Cubs need a closer

[CaliforniaRaisin]

Alfonseca is proven

 

He's got a finger up on the competition.

 

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b174/kanumber08/DSC00621.jpg

 

Wow, I've never actually seen the 6th finger.

 

Wow.

[soccer10k]

Alfonseca is proven

 

He's got a finger up on the competition.

 

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b174/kanumber08/DSC00621.jpg

 

Wow, I've never actually seen the 6th finger.

 

Wow.

 

I haven't either. Thank you for posting that.

[Backtobanks]

With the Tigers signing Jose Mesa yesterday, it reminded me of the uncertainty that revolves around the Cubs, and the fact that we really don't have anyone reliable to close games. Ryan Dumpster? No thanks, trade him! And I'm not comfortable with just handing the role over to Wood, Howry, or Eyre. I would like to see the Cubs pick up a veteran closer who has done this kind of thing before. Are there any good closers left, still on the market?

 

I absolutely do not want the Cubs wasting precious resources on a "closer." The cash and talent spent to acquire somebody to do that job wouldn't be near as much of an upgrade (if at all) in the bullpen than it would be if it were spent on SS or CF.

 

Wood

Howry

Eyre

Dempster

Ohman

Wuertz

 

That's a freaking stacked bullpen.

 

(relievers not listed in order of talent, but in the likely hierarchy Lou sees them in... Wuertz for closer, w00t!)

 

how is that a stacked bullpen? besides wood, it's the same pen they had last year, and it wasn't anything special.

 

There are enough people better than Novoa that he becomes relegated to towel boy?

 

Most of the criticisms of our pen as a whole last year came about because of guys like Rusch, Ryu, Guzman, etc... coming in in long relief and giving up a good deal of runs. The core of the pen is very solid, and if we're smart enough to keep Wuertz up all year that's just icing on the cake.

 

When you are starting AA pitchers in 60-70% of the games, your bullpen is not going to be as efficient as it should be. The bullpen is solid as long as they don't have to pitch 5-6 innings every game. If the starters can consistently get through 6 innings or more, the Cubs will have a tremendous bullpen.

[BigbadB]

When you are starting AA pitchers in 60-70% of the games, your bullpen is not going to be as efficient as it should be. The bullpen is solid as long as they don't have to pitch 5-6 innings every game. If the starters can consistently get through 6 innings or more, the Cubs will have a tremendous bullpen.

 

Agreed. The bullpen guys need regular work. Not overworked or underworked. Regular work.

[XZero771679666304]

When you are starting AA pitchers in 60-70% of the games, your bullpen is not going to be as efficient as it should be. The bullpen is solid as long as they don't have to pitch 5-6 innings every game. If the starters can consistently get through 6 innings or more, the Cubs will have a tremendous bullpen.

 

Agreed. The bullpen guys need regular work. Not overworked or underworked. Regular work.

 

Yeah, the biggest problem with the bullpen last year was the rotation.

[KingCubsFan]

With the bullpen we have, the role of closer doesn't even have to exist. Piniella could just throw out whoever he thinks should go that particular inning based on matchups, who needs rest, who needs work, etc, and I think this season's 9th inning leads will hold up just fine.

This never works in practice

[cheapseats]

With the bullpen we have, the role of closer doesn't even have to exist. Piniella could just throw out whoever he thinks should go that particular inning based on matchups, who needs rest, who needs work, etc, and I think this season's 9th inning leads will hold up just fine.

This never works in practice

 

Except for the 1985 Cardinals, who had four different guys with four or more saves and none with more than 19.

 

Except for the 2005 White Sox, who got four or more saves from four different pitchers (Hermanson, Takatsu, Jenks, Marte). From May 11 to August 24, Marte was brought in about 1 out of every 6 times a manager normally brings in his closer. From August 25 to September 13, Ozzie Guillen used three different pitchers (Jenks, Marte, and Hermanson) in save situations, with Marte getting 1 out of every 3 calls.

