|
|
|
|
Baseball Primer Newsblog— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Thursday, August 02, 2012
Aroldis Joba? That’s news to me.
As John Smoltz’s pitching career was winding down, there was little doubt what his future would include: TV. He is candid, articulate and he likes to talk. Sure enough, Smoltz has lived up to such expectations by becoming one of TBS’ lead baseball analysts.
He shared a few of his latest insights in a phone interview with Sporting News to promote his role with TBS.
SN: What should the Reds do with Aroldis Chapman next year? Start him or keep him as their closer?
Smoltz: I can’t believe I’m hearing this. I had no idea they’re even thinking about making him a starter. You would think people would have learned their lesson from the Joba Chamberlain situation. I don’t think it’s fair to bounce a guy around early in his career. The transformation between starting and closing is night and day. (Chapman) is lights out as a closer. I don’t know if he can be lights out for eight innings.
Repoz
Posted: August 02, 2012 at 09:14 PM | 55 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Tags:
media,
reds
|
Support BBTF
Thanks to
Brian
for his generous support.
Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Newsblog: Fay Vincent: THE UMPIRE FIX (11 - 4:36am, May 25)Last: Swedish ChefNewsblog: [OTP-May] Politico: Congressional baseball game, May 1, 1926 (4428 - 4:34am, May 25)Last: Greg (U)KNewsblog: OT: NBA Monthly Thread - May 2013 (1276 - 4:14am, May 25)Last: RollingWaveNewsblog: Marchman: Why Even Have Baseball's Draft? (12 - 4:02am, May 25)Last: cardsfanboyNewsblog: MLB: Don Sutton never shy about voicing his opinion (16 - 3:27am, May 25)Last: ShoeGritNewsblog: OT: The Soccer Thread, May 2013 (1162 - 1:30am, May 25)Last: puckNewsblog: OMNICHATTER for May 24, 2013 (93 - 1:14am, May 25)Last: cardsfanboyNewsblog: Curtis Granderson has fractured left pinky finger (8 - 12:33am, May 25)Last: Cowboy PopupNewsblog: Paul Daugherty: Old-v-New schools of thought (30 - 12:28am, May 25)Last: Walt DavisNewsblog: FanGraphs: Cameron: The 2013 Cubs: Better Than We Think (43 - 11:50pm, May 24)Last: Hack WilsonNewsblog: Tangotiger Blog: Ensberg and Tango speak on being locked-in (72 - 10:26pm, May 24)Last: Tom TNewsblog: LATimes: Microsoft unveils new Xbox One console (39 - 10:16pm, May 24)Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)Newsblog: OT: NHL is finally back thread (377 - 10:09pm, May 24)Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)Newsblog: Fox Sports: McLouth catch earns thrown beverage (13 - 9:42pm, May 24)Last: Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams)Newsblog: HHS: Autin: Miguel Cabrera to the max (32 - 8:17pm, May 24)Last: DavidFoss
|
|
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. Boxkutter Posted: August 02, 2012 at 09:24 PM (#4199342)The only lesson from the Joba Chamberlain situation is that pitchers get injured. Especially pitchers who have already been injured. The Yankees developed a transition plan to get Chamberlain from his temporary relief role to full-time starting without increasing his work load too much too fast, and although much-maligned and even mocked, the fact is that it worked pretty much to perfection. Chamberlain was one of the most effective starting pitchers in MLB in August of 2008 and right on track to throw his target number of innings for the season. And then he got hurt.
I have no evidence that the Yankees' handling of Chamberlain led to the injury problems, but I do know that there was zero basis for handling him in that bizarre fashion, switching him from starting to relieving and then back to starting and then putting absurd pitch control limits on him, etc. There was no evidence that that was good for him, and ironically their plan to keep him healthy may have led to him getting injured. May have. Again, nobody can know for sure.
Uh, they did. Nobody traded for Ivan Rodriguez this year.
</sarcasm>
Unless their plan for "keeping him healthy" included specifically called for having him play with Pudge Rodriguez ... no, it didn't.
And ... well, no we can't, but not for the reason you think we can't ...
I almost made it through that with a straight face.
This is silly. He got injured on the Pudge play. That had nothing to do with the Yankees' "plans."
EDIT: Cokes
Chapman should be given every chance to start. He's being paid like a starter. He has the stuff. He has been a starter in the past. He seems to have gotten control of his pitches. He's got Randy Johnson-like potential. The Reds have got to find out if he can do it. The potential reward is too great.
If you have an unhittable pitcher who can throw 200 innings as a starter, how many innings would he have to throw in a highly leveraged relief role in order to make about the same impact?
