TripleThreat wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:I think it's a great decision. The idea of a dedicated closer is beginning to get outdated (finally). You need a relief ace that you use in high leverage situations.
Bonn has a good point. Chris Devenski of the Astros is one of the best bargains in all of baseball. He can spot start. He can pitch in high leverage situations. He has a high K/9 ratio. He can fill in for the closer at times. He's making peanuts. He's going to vulture you some wins as well. He's the generic brand version of Betances and Andrew Miller.
Matt Barnes
Jacob Barnes
Arodys Vizcaino
David Phelps
Ryan Madson
Adam Ottavino ( struggling now, but usually solid)
Mychel Givens
Brad Hand
IMHO, the Yankees ought to take a look at this trend more deeply. Guys who simply did not develop as starters but the skill set made them a high leverage reliever.
Shane Greene and Bud Norris were essentially fringe/failed starters but were useful bullpen pieces this year. Jorge De La Rosa, Matt Bowman, CJ Edwards.
The guy I wanted the Yankees to really look hard at was Andrew Cashner as a reliever, but starting depth is so bad around MLB, he was going to get a starting opportunity. There are bargains out there, I think the Yankees would do well to search for guys who failed as starters but might blossom as relievers ( I think the Cubs grabbed Eddie Butler for this very reason)
Chapman has been too good for too long, and his velocity is too elite to just give up now on him.
The guy I'm really watching is Giovanny Gallegos, he's not going to help this year, but he seems like he has the make up and stuff to be a high leverage reliever soon.
Chapman striking out three dudes in the 7th inning and pitching more, might not be so horrible. Although the idea of David Robertson coming back to close, is a bit bizarre.
I still think the Yanks gave up too much too soon to make a push this year. But it will be interesting to see what happens.
I'm not sure how much you've looked into baseball's sabermetrics but there's a heavy movement towards judging pitchers mostly by BB, HR, and SO because those are the three things they have the most control over. You may already know what I'm writing but I'll put it anyway in case you don't or anyone else is interested. Chapman's HR and SO totals are still excellent despite the 2 recent HRS. The fact that he's had 2 recent ones is slightly concerning and his walk total is relatively high, although it's nowhere near the problems Betances was having earlier. From the BB, HR, and SO total, a fielding independent (FIP) ERA is calculated and can be found on fangraphs website. This is meant to indicate how well he's pitching independent of the quality of the fielding and luck of the hitters. Chapman's FIP is at 2.75 even though is actual ERA is at 4.29. He's throwing the ball way better than the in-game results (a lot of lucky hits/poor fielding) currently indicate.
The reason there's so much emphasis on BB, HR, and SO is that those in the metrics community will say a pitcher has little influence over whether or not a ball will fall in for a hit once it's put in play. (How little is debated but it's generally conceded to be small.) Over a very large sample of games, balls in play will fall for hits about 30% of the time regardless of the pitcher. Some pitchers over a very large sample may be able to get it a little below or above 30%, though. If it deviates much from 30% and that's a new thing for the pitcher, it's most likely just a temporary string of good or bad luck from hitters. However, in small samples (even a full season), you can have a significant deviation. Chapman's BABIP is at .349 right now and I suspect those hits have come at bad timing too (which is also just bad luck). His BABIP for the last 7 years has been .242, .252, .280, .290, .331, .268, and now .349. It's typical for these numbers to fluctuate and artificially inflate or deflate a pitcher's ERA each year.
On a side note, to throw a no hitter you have to have a tremendous amount of luck in addition to throwing the ball well. If you have 12 strikeouts, that means most likely that the other team went 0 for 15 on balls in play. (It could be different if there were walks/errors and then double plays, pick offs, caught stealings, etc. but it will probably be close to 0 for 15.) In a typical game 4 or 5 out of 15 balls in play will fall for hits but in one game there can be a huge deviation from that.
Back to Chapman: I don't care if he's not the designated closer. In situations where you just have to get 3 outs before giving up 2 or 3 runs, most relievers will do that most of the time anyway and it's a stretch to say you "saved" the game. I care much more about who is used in the highest leverage situations. Which reliever is called upon for tight situations in the 6th, 7th, or 8th innings and which one pitches in the 1 run saves is more important. And despite the fact that Chapman has thrown pretty well this season, he's not our best reliever by any metric right now anyway. I'm happy to keep him. Selling low is dumb. But I think it's great if we don't have a strict designated closer and instead are focusing on who pitches in the highest leverage situations.