After all that offseason money going to the bullpen. . .

[rocket]

Here's how our expensive bullpen faired:

 

12th in the majors in ERA (4.06)

29th in the majors in saves (29)

1st in the majors in strikeouts by a significant margin (553, next best was 485)

4th in the majors in walks (255)

2nd in the majors in IP (562.0)

6th in the majors in losses (27)

9th in BAA (.248)

14th in OPSA (.735)

15th in WHIP (1.40)

7th in K/BB

1st in K/9

 

So what's the lesson here? All that money got us a slightly above average bullpen, and the worst record in the national leagues? Or maybe it's foolish to neglect offensive holes in the offseason for the sake of getting a better bullpen.

[CuseCubFan69]

So you're saying the pen was average to below average and Hendry should open the wallet and spend more on the pen? Sorry, but that's how Hendry might read that post, he's got that kind of vision.

[goonys evil twin]

So what's the lesson here? All that money got us a slightly above average bullpen, and the worst record in the national leagues? Or maybe it's foolish to neglect offensive holes in the offseason for the sake of getting a better bullpen.

 

Preach it.

 

That's what I said all last winter. It's fine to try and improve the bullpen, but bullpens are shaky things regardless, because by and large, all relievers failed in their original role of starter at some point in time. They are second rate pitchers with limited abilities. Some can put together a nice career and make a pretty penny with their specialty. But these guys don't win you games. The 8 position players and 5 starting pitchers win you games. The bullpen should never be the focus of an offseason by a team that finishes near the bottom of the league, like the Cubs did last year. The bullpen never was, and still is not, the reason for success or failure.

[Master Shake]

Here's how our expensive bullpen faired:

 

So what's the lesson here? All that money got us a slightly above average bullpen, and the worst record in the national leagues? Or maybe it's foolish to neglect offensive holes in the offseason for the sake of getting a better bullpen.

 

I always get frustrated with the 'good pitching beats good hitting' people. WHile what they say is true, if your team isn't hitting the ball, even one mistake from a good pitcher seals yyour fate.

 

Defense and offense are equally important. A lot of people esp. in the front office don't seem to realize this.

[CuseCubFan69]

Here's how our expensive bullpen faired:

 

So what's the lesson here? All that money got us a slightly above average bullpen, and the worst record in the national leagues? Or maybe it's foolish to neglect offensive holes in the offseason for the sake of getting a better bullpen.

 

I always get frustrated with the 'good pitching beats good hitting' people. WHile what they say is true, if your team isn't hitting the ball, even one mistake from a good pitcher seals yyour fate.

 

Defense and offense are equally important. A lot of people esp. in the front office don't seem to realize this.

 

Yep, just build a good team and things will take care of themselves. Hitters struggle, pitchers step up and vice a versa. Need a run, steal one like Theriot did the other day.

[Soriano12]

Despite his solid season, Eyre's "man love" of Dusty has really made me dislike the guy.

[goonys evil twin]

Despite his solid season, Eyre's "man love" of Dusty has really made me dislike the guy.

 

His out of shapeness, 800 OPS against and 1.48 WHIP has made me dislike the guy.

[CuseCubFan69]

Despite his solid season, Eyre's "man love" of Dusty has really made me dislike the guy.

 

His out of shapeness, 800 OPS against and 1.48 WHIP has made me dislike the guy.

 

I hope the Cubs get a trainer that gets backing from management that makes these guys do Pilates and other stretches to keep in shape. They have proved to me that they can't do it on their own.

[Brian]

I think the pen would have been better if the SP was better.

[CuseCubFan69]

I think the pen would have been better if the SP was better.

 

I agree along with hitters that gave them a lead more often.

[BeerHere]

How much did Dempster's season adversely affect the numbers?

 

Also, there were some awful performances by Walrond, Ryu and Mateo in there as well.

 

I'm not really disagreeing with you but the 2005 bullpen needed a makeover.

[baseball7897]

So what's the lesson here? All that money got us a slightly above average bullpen, and the worst record in the national leagues? Or maybe it's foolish to neglect offensive holes in the offseason for the sake of getting a better bullpen.

 

Preach it.

 

That's what I said all last winter. It's fine to try and improve the bullpen, but bullpens are shaky things regardless, because by and large, all relievers failed in their original role of starter at some point in time. They are second rate pitchers with limited abilities. Some can put together a nice career and make a pretty penny with their specialty. But these guys don't win you games. The 8 position players and 5 starting pitchers win you games. The bullpen should never be the focus of an offseason by a team that finishes near the bottom of the league, like the Cubs did last year. The bullpen never was, and still is not, the reason for success or failure.

 

I am going to disagree with that point. The bullpen is so important for a team. Look at the Whitesox. Their bullpen was one of the reason's why they were not in the playoffs. The Redsox in 03 did not have a strong bullpen. Then in 04 they went out and singed Foulke. I believe that worked out pretty well.

 

I would like to see Kerry Wood being the closer for the Cubs next year. There are questions marks though with Kerry being the closer. Can he throw back to back games? And could he throw enough strikes?

[goonys evil twin]

I am going to disagree with that point. The bullpen is so important for a team. Look at the Whitesox. Their bullpen was one of the reason's why they were not in the playoffs.

 

Yeah, one of. Not the reason. Not the focus. Your lineup and rotation determine what type of team you'll be, the bench and bullpen play a role, but have much less of an impact.

 

If you win 90 games, your lineup and rotation are going to be the biggest reasons. If you lose 90 games, your lineup and rotation are going to be the biggest reasons.

[soccer10k]

How much did Dempster's season adversely affect the numbers?

 

Also, there were some awful performances by Walrond, Ryu and Mateo in there as well.

 

I'm not really disagreeing with you but the 2005 bullpen needed a makeover.

 

I agree. There was nothing wrong with the way Howry and Eyre pitched this year. Wuertz, when he was finally called back up, was a stud. They were not the problem. The problem with the pitching staff was mainly the starting pitching. If you have better starting pitching that lasts longer in the game, you won't have to use up your bullpen as much and then you won't have to use the guys in the back of the pen as much either.

[goonys evil twin]

How much did Dempster's season adversely affect the numbers?

 

Also, there were some awful performances by Walrond, Ryu and Mateo in there as well.

 

I'm not really disagreeing with you but the 2005 bullpen needed a makeover.

 

I agree. There was nothing wrong with the way Howry and Eyre pitched this year. Wuertz, when he was finally called back up, was a stud. They were not the problem. The problem with the pitching staff was mainly the starting pitching. If you have better starting pitching that lasts longer in the game, you won't have to use up your bullpen as much and then you won't have to use the guys in the back of the pen as much either.

 

Eyre did not pitch well. Plus he was out of shape, which may have contributed to his injury. Dempster sucked and it had nothing to do with the starters. The bullpen was definitely part of the problem.

[soccer10k]

How much did Dempster's season adversely affect the numbers?

 

Also, there were some awful performances by Walrond, Ryu and Mateo in there as well.

 

I'm not really disagreeing with you but the 2005 bullpen needed a makeover.

 

I agree. There was nothing wrong with the way Howry and Eyre pitched this year. Wuertz, when he was finally called back up, was a stud. They were not the problem. The problem with the pitching staff was mainly the starting pitching. If you have better starting pitching that lasts longer in the game, you won't have to use up your bullpen as much and then you won't have to use the guys in the back of the pen as much either.

 

Eyre did not pitch well. Plus he was out of shape, which may have contributed to his injury. Dempster sucked and it had nothing to do with the starters. The bullpen was definitely part of the problem.

 

Dempster I'll agree with. I don't see how you can say Eyre did not pitch well. The Cubs had 3 solid relievers last year that could be counted on. How many teams can say that? Even after his problems early in the year, Aardsma finished the year well with a 1.72 ERA in September/October and a 4.08 ERA overall. Great? No. But he looked better later in the year and made improvements.

[goonys evil twin]

Dempster I'll agree with. I don't see how you can say Eyre did not pitch well. The Cubs had 3 solid relievers last year that could be counted on. How many teams can say that? Even after his problems early in the year, Aardsma finished the year well with a 1.72 ERA in September/October and a 4.08 ERA overall. Great? No. But he looked better later in the year and made improvements.

 

ERA is a flawed stat for relievers. Eyre had a 1.48 WHIP and 800 OPS against, that is not good.

 

 

To put that in perspective, only one team bullpen had a higher OPS against and only 3 had a higher WHIP, in the NL. That's counting all relievers, not just the millionaires who are guaranteed for 3 years.

[FergieJ31]

How much did Dempster's season adversely affect the numbers?

 

Also, there were some awful performances by Walrond, Ryu and Mateo in there as well.

 

I'm not really disagreeing with you but the 2005 bullpen needed a makeover.

 

I agree. There was nothing wrong with the way Howry and Eyre pitched this year. Wuertz, when he was finally called back up, was a stud. They were not the problem. The problem with the pitching staff was mainly the starting pitching. If you have better starting pitching that lasts longer in the game, you won't have to use up your bullpen as much and then you won't have to use the guys in the back of the pen as much either.

 

Eyre did not pitch well. Plus he was out of shape, which may have contributed to his injury. Dempster sucked and it had nothing to do with the starters. The bullpen was definitely part of the problem.

 

Eyre was actually fairly solid until mid-Aug when he was hurt. Not spectacular but solid: ERA a shade above 2.00 with over 50 IP. He actually gave up under a hit an inning (61 in 61 1/3) even at the end of the season.

 

But his absymal walk rate ruined his WHIP, absolutely infuriating.