I think LI tends to max out around 2 so, in theory, half as many innings. Also pitchers tend to do better rate-stat wise in relief so you might add 10-20% performance bonus and an LI around 1.8 would do it. If you can dig up very old threads on Eric Gagne's CYA, we discussed that a lot there.
Holy F that was 2003. I am getting old. Anyway, yes, some saber-smarties (Tango I think) argued that Gagne's 82 IP really were more valuable than Schmidt/Prior's 210. WAR however tells a different story with Schmidt and Prior blowing Gagne out of the water -- Prior had twice Gagne's WAR. Anyway, Gagne's gmLI (see b-r) was 1.7 that year and that was his general range in his heyday.
I don't expect Chapman to remain so good forever, but there's a part of me that thinks that an almost literally unhittable pitcher, intelligently deployed, could be most valuable in the bullpen.
Of course, "intelligently deployed" is the tough part. In a computer game I would use this robot pitcher in the 6th inning if it seemed smart.
This part is true. Chapman probably wouldn't have a completely dark 8 innings.
Could be. As we've seen with Chapman's FIP, formulas often break down in the extreme so a truly "unhittable" guy might do just that. Certainly a guy who can K half the batters he faces (as Chapman has this year) would be quite good at protecting small leads with runners on base.
It gets quite complicated of course. How many true do or die situations are there. How often do they occur in clumps (or multiple times in a game) such that Chapman wouldn't be available for some? How often are they separated by several games such that you have to use him in low leverage situations to keep him sharp?
A few things I can tell you:
a) his gmLI this year is 1.8 which is in line with top closer usage;
b) the most WAR for a pitcher with fewer than 100 IP is Papelbon at 4.9; Rivera's best was 4.2 (2008); Gossage's best sub-100 IP was 4.4 (1982);
c) the highest aLI (that's an "average" of some sort) was Gossage 1983 at 2.4; there have been a few seasons in the 2000s in the 2-2.3 range.
In contrast, in 2011, 10 starters had 5+ WAR. So you'd have to be pretty much perfect at optimising his appearances and probably push him to at least 90 and maybe substantially more innings to make him the best pitcher (from a WAR perspective).
If the Reds have been turning off the stadium lights when he pitches, no wonder nobody can hit him. Maybe the Marlins should try that with Heath Bell.
TAYLOR: Tell him not to worry, I'll take care of it.
hey, i think chapman would be a fine starter. but if you have someone as a spectacular anchor for a bullpen in an age where bullpens are so incredibly important and can make/break a season unless you have someone 98 percent as good you leave him.
because who is option b in cincy to be the bullpen anchor? until that question is answered chapman stays put.
Plan B: Sean Marshall is signed through '15.
Plan C: They get first shot at resigning Jonathon Broxton.
Plan D: They have an option on Ryan Madson.
Plan E: J.J. Hoover is 24, and has a WHIP of 1.056.
Finding a replacement for Chapman as closer is the least of their worries.
i will likely regret responding but i don't see any of those individuals remotely comparable to chapman in terms of competence.
having chapman allows the reds to have a bullpen that makes games six innings long. that's a pretty powerful edge
But that's not really true. Even this year when he has been superb, he has 4 blown saves and 1 additional loss. It's not hard to imagine getting "remotely comparable" results (in terms of team W/L) without him in the bullpen. Now, I'm not blindly disagreeing with Smoltz here. It may be the right move to leave him as a reliever, but let's not pretend that the Reds don't lose any leads with him back there.
The Reds right now seem to have no holes in the bullpen - Bill Bray's the only one who's appeared in even one game and hasn't been excellent, and he just went on the DL to make room for Broxton; he totalled 8 2/3 IP this year.
No, none of them are as good as Chapman; but Chapman was also the best starter they had in spring training this year and moved to the bullpen only after Masset and Madson were hurt.
madson is coming back from injury. i am reluctant to believe in a guy until he has thrown and had some success.
sean marshall has been great in his role of not being 'the guy'. sure we all think he could be 'the guy'. i don't think there is anything mystical about 'closer' but players sure seem to believe that.
broxton has not been striking out guys like he used to in an era where it seems anyone can average 8 strikeouts per nine innings. don't feel good about that
so i hear you and completely agree that chapman might well be the reds best starter.
but i don't see the plan b beyond marshall. and if you remove marshall then all the other guys get bumped in their roles
and its run prevention driving the reds success. in that ballpark the reds are among the best in keeping runners from scoring.
i have seen two brewer seasons sabotaged by rotten bullpens (2007 and 2012)
i would be really damn cautious before i messed with this setup
If a guy can start then have them start.
If you downgrade Marshall for this, I think it is only fair to upgrade Broxton, who has had been 'the guy' in KC and LA.
