Thats the thing I don't care what everyone wants to see, I want what will possibly put the Reds over the top. If the Reds can get it done this year with their current make of the starting lineup, then I am all for never moving Chapman out of the closer role. I still worry about the Reds in the playoffs against other teams Aces. I know we have Cueto and Latos, but I don't see them as guys who will completey shut a team down in the playoffs and probably even at best give up 2 or 3 runs. While the Reds do struggle with aces and even would need to score more than 2 or 3 runs to win. Having Cueto, Chapman, and Latos at the top of the rotation for the playoffs would be very dangerous if Chapman transitioned to starter well. For me I just think it would be a good thing to at least try, if it doesn't work then he is back to dominating as a closer. It is a good problem to have and ultimately I will be fine with either choice, I just would still like them to try it out.

 

"What everyone sees" = Hittable. It really has nothing to do with what anyone "wants to see". It's the fact that he would 1 - throw more than as a closer and 2 - becomes MUCH more hittable being seen multiple times through the lineup.

Chapman should close. And that's all I have to say about that.

Chapman should close. And that's all I have to say about that.

 

Wrong answer, end of discussion.

Wrong answer, end of discussion.

Chapman has dead arm. You have dead brain.

"What everyone sees" = Hittable. It really has nothing to do with what anyone "wants to see". It's the fact that he would 1 - throw more than as a closer and 2 - becomes MUCH more hittable being seen multiple times through the lineup.

 

Ok then then Tampa Bay, Detroit and every team Randy Johnson pitched for are idiots for keeping those guys as starters. If they are that good as starters, imagine how good they be as closers. They need to be closing so teams can't see them more than once through a lineup...

 

As I said it is easy to sit here and say yes Chapman as a closer is definitely the best option because he is doing right now and doing great at it. However what happened if he started this season like they wanted him to do, and I would be nice and say just 13 wins right now and a 3.50 era. That would be a good year but not completely amazing. Yet if he did something like that to this part of the year, people would be saying they made the right choice him being a starter. Just because we seen him as a starter. So its easy to say he should be the closer. However it is worth a shot to at least allow him a chance to start because he may be a dominant starter too.

Chapman should close. And that's all I have to say about that.

 

I would have argued for days that he should be a starter a few months ago. Now it's clear he's a pen guy and that's fine b/c he's pretty decent at it and he'll only make $3M next year and he maxes out at $5M in 2015. Pretty decent for a dominant closer.

I would have argued for days that he should be a starter a few months ago. Now it's clear he's a pen guy and that's fine b/c he's pretty decent at it and he'll only make $3M next year and he maxes out at $5M in 2015. Pretty decent for a dominant closer.

 

How does him having a great year make it clear than he is a pen guy? If the Reds closer doesn't get hurt to start the season, and Chapman starts the year as a starter and has a good year. Would that all of a sudden have made him a clear starter and not a pen guy? I mean as great as our pitching staff was, weren't most Reds management and even Dusty saying that Chapman had looked better than all of their starters in spring training? He was throwing other pitches besides just two in spring training.

 

Its just so easy for people to come to a quick and over reaction on this subject because we have seen him as a closer, but we have not seen him as a starter. He very easily could be a very good starter and even great starter too, and wouldn't be the worst thing in the world to try him out as one.

Here's the easy answer: He is virtually automatic in the 9th. He makes our manager only have to think for 8 innings. Case closed.

Here's the easy answer: He is virtually automatic in the 9th. He makes our manager only have to think for 8 innings. Case closed.

 

That is the best argument I have heard yet, because sadly that is very true!

Which is what every good closer does. It's a senseless argument if you're going to list every starter that's ever been good and tell me their manager's were idiots because they didn't close them. It has to do with Chapman and only Chapman. Nothing from this year gives anyone an indicator that he can be a starter.

He's a pen guy b/c he's very hittable even as a closer throwing less than 97. He's a pen guy b/c he has a dead arm after less than 100 innings this year. He's a pen guy b/c they're fine on starting pitchers for next year and they have a good prospect or two behind them. He's a pen guy b/c they probably would have to go spend more than $8M to get a different closer and there's really no need for that.

Which is what every good closer does. It's a senseless argument if you're going to list every starter that's ever been good and tell me their manager's were idiots because they didn't close them. It has to do with Chapman and only Chapman. Nothing from this year gives anyone an indicator that he can be a starter.

 

What from this year shows that he can't be a starter? I mean the fact that he was the best starting pitcher for the Reds in spring training? The fact that people don't realize that he was throwing other pitches and throwing other pitches very well in spring training. Or the fact that closers dont need to throw other pitches besides two if even that if you have a great fastball. People don't seem to realize that he would be throwing other pitches more if he was starting, the only reason it is mostly fastballs now is because he is closing.

He's a pen guy b/c he's very hittable even as a closer throwing less than 97. He's a pen guy b/c he has a dead arm after less than 100 innings this year. He's a pen guy b/c they're fine on starting pitchers for next year and they have a good prospect or two behind them. He's a pen guy b/c they probably would have to go spend more than $8M to get a different closer and there's really no need for that.

 

So is he still a pen guy if the Reds get knocked out early in the playoffs? If they face a team in the playoffs with true aces that can shut the Reds down? When the Reds don't have a true pitcher that you can really count to shut a team down too, if their offense is not scoring? Cueto and Latos while very good pitches probably as a I said give up at least 2 or 3 runs in the games they start in the playoffs. While the Reds have shown they can get completely shut down by top aces. Is he really a pen guy when we really don't know how his arm would be if he was starting? Is he really a pen guy when him getting a hurt arm in the bullpen proves nothing when it comes to starting, since he has to get his arm fired up more for game situations in the bullpen. Maybe his arm still gets fatigued as a starter but maybe it takes more innings as a starter before it happens. No one knows if that would happen or not. Is he a pen guy because the Reds have more starters coming up who probably at best would be #2 or 3 guys too?

 

This year proved nothing to show that he definitely should be a pen guy. All it proved was what basically all of already knew. It was not hard to see that he would be successful in the pen based on how hard he throws. So I am not sure why people act like its a surprise. Back when his first started if he should be in the pen or a closer, I think it was well known he would do very well in the pen. The unknown was him starting, which is still unknown and worth a shot IMO though.

Like I said, senseless argument. If you can't see the things that point to a bullpen guy there's a better chance of convincing BGH to vote for Romney than convincing you to keep him as the closer.

Like I said, senseless argument. If you can't see the things that point to a bullpen guy there's a better chance of convincing BGH to vote for Romney than convincing you to keep him as the closer.

 

What you all act like he only throws one pitch, and can't seem to grasp as a starter he wouldn't just be throwing the fastball basically every pitch. Yes right now when he throws just 94 it is very hittable because as a closer he is not going to throw really anything else.

 

The biggest thing for me is people are acting like it is a surprise that he is a dominant closer. I mean when this debate first started, didn't most people already assume he would be? Wasn't that hard to see that he would be with how hard he threw. The only debate was really if he could start, which how has that question been answered? Thats why it hasn't been, no one knows still how he would do as a starter. Him doing what he is doing as a closer is not a suprise, but still just leaves the question about what he could do as a starter and is worth seeing that is my point.