 

I really don't care if one guy is called "the closer" or not. But I blame Tony Larussa for the way modern "closers" are used, only working the 9th inning in save situations. The best reliever should be used when it most benefits the team, and sometimes that would be the 8th inning or even the 7th inning if that's when the opponent's heart of the order is batting.

 

If I had Mariano Rivera, I'd rather use him against Pujols, Edmonds, and Rolen than save him for Juan Encarnacion, Aaron Miles, and Yadier Molina.

 

Was it Joe Buck who started preaching the idea that the last 3 outs are the toughest? If so, it's just one more reason to hate Joe Buck.

[KingCubsFan]

With the bullpen we have, the role of closer doesn't even have to exist. Piniella could just throw out whoever he thinks should go that particular inning based on matchups, who needs rest, who needs work, etc, and I think this season's 9th inning leads will hold up just fine.

This never works in practice

 

Except for the 1985 Cardinals, who had four different guys with four or more saves and none with more than 19.

 

Except for the 2005 White Sox, who got four or more saves from four different pitchers (Hermanson, Takatsu, Jenks, Marte). From May 11 to August 24, Marte was brought in about 1 out of every 6 times a manager normally brings in his closer. From August 25 to September 13, Ozzie Guillen used three different pitchers (Jenks, Marte, and Hermanson) in save situations, with Marte getting 1 out of every 3 calls.

 

I really don't care if one guy is called "the closer" or not. But I blame Tony Larussa for the way modern "closers" are used, only working the 9th inning in save situations. The best reliever should be used when it most benefits the team, and sometimes that would be the 8th inning or even the 7th inning if that's when the opponent's heart of the order is batting.

 

If I had Mariano Rivera, I'd rather use him against Pujols, Edmonds, and Rolen than save him for Juan Encarnacion, Aaron Miles, and Yadier Molina.

 

Was it Joe Buck who started preaching the idea that the last 3 outs are the toughest? If so, it's just one more reason to hate Joe Buck.

I don't know much about the '85 cardinals, but the White Sox 2005 season is a poor example. Just because numerous people got saves does not mean that the relievers did not have set roles. Takatsu started out as the closer, sucked, and got pulled. Hermanson then came in, succeeded, and then got injured. Jenks followed after that. Guillen didn't just go strictly by matchups all the time. Ask the Red Sox how successful it is to not have a set closer.

[cheapseats]

I don't know much about the '85 cardinals, but the White Sox 2005 season is a poor example.

 

Nope. Go back and look at the actual usage. Jenks didn't become a fulltime closer until halfway through September, and even when Hermanson took over for Takatsu, Marte was used in "closer situations" far more often than an ordinary setup man.

 

In fact, there are interviews with Kenny Williams in which he acknowledges that the club was using the bullpen in such a way, but he refused to call it "by committee" because of the negative connotations associated with it.

 

There's a whole article about the White Sox 2005 bullpen usage in the BP archives.

[KingCubsFan]

I don't know much about the '85 cardinals, but the White Sox 2005 season is a poor example.

 

Nope. Go back and look at the actual usage. Jenks didn't become a fulltime closer until halfway through September, and even when Hermanson took over for Takatsu, Marte was used in "closer situations" far more often than an ordinary setup man.

 

In fact, there are interviews with Kenny Williams in which he acknowledges that the club was using the bullpen in such a way, but he refused to call it "by committee" because of the negative connotations associated with it.

 

There's a whole article about the White Sox 2005 bullpen usage in the BP archives.

Marte had 4 saves the whole year. And Guillen made it very clear that, if it was all lefties, he would bring in Marte. That's a lot different than using a bullpen by committee

[Sweet Swinging Billy]

I've never been a fan of "closer by committee" but if it works out-- fine...but it usually doesn't. Guys need to know what their roles are. But the good thing is if Howry, Wood, Wuertz, or whoever doesn't work out, Hendry has plenty of time to bring someone else in. I agree that the Cubs need a good SS, CF, and they need to lock up Z...But to down play the importance of a good reliable closer is wrong. Who in their right mind wants a repeat of th '06 Season? Two years ago when Hawkins was struggling as our closer, Hendry should have addressed the problem then, and gone out and gotten someone who was proven. If we would have had a dependable closer in 2005, we would have made the playoffs.