Post 26 says he does.
not downgrading. listing the potential for a guy previously really effective to move to a role where he is less successful. i think its important that we not regard guys as just being able to move here and there without any concern for a performance impact
but that is tied to a mindset of 'roles'. i think if a manager went into the clubhouse and very firmly outlined that the role was to be ready to pitch and not that so and so is the 8th inning guy and that guy is the closer then guys might move around freely and still be good
i think this whole assigning of roles has gotten into the players heads
If they aren't willing to commit to his starting for a season they shouldn't try switching him at all.
you know that is easy to write. but again, in this era seasons seem to be made or broken on the backs of bullpens
how many sabr inclined analysts have stated that the modern formula now is 2 capable starters and a killer bullpen to go with a capable offense? at least once you get to the postseason.
i don't like this as i prefer the starter handle the whole game and relievers be an afterthought. (bygone era)
but i am not oblivious to the current day
By which I mean, if they make him a starter, they absolutely have to leave him starting for at least a full season. But if he blinks once, there will be thousands of words spilled on how he should be moved back, and most teams will capitulate to the peanut gallery. Unless the Reds have the fortitude to ignore it completely (and since Dusty seems to like him in the pen, I doubt they do), just leave him in the 'pen.
By why is none of this reflected in salary or the advanced stats? I think the usage pattern is driven by nothing but being risk averse. You see it in this thread. That is why I would argue they never should have allowed him to be anything but a starter, and then if that fails move him to the pen.
It is easier to be a reliever than a starter. There is so much risk aversion that once someone succeeds at the easier role everyone panics at the thought of moving them. It is silly.
Again it is simple, but a great starter (or even a good starter) is more likely to get you into the post season than a great reliever. So your best pitchers should be allowed to fail as starters before they become relievers.
I am OK with the long reliever into starter path that J. Santana and others followed, but once they are in short relief people's thinking seems to short circuit.
regarding stats all stats need data sets and reliever data sets are so dramatically different from starter data i have yet to see an evaluation approach that one could consider reliable.
as for salary, that's reflective of how relievers as a group are so in-consistent it's ill-advised as a practice to tie up significant sums on a player who will lurch back and from great to ok to yuck and hey he's great again.
and you are misreading what i am saying. chapman by himself isn't propelling the reds. but chapman as an anchor point for this particular group is key. he's making the bullpen engine go. if you surrounded chapman with the brewers bullpen dusty would be getting hammered for having chapman engage in plus inning outings to close out wins.
i am in a weird place because i despise current pitching/bullpen management and loathe the turnstile approach used by so many managers.
but if this is the game we have for the moment (and it is) and you have a guy who is the foundation for a superlative bullpen you better have a really good option before you disrupt that environment.
I think it is requested in salary. I think you may be assuming him successful as a starter, because top-notch closers make more money than medium-and-worse starters (Papelbon got a better deal than Edwin Jackson!). If you go strictly by salary, Chapman is more valuable as a reliever unless he makes a transition as smoothly as CJ Wilson or Dempster in '08.
Now, I don't think we should necessarily go by salary, but if we do it should be comparing elite closers to all starting pitchers, and not all relievers to all starters. This is because we 'know' Chapman is at that level as a reliever, but we don't know what level of starter he would be.
Except that even the people who are saying that Chapman should remain as a reliever admit that y-t-y performance for relievers not named Mariano Rivera is far, far more variable than that of starters. So while Chapman may be an elite reliever right now, there is no guarantee he will be next year. So yes, the correct comparison is all relievers to all starters.
But the people who are saying that Chapman should remain as a reliever are not including him in the group of "relievers not named Mariano Rivera." They are including Chapman in the Rivera/Willy Wags/Papelbon/Hoffman class that is not nearly as variable as relievers in general. Whether that is premature is a different question.
Smoltz is basing his entire reasoning on assuming that Chapman would be a very good closer in 2013 - he is not ascribing any reliever variability to him, thus "(Chapman) is lights out as a closer. I don’t know if he can be lights out for eight innings.
That's the mistake. A couple years ago K-Rod would have been included in that group instead of Papelbon. Look at what happened with him.
Yes, it may be a premature.
But K-Rod is terrible example. If we start at a similar point his career to where Chapman will be after this year, he has strung up relatively full years with ERA+s of 263-162-199-110-179-144-80. That is not markedly less consistent than starting pitchers.
But that's not what's important. Would his move to the rotation (where he'd likely replace Leake, who's about league-average for a starter) be a big enough improvement to counteract his loss to the bullpen? Given all of the arms the Reds currently have in the pen, plus the chance to pick someone up in the off-season, I certainly think so.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main