Lou on Dempster as closer

[KaiserCesar]

I generally don't like the save and blown save stat, but the ERA and peripherals tell you that Dempster may not have what it takes this coming season. There will likely be more save opportunities, and whoever your closer ends up being is going to need a day off when they have the lead. Dempster would be ideal to step in against 3 righties if Wood, Wuertz or whoever aren't 100% to go that day or need a day off before a bigger series.

 

Also, different save situations have different demands. For 3-4 run leads, I'd be more willing to go to Dempster and save the "closer" aka best reliever for high liverage situations. If a lefty heavy spot in the lineup ends up coming up, you'll probably have one of the 3 lefties in the pen. Not quite a closer by committee, since I'd like to have 1 guy do all 1-2 run close games, but there needs to be some discretion.

[mul21]

I'd love to be suprised and see Dempster come back to form, but I'm struggling to find closers who collapsed and then returned to form so quickly -- within half a season.

 

I know Mesa, but he took years.

 

Well you'd have to look at teams that had a 96 loss season and then spend $300 million in the offseason after that. This case is unique.

 

What does the W-L record and offseason spending have to do with Dempster's struggles and possibilities of returning to form?

 

Number of save opportunities. Number of times Dempster was not allowed to pitch for days on end. Remember we've all talked about this before. Adding $300 million worth of players also raises the regularity Dempster will be used because they will be leading in more ballgames. . And an overall higher confidence in all the players because they KNOW they are much improved.

 

This is exactly how I feel. I think the lack of usage coupled with Dempster's already not so great control led to a lack of confidence in his pitches when he did get out there and he got roughed up. He was absolutely fine the year before when he got regular work and had his confidence riding high. I think more opportunities and the new season should be all he needs to find his groove. I hope.

[A New Era]

I'd love to be suprised and see Dempster come back to form, but I'm struggling to find closers who collapsed and then returned to form so quickly -- within half a season.

 

I know Mesa, but he took years.

 

Well you'd have to look at teams that had a 96 loss season and then spend $300 million in the offseason after that. This case is unique.

 

What does the W-L record and offseason spending have to do with Dempster's struggles and possibilities of returning to form?

 

Number of save opportunities. Number of times Dempster was not allowed to pitch for days on end. Remember we've all talked about this before. Adding $300 million worth of players also raises the regularity Dempster will be used because they will be leading in more ballgames. . And an overall higher confidence in all the players because they KNOW they are much improved.

 

This is exactly how I feel. I think the lack of usage coupled with Dempster's already not so great control led to a lack of confidence in his pitches when he did get out there and he got roughed up. He was absolutely fine the year before when he got regular work and had his confidence riding high. I think more opportunities and the new season should be all he needs to find his groove. I hope.

 

Right. Or in other words, let's call Dempster our closer now. And give him a chance to prove himself again before we start looking foward to Wood taking his spot. Because if Dempster works out well, then you have "super wood" for those situations in the 7th and 8th when you NEED to get somebody out. It makes our team that much stronger if all works out well.

[Guest]

This is a catch 22 for the Cubs. If Dempster proves that 2006 was the fluke and not 2005, then he's harder to trade, unless the Cubs are out of it. But if Dempster proves that 2005 was the fluke not 2006, he becomes impossible to trade, considering his production and cost. And seeing as there isn't a spot in the rotation, or the pen, if Demp fails as closer, you would almost have to considering dropping Dempster, and eating his contract, ala Diamonbacks did with Ortiz.

 

I do believe KW is going to be the closer of the Cubs, but I rather him use 2007 as a season to get his feet wet as a reliever, and learn the nuisances of pitching out of the bullpen. If Dempster can't close, I prefer to give the job to Howry, as a stopgap for the rest of the season. But I am hoping Dempster does a good job as closer, and makes this topic MOOT.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

This is a catch 22 for the Cubs. If Dempster proves that 2006 was the fluke and not 2005, then he's harder to trade, unless the Cubs are out of it. But if Dempster proves that 2005 was the fluke not 2006, he becomes impossible to trade, considering his production and cost. And seeing as there isn't a spot in the rotation, or the pen, if Demp fails as closer, you would almost have to considering dropping Dempster, and eating his contract, ala Diamonbacks did with Ortiz.

 

I do believe KW is going to be the closer of the Cubs, but I rather him use 2007 as a season to get his feet wet as a reliever, and learn the nuisances of pitching out of the bullpen. If Dempster can't close, I prefer to give the job to Howry, as a stopgap for the rest of the season. But I am hoping Dempster does a good job as closer, and makes this topic MOOT.

 

If he does poorly and is dropped from closer, the Cubs might look to make him a starter again next season.

[Guest]

This is a catch 22 for the Cubs. If Dempster proves that 2006 was the fluke and not 2005, then he's harder to trade, unless the Cubs are out of it. But if Dempster proves that 2005 was the fluke not 2006, he becomes impossible to trade, considering his production and cost. And seeing as there isn't a spot in the rotation, or the pen, if Demp fails as closer, you would almost have to considering dropping Dempster, and eating his contract, ala Diamonbacks did with Ortiz.

 

I do believe KW is going to be the closer of the Cubs, but I rather him use 2007 as a season to get his feet wet as a reliever, and learn the nuisances of pitching out of the bullpen. If Dempster can't close, I prefer to give the job to Howry, as a stopgap for the rest of the season. But I am hoping Dempster does a good job as closer, and makes this topic MOOT.

 

If he does poorly and is dropped from closer, the Cubs might look to make him a starter again next season.

 

There is NO ROOM for Dempster.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

This is a catch 22 for the Cubs. If Dempster proves that 2006 was the fluke and not 2005, then he's harder to trade, unless the Cubs are out of it. But if Dempster proves that 2005 was the fluke not 2006, he becomes impossible to trade, considering his production and cost. And seeing as there isn't a spot in the rotation, or the pen, if Demp fails as closer, you would almost have to considering dropping Dempster, and eating his contract, ala Diamonbacks did with Ortiz.

 

I do believe KW is going to be the closer of the Cubs, but I rather him use 2007 as a season to get his feet wet as a reliever, and learn the nuisances of pitching out of the bullpen. If Dempster can't close, I prefer to give the job to Howry, as a stopgap for the rest of the season. But I am hoping Dempster does a good job as closer, and makes this topic MOOT.

 

If he does poorly and is dropped from closer, the Cubs might look to make him a starter again next season.

 

There is NO ROOM for Dempster.

 

Not here, maybe. Given how much pitching went for in free agency, there should be a market for Dempster via trade.

[CuseCubFan69]

This is a catch 22 for the Cubs. If Dempster proves that 2006 was the fluke and not 2005, then he's harder to trade, unless the Cubs are out of it. But if Dempster proves that 2005 was the fluke not 2006, he becomes impossible to trade, considering his production and cost. And seeing as there isn't a spot in the rotation, or the pen, if Demp fails as closer, you would almost have to considering dropping Dempster, and eating his contract, ala Diamonbacks did with Ortiz.

 

I do believe KW is going to be the closer of the Cubs, but I rather him use 2007 as a season to get his feet wet as a reliever, and learn the nuisances of pitching out of the bullpen. If Dempster can't close, I prefer to give the job to Howry, as a stopgap for the rest of the season. But I am hoping Dempster does a good job as closer, and makes this topic MOOT.

 

If he does poorly and is dropped from closer, the Cubs might look to make him a starter again next season.

 

There is NO ROOM for Dempster.

 

Not here, maybe. Given how much pitching went for in free agency, there should be a market for Dempster via trade.

 

Yep, making a player as attractive as possible is always a good thing. I can't say it enough but it's so nice to have quality options like the Cubs have right now, especially in the pen.

[soapy]

Couple of things: I definitely agree with the line of thinking that your best reliever doesn't necessarily need to be your closer. The best reliever should be brought in at the most important part of the game. Whether that's coming in to face the heart of the opposition's order in the 7th inning with men on base, or coming in to protect a one run lead in the 9th.

 

Secondly, I think people need to consider the very real possibility that 2005 was the anomaly for Dempster, not 2006. I don't think he's ever been as good as he was in 2005, and may not be again. I'm not too comfortable just notching it up as a "lack of confidence". That doesn't mean I don't think he can be an effective closer. I'm just not getting my hopes up.

[Warpticon]

I don't see how that's going to work. Either he's the closer or he isn't; closer by committee is not a good thing. That's why I can see potential issues if he fails--not about filling the closer's role, because there are other guys who can do it, but about Dempster's role if he can't...

 

I think Norm Charlton, Randy Myers, and Rob Dibble might disagree with you.

[CubColtPacer]

I don't see how that's going to work. Either he's the closer or he isn't; closer by committee is not a good thing. That's why I can see potential issues if he fails--not about filling the closer's role, because there are other guys who can do it, but about Dempster's role if he can't...

 

I think Norm Charlton, Randy Myers, and Rob Dibble might disagree with you.

 

Those 3 did have somewhat of a closer by committee, but except for 1 year, there was a clear preference on closer-it just changed from year to year.

 

1990

Myers-31 saves

Dibble-11

Charlton-2

Layana-2

 

1991

Dibble-31

Myers-6

Power-3

2 others with 1

 

1992

Charlton-26

Dibble-25

Bankhead-1

 

By 1993, Charlton and Myers were gone. The Reds never really had a 3 way closer by committee-1 year they went with a true 2-headed closer by committee, but the other years they had a clear closer and went to another option not nearly as often.

[Guest]

Not here, maybe. Given how much pitching went for in free agency, there should be a market for Dempster via trade.

 

Hence the "Catch 22." Dempster would have to pitched solidly (say high 3/low to mid 4, with a whip in the 1.15-1.25) to have any value.

 

Or maybe come June, maybe the Cubs could convince the Reds to take Dempster for whatever.

[BigbadB]

I think Dempster will be just fine.

[waffle]

don't closers seem to be just about the most random players to predict outcome for? Doesn't it seem like every year there is at least 5-6 guys who are decent closers who A) have never done it before or B) have been inconsistent in the past? Is it just me?

 

I think Dempster has a chance to return to form simply because the team he is trying to close for is quite a bit better.

