Cubs New Closer has been named

[Guest Rrrsh]

I work for a local Sports Talk Radio show here in Vancouver (1040) and the new Closer of the Chicago Cubs came on the our station in the Morning, Bmac and Ball, to annouce this news.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

His name is Ryan Dempster. As far as I know, this is news. Cubs fans, your thoughts?

[Vern Gagne 0]

He could be a good closer.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

He could be a good closer but Dusty will find some way to fuck him up by the end of the season.

[sfaJack 0]

Hawkins is still their best choice at this point though, to be fair, Dempster hasn't had a chance in the role yet.

[Bored 0]

I'm a big proponent of trying out failed starters as closers and set up men. I also personally think LaTroy Hawkins is still a perfectly fine option at closer, another failed starter at one point.

[Vern Gagne 0]

Well almost every closer was a failed starter at some level. I do agree that Dempster should be given a chance at the job, since Hawkins one of the best RH setup men in baseball.

[Guest The Shadow Behind You]

Does Smoltz count as a "Failed" starter? or Eckersely?

[Vern Gagne 0]

No. But Eric Gagne, Trevor Hoffman, Mariano Rivera amongst others were starters at some level of pro ball.

[Bored 0]

Smoltz was for injury reasons and Eckersley at that point in his career was no longer an effective starter.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Goose Gossage once went 9-17 in a full year as a starter.

[Bored 0]

Rollie Fingers bounced between the starting rotation and the bullpen early in his career. He went 7-17 with a 4.32 ERA (back when the league average was well under 4) in 29 career starts.

[Guest Rrrsh]

I became a Baseball fan mainly because of Demp and Larry Walker, so my opinion of him is very biased.

 

 

However, I would say, its smart to try this given that alot of great closer were starters.

[Vern Gagne 0]

Mariano Rivera the best big game closer was 5-3, with a 5.51 ERA has a starter n 1995.

[The Czech Republic 0]

I'm a big proponent of trying out failed starters as closers and set up men. I also personally think LaTroy Hawkins is still a perfectly fine option at closer, another failed starter at one point.

And if you watched the last few weeks of the season, a failed closer as well.

[phoenixrising 0]

Goose Gossage once went 9-17 in a full year as a starter.

The interesting thing is that Gossage was a reliever before he became a closer. Hhad already posted a couple of good seasons with the White Sox in relief. Paul Richards, about twenty years before, moved Hoyt Wilhelm from the bullpen to the starting rotation and Wilhelm had success, throwing a no-hitter and finishing in the top 5 in ERA. He decided to do the same with Gossage...and got the 9-17 record. I always found that interesting because prior to finding out the story (in Bill James HBA and Paths To Glory) looking at Gossage's career and finding that anomaly was just weird.

 

James suggests Richards also may have had an old school mentality where your best pitchers started and the bullpen was full of washups and castoffs, and put Gossage into the rotation because he wanted his best pitcher starting games instead of coming out of the pen.

 

Gossage did pitch 15 complete games that year (1976). Pretty impressive. He went to Pittsburgh the next year, became a reliever again and moved on to the Yankees in 1978.

 

Rich Gossage's Career

 

And thus concludes my long story on an odd move.

 

Anyway it will be interesting, after the success of Gagne and Rivera in the closer's role after being failed starters, it can't hurt the Cubs. If it doesn't work out they can fall back on Hawkins again.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

Mariano Rivera the best big game closer was 5-3, with a 5.51 ERA has a starter n 1995.

Year after they win the World Series, not a coincidence I think.

[Bruiser Chong 0]

I'm willing to give it a shot. Hawkins couldn't handle the pressures of closing out games in the big city, even though he wasn't as bad as some people made him out to be. They signed him as a set-up man, so why not use him there? I think he's more effective setting things up. I'm not sold on Dempster, but he's as good as any of their options right now.

[Fuzzy Dunlop 0]

I'm pretty sure he's never actually been named the closer. Dempster, JoBo (if healthy), and Hawkins (dear God) will battle it out in spring training.

[Guest Rrrsh]

I'm pretty sure he's never actually been named the closer. Dempster, JoBo (if healthy), and Hawkins (dear God) will battle it out in spring training.

I am saying that Demp was on my station and announced that he was told by mangement that he will be the new closer.

[The Man in Blak 0]

It's been said around here before, but Hawkins really wasn't that bad. But hey, somebody's got to be the scapegoat for the September collapse!

 

Kid's got a decent career strikeout rate (7.28) and he managed to snuff hitters in relief in his limited stint last year (.606 OPS, with a .273 SLG percentage), so he's definitely worth a shot. Sure, lefties have a tendency to go off on him (.951 OPS vs. Dempster over last three years), and he'll probably walk himself into trouble (1.39 K/BB ratio last year), throwing Cubs fans into a collective panic every third appearance or so, but he's got a higher ceiling than Borowski and Hawkins is...*ahem* "much more comfortable in the setup role."

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

I decided to look over game logs. Since June 4 when Hawkins (I presume) inherited the closer role, the Cubs finished 38-10 in games that Hawkins pitched. Hawkins blew seven saves, and the Cubs won four of those games. Of the other three blown saves, one resulted in a Hawkins loss. Hawkins lost three more games in that span. That gives us six games in which Hawkins blew a lead and lost the game, or came in a tie game and lost. Six games sounds like a lot, right? Well, consider that all pitchers have their share of failures here and there.

 

Looking at Hawkins' stat lines, he had a disasterous appearance against the Cardinals on July 20, giving up three runs in an 11-8 loss. Since then, he did not allow more than a single earned run THE REST OF THE SEASON. The Cubs lost three games in September in which Hawkins pitched. In the first one (9/7), Hawkins pitched two scoreless innings, and left with a tie game. No fault there. Then we have back to back blown saves in late September. One was the Victor Diaz/Mets game, and the other one was against the Reds. Both times, Hawkins allowed a single earned run to tie the game, but did not figure into the decision. Many things failed the Cubs during the five game losing streak the last week, but the fact is that the Cubs only got to Hawkins once during that span. The rest of the time, the fault lay elsewhere.

[Bruiser Chong 0]

Looking at Hawkins' stat lines, he had a disasterous appearance against the Cardinals on July 20, giving up three runs in an 11-8 loss.

 

That game was just a disaster period. I watched the first couple of innings and saw the Cubs go up 7 or 8 to 1 and came back later horrified to see the game tied at 8. That was their final meeting of 2004 and the end of the belief that the Cubs may have a shot at the Central. It was also the game in which Hawkins lost his damn mind and nearly attacked the ump following his terrible inning of work.

 

Then we have back to back blown saves in late September. One was the Victor Diaz/Mets game

 

Fun fact here: The Mets had two men on when Hawkins entered the game. The pitcher responsible for the baserunners? Ryan Dempster.

[The Man in Blak 0]

I hate to ask...but how many of them had Dempster walked?

[Bruiser Chong 0]

Looking at the box score, he walked both. I chalked his 2004 season up to just getting back into the groove of things. Hopefully his tendency to be a bit wild will subside as he moves into the closer role. Otherwise, we might as well stick that young kid Farnsworth in that spot.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

Well...I guess this means the whole Sosa for Julio/Hairston/...etc... deal with the Orioles is off, if it was ever actually even close to being on to start with.