[soccer10k]

Dempster I'll agree with. I don't see how you can say Eyre did not pitch well. The Cubs had 3 solid relievers last year that could be counted on. How many teams can say that? Even after his problems early in the year, Aardsma finished the year well with a 1.72 ERA in September/October and a 4.08 ERA overall. Great? No. But he looked better later in the year and made improvements.

 

ERA is a flawed stat for relievers. Eyre had a 1.48 WHIP and 800 OPS against, that is not good.

 

 

To put that in perspective, only one team bullpen had a higher OPS against and only 3 had a higher WHIP, in the NL. That's counting all relievers, not just the millionaires who are guaranteed for 3 years.

 

Why is ERA a flawed stat for relievers? Not trying to start an argument, I'm just curious as to why you think this.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Dempster I'll agree with. I don't see how you can say Eyre did not pitch well. The Cubs had 3 solid relievers last year that could be counted on. How many teams can say that? Even after his problems early in the year, Aardsma finished the year well with a 1.72 ERA in September/October and a 4.08 ERA overall. Great? No. But he looked better later in the year and made improvements.

 

ERA is a flawed stat for relievers. Eyre had a 1.48 WHIP and 800 OPS against, that is not good.

 

 

To put that in perspective, only one team bullpen had a higher OPS against and only 3 had a higher WHIP, in the NL. That's counting all relievers, not just the millionaires who are guaranteed for 3 years.

 

Why is ERA a flawed stat for relievers? Not trying to start an argument, I'm just curious as to why you think this.

 

For example, Reliever A enters the game, gets two men out, then walks two guys and is pulled for reliever B.

 

Reliever B comes into a game, allows a bases clearing triple before striking out the last batter. Reliever B's ERA for that outing is 0.00, even though he was not really effective.

 

Reliever A is charged with two runs, and maybe he should be, but he was just as effective, if not moreso than Reliever B.

 

For that reason, ERA while somewhat informative on a reliever, is not the best way to judge one. It's certainly not as reliable a metric for a reliever as it is for a starter.

[goonys evil twin]

Why is ERA a flawed stat for relievers? Not trying to start an argument, I'm just curious as to why you think this.

 

In short, other relievers often control what becomes of the runners you put on base, while a lot of the runners you let score might technically go on somebody else's ERA.

 

All a pitcher can do is keep guys off the bases. Strike guys out, don't walk them, don't give up homers, and get lots of grounders. When you allow an 800 OPS, and have a 1.48 WHIP, you just aren't pitching all that effectively.

 

 

FYI, I'm not saying he was terrible or anything, he was a mixed bag, which is what happens with most relievers.

Edited October 3, 2006 by goony's evil twin

[frostwyrm]

I'm very pessimistic about Eyre. I think he's most likely going to stink up the joint in 2007. Howry was pretty good but also very expensive.

[soccer10k]

Why is ERA a flawed stat for relievers? Not trying to start an argument, I'm just curious as to why you think this.

 

In short, other relievers often control what becomes of the runners you put on base, while a lot of the runners you let score might technically go on somebody else's ERA.

 

All a pitcher can do is keep guys off the bases. Strike guys out, don't walk them, don't give up homers, and get lots of grounders. When you allow an 800 OPS, and have a 1.48 WHIP, you just aren't pitching all that effectively.

 

 

FYI, I'm not saying he was terrible or anything, he was a mixed bag, which is what happens with most relievers.

 

Ok. So with a high OPSA and a high WHIP but a low ERA, could it be said that he likely allowed more inherited runners to score than the average reliever? Is there a stat out there that tracks what percentage of inherited runners are allowed to score by relievers?

[goonys evil twin]

Ok. So with a high OPSA and a high WHIP but a low ERA, could it be said that he likely allowed more inherited runners to score than the average reliever? Is there a stat out there that tracks what percentage of inherited runners are allowed to score by relievers?

 

Pretty sure, though I don't have it offhand.

 

I would say he might have given up a few more inherited runners, but he also was saved by others preventing his runners from scoring.

 

You come in and strike out 1, walk 1, and then give way to somebody else who gets 2 outs, and it looks like you did a great job. But you allowed half the runners you faced to reach base.

[Rob]

Ok. So with a high OPSA and a high WHIP but a low ERA, could it be said that he likely allowed more inherited runners to score than the average reliever? Is there a stat out there that tracks what percentage of inherited runners are allowed to score by relievers?

 

Pretty sure, though I don't have it offhand.

 

I would say he might have given up a few more inherited runners, but he also was saved by others preventing his runners from scoring.

 

You come in and strike out 1, walk 1, and then give way to somebody else who gets 2 outs, and it looks like you did a great job. But you allowed half the runners you faced to reach base.

 

BP estimates he kept 2 more runs from scoring than expected, but that the relievers behind him saved him about 7 and a half runs... nearly twice as many as the next guys.

 

In other words, he was pretty good at keeping inherited runners from scoring, but the rest of the pen was even better at keeping his from scoring.