Stretching reality
In Carrie Muskat’s most recent mailbag column she answers a reasonable question about Ryan Dempster’s ability to close with the following:
“The Cubs believe Dempster will bounce back. The 2006 Spring Training was Dempster’s first as a closer, and he didn’t get stretched out much. Remember, in ‘05, he was in the starting rotation at the beginning of the season. Pitching coach Larry Rothschild will likely get Dempster more work this spring. And if he can’t get the job done, Bob Howry or Scott Eyre are waiting in the wings.”
Now, if I recall correctly, Dempster’s troubles didn’t start until the middle of May. A check of the numbers shows that he was damned good in his first 17 appearances, throwing 17 innings of 3 run-ball while giving up only 9 hits and 5 base on balls. I suppose it’s possible that his lack of limberness didn’t appear until six weeks into the season, but it seems more likely that Rothschild and company are just reaching for an excuse to justify their baseless “belief” that Dempster will “bounce back.”
The decision to enter 2007 with Dempster as the designated closer is typical Cub-like stubbornness. He did perform very well in the role in 2005, but less than 60 innings of relief work is not very predictive of future success (think Neifi circa 2004). In addition, he walked over 4 guys per 9 innings as a reliever in ‘05 which is not a sustainable rate for an effective closer. However, Dempster is now THE CLOSER and it will take, I expect, more than a few poor outings before any dent in the team’s ideological preconceptions will appear.
There is an interesting section in The Book about relief pitching that struck me as commonsensical but rarely discussed. The authors point out that, for all the LOOGY and ROOGY machinations now in each manager’s playbook, these considerations tend to go out the window when it comes to the closer. Upon being selected for his role this mythical beast can meet all challenges. As a result, strategy tends to get some shut eye once the 9th inning roles around. However, as the authors show, only a small number of closers really are good enough to justify such tactical casualness. Most demonstrate significant splits like any other weak-kneed relief pitcher. Ryan Dempster is one of them:
2006: Vs. LHB = .310/.389/.444
RHB = .226/.301/.310
2005: Vs. LHB = .278/.394/.368
RHB = .216/.296/.291
2004: Vs. LHB = .222/.417/.370
RHB = .200/.281/.220
2003: Vs. LHB = .300/.410/.493
RHB = .288/.361/.438
Meanwhile, over the past three years, LHB have hit only .237/.298/.354 off Bob Howry, while righties have managed a .213/.251/.324 line - a difference of only 77 points in OPS. In comparison, Dempster’s split over the same time period is 209 points. Last season, however, only 31% of the hitters Howry faced were lefties, while 43% of those seen by Dempster were of the sinister sort.
With a small change in thinking the Cubs could make a solid bullpen even stronger. Let Dempster take over the ROOGY duties Howry had last year and give Bobby the closer’s slot. And if the numbers aren’t convincing enough, consider that Howry was fully flexible for the entire season.
Luke Jasenosky
Posted: January 04, 2007 at 01:42 PM |
2 comment(s)
Related News:
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
I criticized the commitment to Dempster as closer for 2006-08, but I really don't expect him to be quite the disaster he was last year. But that could easily happen, and if I had to pick one candidate to be official goat for the 2007 season, it would be Dempster. It will be interesting to see how Piniella handles the sideshow if he goes through a bad stretch early in the season, as we've seen so many times before: Hawkins. Aguilera. Beck. Rojas...
Let me preface what I'm about to say that I don't completely buy into this argument but I do there is some validity to it. It's because the 9th inning contains an element that isn't measureable. I'm not sure what to call it but simply guts. Some guys aren't comfortable pitchign with the game on the line, while other feed off the adrenaline rush of pitching with the game on the line. That's why despite "all the LOOGY and ROOGY machinations now in each manager’s playbook," the closer role just won't die. Again, the adrenaline rush/choker aspect isn't an easily measurable aspect but I do think there's something to it. I've read some interesting research in criminology that shows adrenaline rushes serve as a reinforcing factor in perpetuating deviant activity while controlling for other factors. While this isn't a baseball related example, I think it does point to how someone's biochemical make up at the time (like an adrenaine rush) can affect behavior possiblely in the positive ways (i.e. makes the pitcher concentrate better) or negative ways (i.e. the situation overwhlems the player leading to a choker).
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main