^Who's a disgusting closer?

 

The guy who this thread is about... Have you watched him pitch? His stuff is nasty, sometimes not hittable.

The guy who this thread is about... Have you watched him pitch? His stuff is nasty, sometimes not hittable.

 

And yet his effectiveness, which is all that really matters, puts him in the 2nd-tier of closers....Mind-boggling I know.

Without Chapman the Reds still have one of the best rotation in the MLB. With him in the bullpen they have the best bullpen in the league. Great move by the Reds

And yet his effectiveness, which is all that really matters, puts him in the 2nd-tier of closers....Mind-boggling I know.

 

You seem really bothered by this move. I feel you can't put a price on shortening a game and that's exactly what the 1-2 punch (Broxton and Chapman) will do. It's happening bro, just accept it and move on.

You seem really bothered by this move. I feel you can't put a price on shortening a game and that's exactly what the 1-2 punch (Broxton and Chapman) will do. It's happening bro, just accept it and move on.

 

Not bothered at all. Just think it's funny that so many feel Chapman is this dominant closer when statistics prove out he's not. Sure he's entertaining, but last I checked it's about being effective.

 

The bullpen would be nearly as strong without Chapman in it, as the numbers bear out, while the rotation would be much stronger with him. That takes pressure off the bullpen, makes them more effective and lowers the reliance on them.

Yet you refuse to see the stats that clearly state how overrated closer are.

 

I didn't refuse to acknowledge them it's just that some are meaningless stats. Keeping Chapman as the closer, and the fact that every other MLB team uses a closer, supports that.

 

Is ERA overrated?

 

Is ERA overrated?

 

 

When it comes to a closer, without question.

Funny you bring that up considering anytime I bring facts into the argument as to why Chapman shouldn't close, you resort to your usual tactics of trying to come up with witty rebutes that offer nothing to the discussion.

 

And you guys are absolutely right, Leake is fine as a 5th starter, but you're lying to yourself if you don't think Chapman would be a vast improvement over him in the rotation. Given the fact that he was simply "good" in terms of effectiveness in the closer role, and it seems pretty reasonable to think the added benefit of him starting over Leake more than makes up for any slight dropoff they'd experience in the bullpen.

 

You mean a tactic like, the manager and organization believe he should close so the stats you used are meaningless? Yeah, they offer nothing to the discussion because they are against what you think.

 

Or the tactic that EVERY team in MLB uses some sort of closer(s)?

 

Those stats are meaningless.

When it comes to a closer, without question.

 

Should've been more clear. Is a starter's ERA overrated?

You mean a tactic like, the manager and organization believe he should close so the stats you used are meaningless? Yeah, they offer nothing to the discussion because they are against what you think.

 

Or the tactic that EVERY team in MLB uses some sort of closer(s)?

 

Those stats are meaningless.

 

Who said the Reds shouldn't use a closer? Certainly not this guy. Using Chapman there is simply failing to maximize the effectiveness of their pitching staff.

And yet his effectiveness, which is all that really matters, puts him in the 2nd-tier of closers....Mind-boggling I know.

 

So with his best stuff for one inning he is in the second tier (not disagreeing). Yet, you want him out there every fifth day, not knowing if he will ever touch the upper-90's, which is what makes him dominant (when he is dominant)?

Should've been more clear. Is a starter's ERA overrated?

 

Sometimes, but not really. It'll all balance out over the course of a full season. I would however look at stats such as WHIP and OBA as better indicators of how effective a pitcher is.

So with his best stuff for one inning he is in the second tier (not disagreeing). Yet, you want him out there every fifth day, not knowing if he will ever touch the upper-90's, which is what makes him dominant (when he is dominant)?

 

That's if you think his best stuff is simply throwing as hard as he can. I don't. He's at his best, even for just one inning, when he's mixing in the devastating slider and a change. He'd be even more effective if given the opportunity to develop those pitches to their maximum potential IMO. He doesn't get that as a closer.

That's if you think his best stuff is simply throwing as hard as he can. I don't. He's at his best, even for just one inning, when he's mixing in the devastating slider and a change. He'd be even more effective if given the opportunity to develop those pitches to their maximum potential IMO. He doesn't get that as a closer.

 

He hasn't thrown them for a strike consistently enough to be a starter, IMO. The fact that you would have to keep a pitch count on him because he has a history of fatigue, and his pitch count would be so high due to K's and streaks of wildness, you're dipping into the pen more often than you would like. Just MO.

Sometimes, but not really. It'll all balance out over the course of a full season. I would however look at stats such as WHIP and OBA as better indicators of how effective a pitcher is.

 

I don't disagree. IMO, they all reflect each other. I haven't gone through every pitcher but I wouldn't think someone has a low WHIP but high ERA, and vice-versa. Point was, the team ERA was pretty good last year, starters and bullpen. Reds were 4th in ERA and WHIP. I don't think it's worth the risk.

 

If he starts and gets hurt due to the load, you lose him in the pen too.