Warren Brusstar

I'm so sick of seeing this nonsensical distinction. With the exception of today and the Sept. 14 game @ St.L, every single one of his blowups in "non-save situations" have come in high-leverage spots (i.e. tie games in the 9th or 10th inning). It's utterly absurd to think that Dempster's approach when pitching in a tie game in the 9th or 10th inning is different than it is with a 1 run lead in the ninth. He's been bad in all kinds of high-leverage spots and it's blissful ignorance to pretend like his failures in those situations are somehow irrelevant to whether he's the best option in a "save" situation. Yep. Dempster overall: .240/.319/.394/.713 Dempster close and late: .239/.325/.388/.713 Thank you. Wanna add that to the game thread too? Ryan Dempster should really thank Jerome Holtzman. It's only because of that absurd statistic that people somehow think Dempster has been anything other than a mediocre pitcher this season.

Well, except those will be save situations which he is good in. Which are those? It seems sort of silly to me that people think there's some sort of meaningful distinction between his relative success with 1, 2, and 3 run leads and his repeated failures in tie games. Do you think he pitches differently when the game is tied in the ninth inning than he does when it's a 1, 2, or 3 run lead in the ninth inning? The distinction is utterly absurd. Also, non-save situations aren't restricted to tie games as they include any lead over 3 runs. If you don't think a pitcher pitches differently with a big lead than he does with a 1 or 2 run lead you're crazy. If the actual facts were that Dempster had pitched poorly a number of times with an 8 run lead, your argument would make sense. That's not the case. Dempster's really poor games this season: April 22 v. StL: gave up 3 runs in a tie game in the 10th inning to lose May 17 @ NyM: gave up 5 runs after coming with 5-1 lead in the 9th Jun 10 @ Atl: gave up 3 runs to blow a 4-2 lead and lose 5-4 Aug 3 v. NYM: gave up 4 runs in the 9th after coming in to a 2-2 game Sept. 6 v. LAD: gave up 4 in the 9th to blow a 4-3 and lose 7-4 Sept. 14 v. StL: gave up 2 runs in the 9th with a 5-1 lead at StL Only 2 of those games were technically "save situations." But all but the Sept. 14 game were extremely high leverage spots. The Apr 22 and Aug 3 games were tie games in the 9th and 10th inning. The May 17 didn't start as a high-leverage game, but Dempster turned it into one quickly. It's merely coincidental that only two of his really bad games have come in "save" situations. If you think a pitcher pitches differently with a 1 or 2 run lead than he does in a tie game in the 9th or 10th inning, it's you who is crazy. You seem to have missed the part where soccer mentioned Dempster is supposed to come in with a 1-3 run lead. And in the regular season Dempster has blown 2 games so far. The games you posted backed up what soccer was saying. Do you think Dempster approaches his job differently with a one run lead than he does in a tie game? If so, how? And if not (and of course he doesn't), why would you treat those games differently?

Well, except those will be save situations which he is good in. Which are those? It seems sort of silly to me that people think there's some sort of meaningful distinction between his relative success with 1, 2, and 3 run leads and his repeated failures in tie games. Do you think he pitches differently when the game is tied in the ninth inning than he does when it's a 1, 2, or 3 run lead in the ninth inning? The distinction is utterly absurd. Also, non-save situations aren't restricted to tie games as they include any lead over 3 runs. If you don't think a pitcher pitches differently with a big lead than he does with a 1 or 2 run lead you're crazy. If the actual facts were that Dempster had pitched poorly a number of times with an 8 run lead, your argument would make sense. That's not the case. Dempster's really poor games this season: April 22 v. StL: gave up 3 runs in a tie game in the 10th inning to lose May 17 @ NyM: gave up 5 runs after coming with 5-1 lead in the 9th Jun 10 @ Atl: gave up 3 runs to blow a 4-2 lead and lose 5-4 Aug 3 v. NYM: gave up 4 runs in the 9th after coming in to a 2-2 game Sept. 6 v. LAD: gave up 4 in the 9th to blow a 4-3 and lose 7-4 Sept. 14 v. StL: gave up 2 runs in the 9th with a 5-1 lead at StL Only 2 of those games were technically "save situations." But all but the Sept. 14 game were extremely high leverage spots. The Apr 22 and Aug 3 games were tie games in the 9th and 10th inning. The May 17 didn't start as a high-leverage game, but Dempster turned it into one quickly. It's merely coincidental that only two of his really bad games have come in "save" situations. If you think a pitcher pitches differently with a 1 or 2 run lead than he does in a tie game in the 9th or 10th inning, it's you who is crazy. Coincidental or not, Dempster has been very good in save situations and bad in non-save situations. And this is over the whole year too. If a guy is very good in one situation and bad in another, why wouldn't you feel confident in him in the first situation. What are you going to tell me next, that Sean Marshall has been inconsistent this year? This is equivalent to arguing that Cliff Floyd is a better option with men in scoring position than Alfonso Soriano because "over the whole year" Floyd has performed significantly better with men in scoring position. I can't believe you don't see the absurdity of your argument. Please explain how Dempster would in any way approach his job differently when the game is tied as opposed to having a one run lead. Intentionally shrinking the sample size just to fit the conclusion you want to reach without any reason for doing so is just silly. Dempster certainly doesn't pitch differently in 1 run games than he does in tie games. So why would you treat those games separately?

