tepid. They are neither.

[kaldaniels]

If the REDS can still afford him after the 2014 season. Or some other team will thank the REDS for taking care of their possible new TOR starter...

I'm sure his cost won't be an issue then.