Very good.
If I have the choice between 2 guys where one is an "A"-rated starter and one is a "C"-rated reliever, I'd rather bring up the better arm regardless of the titles starter and reliever.
Very good.
If I have the choice between 2 guys where one is an "A"-rated starter and one is a "C"-rated reliever, I'd rather bring up the better arm regardless of the titles starter and reliever.
She used to wake me up with coffee ever morning
How many innings has Chapman thrown this year, and how many could he get if he was moved to the pen in cincy starting this week (or to the pen in Louisville until the all star break?) If you still plan on having him as a starter next year, he's going to need to build up enough innings this year. Seems if they convert him now, they'll have to worry about how many innings he throws next season. Ideally, he could get about 150 innings this season and be ready for a bump up to 180ish next year.
You could use him strictly as a Loogy and use ML Vets Rhodes and Bray as full inning guys. 1 LH who deals 92 - 94, One who can throw 93 - 96 and another who throws 98 -103... That is unreal good.
Games are won on run differential -- scoring more than your opponent. Runs are runs, scored or prevented they all count the same. Worry about scoring more and allowing fewer, not which positions contribute to which side of the equation or how "consistent" you are at your current level of performance.
That could be true, but then why the talk coming out of the Reds brass about limiting Mike Leake's innings going forward? Sounds like they believe in some sort of increased innings rule. I'd hate to see Chapmann get limitted to 100 innings this season, then here talk about him having his innings limited again next season. I'd like him to be ready to handle a traditional 5th spot role next year, if he's good enough to earn it.
As long as Chapman is able to consistently throw strikes, I guess I am ok with it.
Still, I'd much rather think long term and leave Chapman in the rotation to get more innings in AAA (and a more predictable schedule). IMO, a trade needs to be made to address the bullpen.
[Phil ] Castellini celebrated the team's farm system and noted the team had promising prospects who would one day be great Reds -- and then joke then they'd be ex-Reds, saying "of course we're going to lose them". #SellTheTeamBob
Nov. 13, 2007: One of the greatest days in Reds history: John Allen gets the boot!
I'm not in favor of the move.. He was signed to be a starter and possible a front line starter but putting him in the pen might mess with the young kids mechanics/pitching mentallity
I love how they say Homer is coming back when he hasn't thrown a pitch in almost a month..
Good move. The need for bullpen arms is greater than for starters. Reds have more good starter candidates than reliever candidates. The Reds are particularly in need of power arms out of the pen. Chapman satisfies that need better than any of the other potentially converted starters. Chapman can get by with a fast ball in short stints, giving him time to develop his secondary pitches selectively.
With the emergence of Jordan Smith, the return of Bray, and conversion of Chapman, the bull pen will look very different in the second half. If the starters stay healthy, pitching could be the strength many of us thought it would be at the start of the season.
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |