Grace on 2007 Cubs and Dempster

[Mizzou]

Dempster was awful last year. Grace has a valid point, unless you believe that somehow Dempster got better over the offseason.

 

There's a lot of evidence to show that he was bad last year largely in part to how infrequently Dusty would use him due to the team being so bad. When he was used on an even somewhat regular basis, he did pretty well. His bad periods typically came after Dusty sat him at least 3 games or more.

Not that I'm disputing what you're saying, but what evidence would that be? I'd genuinely like to know.

[CubColtPacer]

Dempster was awful last year. Grace has a valid point, unless you believe that somehow Dempster got better over the offseason.

 

There's a lot of evidence to show that he was bad last year largely in part to how infrequently Dusty would use him due to the team being so bad. When he was used on an even somewhat regular basis, he did pretty well. His bad periods typically came after Dusty sat him at least 3 games or more.

Not that I'm disputing what you're saying, but what evidence would that be? I'd genuinely like to know.

 

Quickly going through the game logs-I looked at every Dempster outing that was after at least 3 days off-it counted an off day as 1 of those days but not the All-Star Break. With just this quick look, Dempster gave up 15 earned runs in 18 1/3 innings after this type of break, which meant he gave up 25 earned runs in the other 56 2/3 innings.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Dempster was awful last year. Grace has a valid point, unless you believe that somehow Dempster got better over the offseason.

 

There's a lot of evidence to show that he was bad last year largely in part to how infrequently Dusty would use him due to the team being so bad. When he was used on an even somewhat regular basis, he did pretty well. His bad periods typically came after Dusty sat him at least 3 games or more.

Not that I'm disputing what you're saying, but what evidence would that be? I'd genuinely like to know.

 

It's hard to tell because ESPN doesn't have the info for 2005(well, compiled that is, I'm not about to go diving through game logs right now), but Dempster was awful on 3+ days of rest last year, and he threw almost 1/3 of his innings in that situation. With more regular usage those gaps between outings wouldn't happen. Of course, last year Dempster was also awful on 0 days rest, so take it FWIW.

[CubColtPacer]

Dempster was awful last year. Grace has a valid point, unless you believe that somehow Dempster got better over the offseason.

 

There's a lot of evidence to show that he was bad last year largely in part to how infrequently Dusty would use him due to the team being so bad. When he was used on an even somewhat regular basis, he did pretty well. His bad periods typically came after Dusty sat him at least 3 games or more.

Not that I'm disputing what you're saying, but what evidence would that be? I'd genuinely like to know.

 

It's hard to tell because ESPN doesn't have the info for 2005(well, compiled that is, I'm not about to go diving through game logs right now), but Dempster was awful on 3+ days of rest last year, and he threw almost 1/3 of his innings in that situation. With more regular usage those gaps between outings wouldn't happen. Of course, last year Dempster was also awful on 0 days rest, so take it FWIW.

 

I'm less worried about the 0 days rest-he was pretty good on that at the start of the season, and a decent amount of the damage in that was in August and September, which Dempster said he just kind of gave up and wasn't pitching hard during that time.

 

Unfortunately, looking through 2005, Dempster was very good on 3+ days rest, only giving up runs in one outing, and that outing was not a save situation.

[Illini Iceman]

In a less stupid universe the best reliever on a baseball team would be a "designated fireman" who would pitch in the most crucial situations and the closer concept would never have been invented.

 

I'm not sure I agree with you that the closer concept should never have been invented. There is still a mental toughness about closing out the 9th inning that some relievers simply can't handle. Now, this doesn't have to be your best reliever, and it's probably preferable if it isn't-but a closer by committee usually only works IMO if you have multiple people who could be closers by themselves instead of going to a committee because you have no one who could be a closer by themselves.

 

For the Cubs, if Dempster can bounce back he's pretty good for the role. He's not the team's best reliever, but he does have the ability to be a closer, which allows us to bring in our ace relivers like Howry and Eyre in key situations.

 

A lot of the pressure of pitching the 9th has been artificially created by the closer/save construct. Ridiculous as it is the save is a highly regarded stat and careers and tons of money can be made by compiling a large number of saves. That's where the pressure comes from. If you take away the save as a stat and discard the closer concept then the 9th is not such a big deal anymore.

 

So if I understand this correctly, your theory is that the pressure on 9th inning situations comes not from the team being so close to winning and only needing a few outs to finish the game, but instead from guys knowing they need to get the save in order to earn a big contract?

In other words, if it weren't for personal stats, guys would stroll out to the mound in the 9th and not care whether they secure the win or blow the game?