dempster article

[Balsa]

I would like to make a few corrections regarding Dempster.

 

He got plenty of work last year. The problem was it was sporadic and rarely was it ever to actually protect a lead.

 

I'm pulling for him to do well this year. The pen should be a strength with a better starting rotation.

 

I too would like to make a correction. The perception that he pitched much better in 2005 than 2006 is quite incorrect. Actually his WHIP was similar (1.43 vs 1.51) as well as his K/BB (1.82 vs 1.86). The real difference between 2005 Dempster and 2006 Dempster was "clutch". In 2005 he had an incredible 77.5 LOB% as opposed to 63.3% in 2006. Now the question is, which one of those is the abberation. Well, probably both. In 2005 he allowed 131 runners for an expected runs allowed of 44 (as opposed to actually allowing 35 runs). In 2006 he allowed 113 runners for an expected runs allowed of 38 (as opposed to actually allowing 47, although only 40 were earned). Dempster probably isnt going to be as bad as he was last year, but allowing so many baserunners, I'm not optimistic for a repeat of 2005. Even if he would have allowed 38 runs last year and assuming conservatively that 7 of them were unearned, his ERA would have been 3.72. Still not great for a closer, but probably a fair projection.

But it's better to have him be a closer than designated our best bullpen pitcher right?

[nilodnayr]

I would like to make a few corrections regarding Dempster.

 

He got plenty of work last year. The problem was it was sporadic and rarely was it ever to actually protect a lead.

 

I'm pulling for him to do well this year. The pen should be a strength with a better starting rotation.

 

I too would like to make a correction. The perception that he pitched much better in 2005 than 2006 is quite incorrect. Actually his WHIP was similar (1.43 vs 1.51) as well as his K/BB (1.82 vs 1.86). The real difference between 2005 Dempster and 2006 Dempster was "clutch". In 2005 he had an incredible 77.5 LOB% as opposed to 63.3% in 2006. Now the question is, which one of those is the abberation. Well, probably both. In 2005 he allowed 131 runners for an expected runs allowed of 44 (as opposed to actually allowing 35 runs). In 2006 he allowed 113 runners for an expected runs allowed of 38 (as opposed to actually allowing 47, although only 40 were earned). Dempster probably isnt going to be as bad as he was last year, but allowing so many baserunners, I'm not optimistic for a repeat of 2005. Even if he would have allowed 38 runs last year and assuming conservatively that 7 of them were unearned, his ERA would have been 3.72. Still not great for a closer, but probably a fair projection.

But it's better to have him be a closer than designated our best bullpen pitcher right?

 

I can't remember the time the cubs went into a season with the ability to designate some one as the best bullpen pitcher. I sure hope we have better bullpen pitchers than him next year, regardless of whether they pitch the 7th, 8th, or 9th.

[mg420]

I would like to make a few corrections regarding Dempster.

 

He got plenty of work last year. The problem was it was sporadic and rarely was it ever to actually protect a lead.

 

I'm pulling for him to do well this year. The pen should be a strength with a better starting rotation.

 

I too would like to make a correction. The perception that he pitched much better in 2005 than 2006 is quite incorrect. Actually his WHIP was similar (1.43 vs 1.51) as well as his K/BB (1.82 vs 1.86). The real difference between 2005 Dempster and 2006 Dempster was "clutch". In 2005 he had an incredible 77.5 LOB% as opposed to 63.3% in 2006. Now the question is, which one of those is the abberation. Well, probably both. In 2005 he allowed 131 runners for an expected runs allowed of 44 (as opposed to actually allowing 35 runs). In 2006 he allowed 113 runners for an expected runs allowed of 38 (as opposed to actually allowing 47, although only 40 were earned). Dempster probably isnt going to be as bad as he was last year, but allowing so many baserunners, I'm not optimistic for a repeat of 2005. Even if he would have allowed 38 runs last year and assuming conservatively that 7 of them were unearned, his ERA would have been 3.72. Still not great for a closer, but probably a fair projection.

 

how is having a 77.5% LOB as opposed to a 63.3% LOB and a 1.89 era compared to a 4.8 era not pitching much better?

[nilodnayr]

I would like to make a few corrections regarding Dempster.

 

He got plenty of work last year. The problem was it was sporadic and rarely was it ever to actually protect a lead.

 

I'm pulling for him to do well this year. The pen should be a strength with a better starting rotation.

 

I too would like to make a correction. The perception that he pitched much better in 2005 than 2006 is quite incorrect. Actually his WHIP was similar (1.43 vs 1.51) as well as his K/BB (1.82 vs 1.86). The real difference between 2005 Dempster and 2006 Dempster was "clutch". In 2005 he had an incredible 77.5 LOB% as opposed to 63.3% in 2006. Now the question is, which one of those is the abberation. Well, probably both. In 2005 he allowed 131 runners for an expected runs allowed of 44 (as opposed to actually allowing 35 runs). In 2006 he allowed 113 runners for an expected runs allowed of 38 (as opposed to actually allowing 47, although only 40 were earned). Dempster probably isnt going to be as bad as he was last year, but allowing so many baserunners, I'm not optimistic for a repeat of 2005. Even if he would have allowed 38 runs last year and assuming conservatively that 7 of them were unearned, his ERA would have been 3.72. Still not great for a closer, but probably a fair projection.

 

how is having a 77.5% LOB as opposed to a 63.3% LOB and a 1.89 era compared to a 4.8 era not pitching much better?

 

Because it all was a matter of WHEN players got on base, rather than IF they got on base that was the difference. Like I said, his WHIP, K rate, BB rate, HR rate were fairly similar. His FIP was only .28 higher in 2006 than 2005. Like I said the real difference was "clutch".

[SouthSideRyan]

I don't think it's fair to look at Dempster's numbers as a whole from '05 rather than just his relief work. Dempster as a reliever '05 had a much better H/9 and HR/9 than Dempster '06.

[nilodnayr]

I don't think it's fair to look at Dempster's numbers as a whole from '05 rather than just his relief work. Dempster as a reliever '05 had a much better H/9 and HR/9 than Dempster '06.

 

I was only talking 2005 as a whole, which may not be fair, but isnt exactly unfair. His rates were better as a reliever only, but only enough to get him a component ERA of 2.82 as opposed to 4.33 from this year. Take defense out of the equation and you further see similarity. His 2005 DIPS was 3.10 as a reliever as opposed to 3.72 in 2006. His regular ERA is extremely misleading in both years. My point is, don't expect 2005 Dempster, but don't expect 2006 Dempster.

[oldstyle81]

i really hope Wood closes if healthy, he was truly lights out out of the bullpen in 2005.

[nilodnayr]

i really hope Wood closes if healthy, he was truly lights out out of the bullpen in 2005.

 

The issue is whether or not he can go on back to back days. I think they cubs will consider it if around midseason if Dempster is getting roughed up. If Dempster has value on the market, I would trade him no, use Howry in the closers role and evaluate Wood's ability to take over (if needed) around mid-season. If Dempster isn't going to get you any value and his salary isnt going to stop you from acquiring whoever you wanted to acquire (and it seems as though thats the case), then theres no point in trading him. Wuertz should be the closer eventually anyway.

[cheapseats]

I would like to make a few corrections regarding Dempster.

 

He got plenty of work last year. The problem was it was sporadic and rarely was it ever to actually protect a lead.

 

I'm pulling for him to do well this year. The pen should be a strength with a better starting rotation.

 

I too would like to make a correction. The perception that he pitched much better in 2005 than 2006 is quite incorrect. Actually his WHIP was similar (1.43 vs 1.51) as well as his K/BB (1.82 vs 1.86). The real difference between 2005 Dempster and 2006 Dempster was "clutch". In 2005 he had an incredible 77.5 LOB% as opposed to 63.3% in 2006. Now the question is, which one of those is the abberation. Well, probably both. In 2005 he allowed 131 runners for an expected runs allowed of 44 (as opposed to actually allowing 35 runs). In 2006 he allowed 113 runners for an expected runs allowed of 38 (as opposed to actually allowing 47, although only 40 were earned). Dempster probably isnt going to be as bad as he was last year, but allowing so many baserunners, I'm not optimistic for a repeat of 2005. Even if he would have allowed 38 runs last year and assuming conservatively that 7 of them were unearned, his ERA would have been 3.72. Still not great for a closer, but probably a fair projection.

 

Yep.

 

Also:

 

.286 .394 .401 .795

.218 .296 .290 .586

 

Those are his three year splits against lefties and righties.

 

Dempster, like Jacque Jones, should never, ever face tough lefties.