 

Closers seem to feed on confidence as much as they do on their actual pitches. Rod Beck was a good closer with an 85 mph fastball.

 

Again, the relationship between experience and stuff for closer to their actual performance seems like black arts to me.. mysterious and hard to understand.

[biittner77]

I don't see how that's going to work. Either he's the closer or he isn't; closer by committee is not a good thing. That's why I can see potential issues if he fails--not about filling the closer's role, because there are other guys who can do it, but about Dempster's role if he can't...

 

I think Norm Charlton, Randy Myers, and Rob Dibble might disagree with you.

 

Who was the manager of that Reds team that used this approach? That's right, it was some guy named Lou something.

 

Closer by committee can work if the committee itself has the talent.

[soapy]

don't closers seem to be just about the most random players to predict outcome for? Doesn't it seem like every year there is at least 5-6 guys who are decent closers who A) have never done it before or B) have been inconsistent in the past? Is it just me?

 

I think Dempster has a chance to return to form simply because the team he is trying to close for is quite a bit better.

 

Closers seem to feed on confidence as much as they do on their actual pitches. Rod Beck was a good closer with an 85 mph fastball.

 

Again, the relationship between experience and stuff for closer to their actual performance seems like black arts to me.. mysterious and hard to understand.

 

I would say that one of the big reasons that relievers in general (not just closers) are so inconsistant from year to year is that they're often just not that great. Most relievers probably failed as starters at some point and ended up as a reliever. Closers are no different, for the most part. They're numbers can and ofter do fluctuate a great deal from year to year.

 

That's part of the reason why some people were so up in arms about Hendry give the contracts he gave to Eyre, Howry, etc.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

Not here, maybe. Given how much pitching went for in free agency, there should be a market for Dempster via trade.

 

Hence the "Catch 22." Dempster would have to pitched solidly (say high 3/low to mid 4, with a whip in the 1.15-1.25) to have any value.

 

Or maybe come June, maybe the Cubs could convince the Reds to take Dempster for whatever.

 

Not necessarily. He makes less than Jason Marquis, he'd be a viable trade option unless he completely tanks.

[goonys evil twin]

Not here, maybe. Given how much pitching went for in free agency, there should be a market for Dempster via trade.

 

Hence the "Catch 22." Dempster would have to pitched solidly (say high 3/low to mid 4, with a whip in the 1.15-1.25) to have any value.

 

Or maybe come June, maybe the Cubs could convince the Reds to take Dempster for whatever.

 

Not necessarily. He makes less than Jason Marquis, he'd be a viable trade option unless he completely tanks.

 

He could have a 4.50 ERA and 1.35 WHP and still have trade value. The key is keeping his save % reasonable and maintaing his stuff. Lots of GMs will look for a "proven closer".

[NCCubFan]

I don't see how that's going to work. Either he's the closer or he isn't; closer by committee is not a good thing. That's why I can see potential issues if he fails--not about filling the closer's role, because there are other guys who can do it, but about Dempster's role if he can't...

 

I think Norm Charlton, Randy Myers, and Rob Dibble might disagree with you.

 

Who was the manager of that Reds team that used this approach? That's right, it was some guy named Lou something.

I don't remember Lou Boudreau managing the Reds. :lol:

[Warpticon]

I don't see how that's going to work. Either he's the closer or he isn't; closer by committee is not a good thing. That's why I can see potential issues if he fails--not about filling the closer's role, because there are other guys who can do it, but about Dempster's role if he can't...

 

I think Norm Charlton, Randy Myers, and Rob Dibble might disagree with you.

 

Those 3 did have somewhat of a closer by committee, but except for 1 year, there was a clear preference on closer-it just changed from year to year.

 

1990

Myers-31 saves

Dibble-11

Charlton-2

Layana-2

 

1991

Dibble-31

Myers-6

Power-3

2 others with 1

 

1992

Charlton-26

Dibble-25

Bankhead-1

 

By 1993, Charlton and Myers were gone. The Reds never really had a 3 way closer by committee-1 year they went with a true 2-headed closer by committee, but the other years they had a clear closer and went to another option not nearly as often.

 

Which really is beside the point. Did it, or did it not work?

[CubColtPacer]

I don't see how that's going to work. Either he's the closer or he isn't; closer by committee is not a good thing. That's why I can see potential issues if he fails--not about filling the closer's role, because there are other guys who can do it, but about Dempster's role if he can't...

 

I think Norm Charlton, Randy Myers, and Rob Dibble might disagree with you.

 

Those 3 did have somewhat of a closer by committee, but except for 1 year, there was a clear preference on closer-it just changed from year to year.

 

1990

Myers-31 saves

Dibble-11

Charlton-2

Layana-2

 

1991

Dibble-31

Myers-6

Power-3

2 others with 1

 

1992

Charlton-26

Dibble-25

Bankhead-1

 

By 1993, Charlton and Myers were gone. The Reds never really had a 3 way closer by committee-1 year they went with a true 2-headed closer by committee, but the other years they had a clear closer and went to another option not nearly as often.

 

Which really is beside the point. Did it, or did it not work?

 

For one year-yes, it did.