Chris Young begs to differ.

I'm so sick of seeing this nonsensical distinction. With the exception of today and the Sept. 14 game @ St.L, every single one of his blowups in "non-save situations" have come in high-leverage spots (i.e. tie games in the 9th or 10th inning). It's utterly absurd to think that Dempster's approach when pitching in a tie game in the 9th or 10th inning is different than it is with a 1 run lead in the ninth. He's been bad in all kinds of high-leverage spots and it's blissful ignorance to pretend like his failures in those situations are somehow irrelevant to whether he's the best option in a "save" situation.

Well, except those will be save situations which he is good in. Which are those? It seems sort of silly to me that people think there's some sort of meaningful distinction between his relative success with 1, 2, and 3 run leads and his repeated failures in tie games. Do you think he pitches differently when the game is tied in the ninth inning than he does when it's a 1, 2, or 3 run lead in the ninth inning? The distinction is utterly absurd. Also, non-save situations aren't restricted to tie games as they include any lead over 3 runs. If you don't think a pitcher pitches differently with a big lead than he does with a 1 or 2 run lead you're crazy. If the actual facts were that Dempster had pitched poorly a number of times with an 8 run lead, your argument would make sense. That's not the case. Dempster's really poor games this season: April 22 v. StL: gave up 3 runs in a tie game in the 10th inning to lose May 17 @ NyM: gave up 5 runs after coming with 5-1 lead in the 9th Jun 10 @ Atl: gave up 3 runs to blow a 4-2 lead and lose 5-4 Aug 3 v. NYM: gave up 4 runs in the 9th after coming in to a 2-2 game Sept. 6 v. LAD: gave up 4 in the 9th to blow a 4-3 and lose 7-4 Sept. 14 v. StL: gave up 2 runs in the 9th with a 5-1 lead at StL Only 2 of those games were technically "save situations." But all but the Sept. 14 game were extremely high leverage spots. The Apr 22 and Aug 3 games were tie games in the 9th and 10th inning. The May 17 didn't start as a high-leverage game, but Dempster turned it into one quickly. It's merely coincidental that only two of his really bad games have come in "save" situations. If you think a pitcher pitches differently with a 1 or 2 run lead than he does in a tie game in the 9th or 10th inning, it's you who is crazy.

Well, except those will be save situations which he is good in. Which are those? It seems sort of silly to me that people think there's some sort of meaningful distinction between his relative success with 1, 2, and 3 run leads and his repeated failures in tie games. Do you think he pitches differently when the game is tied in the ninth inning than he does when it's a 1, 2, or 3 run lead in the ninth inning? The distinction is utterly absurd.

Prior to this, however, EVERY SINGLE ONE of his poor performances in "non-save situations" was in a high-leverage spot. So the notion that he only pitches poorly when the game isn't on the line is just a flat-out lie.

Or a Phillies loss. Or a Mets loss. Any of those three results in an Arizona v. Chicago series

http://www.desipio.com/images/media/milwaukee.mp3

Any playoff roster with 12 pitchers is absurd. You're only using 4 starters (so that should eliminate one pitcher at a minimum). Plus, you're playing 5 games over the course of 7 days. So there's plenty of time to rest pitchers, who should each be capable of pitching in every game of the series. More than 10 pitchers is unnecessary, but 12 is freaking ridiculous.

He hasn't used him out of the bulpen in a meaningful situation for a month. It's highly unlikely he's being considered for such a role now. Is Sam Fuld being considered for a post-season roster spot because he's playing today? I don't understand your logic.

90-70 isn't lucky. Best team in the NL, isn't lucky. People have said that for months, still wrong. Now, who is pitching for you guys Game 1, 2, 3? Assuming we meet up. 1: Webb vs -- 2: Davis vs -- 3: No idea vs. -- The DBacks have given up more runs than they've allowed. They're clearly a lucky ass team. Generally yes, but the DBacks are built to win close games. Probably the best 7-8-9 bullpen this side of the Padres (maybe better?). They have their holes (2-3-4-5 starters are not the best, but they mostly get the job done). Plus the backend of the DBacks rotation isn't even relevant in this discussion because I'm guessing it would be Webb, Davis, Livan, Webb, Davis. We beat Webb once this year, but hes still a tough matchup for our team. Davis is a lefty, and as you know you can throw stats away when we face lefties. Make no bones about it, the DBacks would be a very very tough matchup. I'm not sure we'll get Webb on three day's rest. I'm guessing we'll Owings in Game 4 and Webb in Game 5.