[sherwood921]

I've never been a fan of "closer by committee" but if it works out-- fine...but it usually doesn't. Guys need to know what their roles are. But the good thing is if Howry, Wood, Wuertz, or whoever doesn't work out, Hendry has plenty of time to bring someone else in. I agree that the Cubs need a good SS, CF, and they need to lock up Z...But to down play the importance of a good reliable closer is wrong. Who in their right mind wants a repeat of th '06 Season? Two years ago when Hawkins was struggling as our closer, Hendry should have addressed the problem then, and gone out and gotten someone who was proven. If we would have had a dependable closer in 2005, we would have made the playoffs.

 

Our bullpen is fine, if anything we have too many pieces. Who would you like to see the Cubs overpay for exactly?

[cheapseats]

Marte had 4 saves the whole year. And Guillen made it very clear that, if it was all lefties, he would bring in Marte. That's a lot different than using a bullpen by committee

 

Again, there's a whole article about it, and Kenny Williams acknowledged the non-traditional bullpen usage.

 

Earlier you said "This never works in practice." Feel free to give an example other than the 2003 Red Sox.

[Sammy Sofa]

I've never been a fan of "closer by committee" but if it works out-- fine...but it usually doesn't. Guys need to know what their roles are. But the good thing is if Howry, Wood, Wuertz, or whoever doesn't work out, Hendry has plenty of time to bring someone else in. I agree that the Cubs need a good SS, CF, and they need to lock up Z...But to down play the importance of a good reliable closer is wrong. Who in their right mind wants a repeat of th '06 Season? Two years ago when Hawkins was struggling as our closer, Hendry should have addressed the problem then, and gone out and gotten someone who was proven. If we would have had a dependable closer in 2005, we would have made the playoffs.

 

Who would you suggest the Cubs attempt to get? Howry has had success as a closer and is projected to do so again if put into that role. Wuertz has been very impressive and ideally could also slide in there. Theoretically, Wood could be one of the most dominant closers of all time. It's even thought by quite a few that Dempster could succeed there again if used on a more regular, less Dusty-esque schedule. The Cubs have a ton of very good closing options, at least compared to most other teams. Who are you possibly suggesting the Cubs could get who is actually available and won't cost an arm and a leg and the rest of some good prospects to pick up? It's ludicrous to spend that much, money or trade-wise, on a spot on the team that ideally is beyond locked up by 4 different players.

[frostwyrm]

Must have bullpen over $25 mil per year. Must have closer.

[SouthSideRyan]

I've never been a fan of "closer by committee" but if it works out-- fine...but it usually doesn't. Guys need to know what their roles are. But the good thing is if Howry, Wood, Wuertz, or whoever doesn't work out, Hendry has plenty of time to bring someone else in. I agree that the Cubs need a good SS, CF, and they need to lock up Z...But to down play the importance of a good reliable closer is wrong. Who in their right mind wants a repeat of th '06 Season? Two years ago when Hawkins was struggling as our closer, Hendry should have addressed the problem then, and gone out and gotten someone who was proven. If we would have had a dependable closer in 2005, we would have made the playoffs.

 

Dempster blew 2 saves in '05 and the Cubs won both those games.

[soapy]

People always say that "closer by committee" (or whatever you want to call it) doesn't work and then point to the 2003 Red Sox as the example. But really, how often is this even tried? Are there other examples in recent history where this has been tried (with good relievers) and it didn't work? I can't think of any.

 

It just seems like one of those things that people have heard so many times that they just believe it. Kind of like, "good pitching always beats good hitting" or "defense wins championships".

[Ding Dong Johnson]

People always say that "closer by committee" (or whatever you want to call it) doesn't work and then point to the 2003 Red Sox as the example. But really, how often is this even tried? Are there other examples in recent history where this has been tried (with good relievers) and it didn't work? I can't think of any.

