re: GM Jocketty to overrule Baker: Aroldis Chapman to be in the rotation (Reds)

Chapman pitches more in the 94-97 range when he works as a starter.

I can't believe this debate is still going on and there are people still against making Chapman a starter. Why on earth would the Reds not want to try to get more value from a great talent? If he can't handle the role, then shift him back. There is a chance that he couldn't convert back but that chance is lower than his chance of being an effective starter (not to mention the infinite added value that would come if he is an effective starter).

Like Baloo said a page ago, take a player like Votto. Imagine he had come up and only been put in to pitch hit in key situations and he had a lot of success. Would people be arguing that he should not convert to a first baseman because "if its not broke dont fix it." I'm sure there will be arguments about this because there is no established precedent for that happening. My counter argument would be why should you take the most talented pitcher (raw talent at least) on use him less than 7-8 pitchers on the staff? Just because there is precedent to do this? You have to try to get more value from him.

quote:

---

Until he blows out his elbow for constantly throwing 104 for 7 innings a game.

I don't know, I'm not a scout and I don't watch the Reds every single game, but Cuba and the MLB are two different animals. If he's moved to a starting role, I'm willing to bet he shortens his career.

---

Chapman could get hurt at any time whether he is a starter or reliever. He dials it back as a starter. As far as shortening his career, why would the Reds possibly care about this? The Reds are not the NY Yankees. They have him for two more years on his current contract and another arbitration year or two after that. If he succeeds as a starter (or stays dominant as a releiever) he is gone once that time is up. They have a window to get value from him and they need to get as much value as possible during that time. Period.

quote:

---

So should Votto hit leadoff because no one gets more attempts than the leadoff hitter?

---

Why not? There's no reason not to hit your best hitter first in the order other than habit. Well, unless you have a guy with a similar OBP and no power. Then he should lead off because that lineup construction will lead to more runs.

quote:

---

Why not? There's no reason not to hit your best hitter first in the order other than habit. Well, unless you have a guy with a similar OBP and no power. Then he should lead off because that lineup construction will lead to more runs.

---

Thank you. Now I don't have to read anything you post about baseball anymore.

quote:

---

Chapman can develop into the dominant Mariano Rivera type force, if he isn't there already

---

Guess what? If Rivera would have had more than 2 pitches, he would have started.

And I think the Yankees are OK with the way that worked out....

quote:

---

You're not serious are you?

---

Partly. Lineup construction, despite our massive attention to it, doesn't matter all that much so long as you don't do something incredibly stupid. And as Bho was pointing out, if you hit your best hitter first, he would get more at bats than anyone else (of course, he'd also likely have less runner son base and RBI chances). What's bad about that, honestly? If you had eight guys who were all of exactly equal quality and one f'm awesome hitter, why not hit him first?

Getting a runner on with zero outs is the best way to maximize run scoring, and the #3 hitter is more likely than any other hitter in the order to come up with 0 on and 2 outs, which is the worst situation for run scoring. If you don't have a protoypical high OBP, low power leadoff guy, why not hit your best hitter #1 to maximize his at bats and potentially avoid the 0 on 2 out situation? (I actually would likely put my best hitter #2)

But tradition is hard to break. You're just instinctively rejecting the idea because *gasp* that's not the way things have been done.

quote:

---

Like Baloo said a page ago, take a player like Votto. Imagine he had come up and only been put in to pitch hit in key situations and he had a lot of success. Would people be arguing that he should not convert to a first baseman because "if its not broke dont fix it." I

---

this is fricking dumb.

there are outside factors that influence all decisions.


It's not as easy as "bat Votto first, he's your best hitter!!!!"

The anatomy of a batting lineup has evolved over years for a reason.

Bat you're best run producer 1st so every time he comes up, he can hit with no one on base, following the 2 worst hitters in your batting lineup?

should the pitcher reach, you want him clogging the bases up while Votto hits, or the other good hitters behind him?


It's fricking dumb, and there is a reason no one does that.

In a bubble, you want your best hitter to hit as much as possible, I understand that. But you don't play baseball in a bubble.

Votto is better suited hitting 3rd. Or even 4th.


How does that relate to Chapman?

Well you have 4 pitchers who routinely pitched into the 6th inning of games last year, all with ERAs under 3.75.

You have Mike Leake, a former 8th pick OVERALL of the draft, in your 5th spot...

You have a potent lineup that a lot of nights will have you with the lead when the starters exit. Then really good bridge guys to your closer; Sean Marshall, who is a LH specialist, Arredondo, who is good, and Broxton as a setup guy.


It's set up perfectly for Chapman to close. You have an abundance of guys that can start for you, but no real confidence in anyone to close. It may not show now, but once the playoffs roll around, you're going to wish you had Chapman back there.


Who cares about the "value" you get out of him? just fricking win. Who cares if he is a "role" player? He's great at it, and it helps the team win, which is the bottom line.

The same reason Votto hits 3rd. Because they have a lineup of capable hitters, and this role best suits Votto & the team. Because it helps them win.

quote:

---

that a mediocre pitcher could adequately perform 80% of the time

---

Link?