If Soto doesn't start in the playoffs, Piniella is interntionally hurting the team. This is ridiculous.

Why?! Is some sort of a senority factor at work here? For, if its based upon quality Froemming would be no where near a playoff series. He's cleary one of the worst, if not the worst Umpire in Baseball anyone with eyes can see that. Got to keep that crew away from San Diego after what happened last weekend. They're working the Padres/Brewers series, so I don't think MLB thinks it's an issue.

I wish that was true.

WHY?! Because they don't want him pitching in the NLCS on 8 days rest.

White Sox ended up backing in in 2005 too. Of course I'll be plesantly surprised if the Cubs win more than 1 playoff game, but anything can happen as long as you get there. They swept the final series in Cleveland though.

Lou loved his work in last year's postseason though. It all depends on whether Lou thinks he's seen enough. He keeps putting him out there which tells you Lou thinks Monroe is ready to help. In my view, he's still the best option in CF against a LHP. That says far more about the lack of any other credible option than it does about him, of course. I don't care how bad he's been in his limited sample with the Cubs; Jacque Jones should never, ever start against a LHP. Ever. (And for those of you ready to interject Pie into the conversation: v. LHP in the majors - .111/.158/.111 v. LHP at Iowa - .190/.250/.286 He's not a credible option either) It's probably too late to consider DeRosa as the CF v. LHP, but I wouldn't mind that. Cedeno and Theriot could play 2B and SS. Jones has changed his approach against LH'ers this year, it appears to be working too. He's more willing to hit the outside sliders from Lh'ers to LF and not be so pull happy. His numbers have been good vs. them this year and Monroe has been bad all year and worse since coming to the Cubs. I wouldn't go as far as saying the numbers are good, but they are better. I doubt Monroe is going to be any better. Monroe was very good against LHP before coming to the Cubs. He's been bad since coming over but I certainly have more faith in his ability to produce offensively against LHP than Jones.

Lou loved his work in last year's postseason though. It all depends on whether Lou thinks he's seen enough. He keeps putting him out there which tells you Lou thinks Monroe is ready to help. In my view, he's still the best option in CF against a LHP. That says far more about the lack of any other credible option than it does about him, of course. I don't care how bad he's been in his limited sample with the Cubs; Jacque Jones should never, ever start against a LHP. Ever. (And for those of you ready to interject Pie into the conversation: v. LHP in the majors - .111/.158/.111 v. LHP at Iowa - .190/.250/.286 He's not a credible option either) It's probably too late to consider DeRosa as the CF v. LHP, but I wouldn't mind that. Cedeno and Theriot could play 2B and SS. So who do you dump from the roster to get Monroe on there? Pie? Cedeno? Fontenot? I'd go with 10 pitchers. There's absolutely no reason to have more than that with all of the days off in the postseason. But if Piniella were to insist that he have 11, I'd leave Fontenot off the roster. He's not a starter against LH or RH, he can only handle one position defensively (which Cedeno can also handle), and he's not our first left-handed bat off the bench. In short, there's nothing he contributes that can't fully be provided by other options. He's entirely superfluous.

Lou loved his work in last year's postseason though. It all depends on whether Lou thinks he's seen enough. He keeps putting him out there which tells you Lou thinks Monroe is ready to help. In my view, he's still the best option in CF against a LHP. That says far more about the lack of any other credible option than it does about him, of course. I don't care how bad he's been in his limited sample with the Cubs; Jacque Jones should never, ever start against a LHP. Ever. (And for those of you ready to interject Pie into the conversation: v. LHP in the majors - .111/.158/.111 v. LHP at Iowa - .190/.250/.286 He's not a credible option either) It's probably too late to consider DeRosa as the CF v. LHP, but I wouldn't mind that. Cedeno and Theriot could play 2B and SS.

That's the playoff roster I hope to see, too. Except that it wouldn't surprise me at all to see Craig Monroe take the place of either Felix Pie or--gulp--Matt Murton. And Kevin Hart might get bumped for Will Ohman. Though I'd rather have Hart as a long guy out of the pen if/when Jason Marquis' start goes only two innings. If we have a 12 man staff in the playoffs, Jim Hendry should be fired on the spot. You're only using four starters, so that should move us down to 11. Really, with all of the days off under the new format, there's no reason to have more than 10 pitchers, although I suspect they'll go with 11. I'd have all 7 outfielders on the playoff roster - Soriano, Murton, Floyd, Jones, Monroe, Pie, and Ward

Who starts in CF against a LHP?

Be careful. You're gonna need a restraining order against Murton Fan and/or Regulus Blue if you keep speaking ill of our lord and ruler.

Given the number of line shots they've hit right at Jeremy Hermida in this series, I don't think they need to apologize for getting a few cheapies.