 

It just seems like one of those things that people have heard so many times that they just believe it. Kind of like, "good pitching always beats good hitting" or "defense wins championships".

 

"There's no such thing

Like a female with good looks who cooks and cleans"

[cheapseats]

People always say that "closer by committee" (or whatever you want to call it) doesn't work and then point to the 2003 Red Sox as the example. But really, how often is this even tried? Are there other examples in recent history where this has been tried (with good relievers) and it didn't work? I can't think of any.

 

It just seems like one of those things that people have heard so many times that they just believe it. Kind of like, "good pitching always beats good hitting" or "defense wins championships".

 

Exactly.

 

And the "closer by committee" approach of the Red Sox in 2003 was called a failure by sportswriters after the first two games.

 

When Latroy Hawkins struggled at the start of the 2005 season, no one said the idea of the traditional closer was a mistake.

[goonys evil twin]

People always say that "closer by committee" (or whatever you want to call it) doesn't work and then point to the 2003 Red Sox as the example. But really, how often is this even tried? Are there other examples in recent history where this has been tried (with good relievers) and it didn't work? I can't think of any.

 

It just seems like one of those things that people have heard so many times that they just believe it. Kind of like, "good pitching always beats good hitting" or "defense wins championships".

 

Exactly.

 

And the "closer by committee" approach of the Red Sox in 2003 was called a failure by sportswriters after the first two games.

 

When Latroy Hawkins struggled at the start of the 2005 season, no one said the idea of the traditional closer was a mistake.

 

The most important thing is who you have in that committee. A closer by committee situation isn't going to work without good relievers. Boston's bullpen had the 3rd highest ERA in baseball in 2003. That's a product of not having enough good relievers, not who is pitching in the 9th.

[cheapseats]

People always say that "closer by committee" (or whatever you want to call it) doesn't work and then point to the 2003 Red Sox as the example. But really, how often is this even tried? Are there other examples in recent history where this has been tried (with good relievers) and it didn't work? I can't think of any.

 

It just seems like one of those things that people have heard so many times that they just believe it. Kind of like, "good pitching always beats good hitting" or "defense wins championships".

 

Exactly.

 

And the "closer by committee" approach of the Red Sox in 2003 was called a failure by sportswriters after the first two games.

 

When Latroy Hawkins struggled at the start of the 2005 season, no one said the idea of the traditional closer was a mistake.

 

The most important thing is who you have in that committee. A closer by committee situation isn't going to work without good relievers. Boston's bullpen had the 3rd highest ERA in baseball in 2003. That's a product of not having enough good relievers, not who is pitching in the 9th.

 

Yes, Boston got some horrible performances from their pen in 2003.

[baseball7897]

Marte had 4 saves the whole year. And Guillen made it very clear that, if it was all lefties, he would bring in Marte. That's a lot different than using a bullpen by committee

 

Again, there's a whole article about it, and Kenny Williams acknowledged the non-traditional bullpen usage.

 

Earlier you said "This never works in practice." Feel free to give an example other than the 2003 Red Sox.

 

2004 Chicago Cubs.

[Chocolate Milk]

I think we need to make a distinction here between a planned "Closer by Committee" and "We can't find a pitcher that doesn't suck to finish games."

[KatJ]

I think we need to make a distinction here between a planned "Closer by Committee" and "We can't find a pitcher that doesn't suck to finish games."

 

Exactly. How much of Dempster's suckage occurred because he didn't see enough work to close games to begin with?

 

Same deal with Eddie Guardado when he was with the Mariners.

[David]

I think we need to make a distinction here between a planned "Closer by Committee" and "We can't find a pitcher that doesn't suck to finish games."

 

Exactly. How much of Dempster's suckage occurred because he didn't see enough work to close games to begin with?

 

Same deal with Eddie Guardado when he was with the Mariners.

 

I think Ryan Dempster's suckage had a lot more to do with Ryan Dempster sucking than with his lack of consistent work.