Mathematics, Marmol and more
It's high time Lou removes Kevin Gregg from the closer's role even though it's probably too late for the Cubs, as the math is really starting to work against them winning either the division or the wild card. Speaking of math, Gregg ranks 14th in the NL in save percentage, at .793 (23-for-29). The situation brings to mind the names of Mike Remlinger, LaTroy Hawkins, Bob Howry and Scott Eyre. All were relievers paid big money by Jim Hendry to do various things. Some had varying degrees of success. Remlinger had virtually none for the three years and $10 million Hendry gave him.
Here are the top few save-percentage guys in the NL entering today's action:
Huston Street (Colorado) .967 (29-for-30)
Francisco Cordero (Cincinnati) .962 (25-for-26)
Ryan Franklin (St. Louis) .938 (30-for-32)
And the bottom few:
Gregg .793
Leo Nunez (Florida) .765 (13-for-17)
Brad Lidge (Philadelphia) .742 (23-for-31)
Lidge, at least, had that perfect season last year and has a World Series ring for it as well as a World Series appearance for the Astros against the Sox in 2005.
So what to do? Might as well try Marmol. I know, he's walked everybody in the ballpark and hit their brother this year, but when he does throw the ball over the plate, nobody hits him, as evidenced by 31 hits in 56.1 innings. Marmol is pretty adept at creating his own trouble, but he's also capable of getting out of it.
Gregg has given up 50 hits and 12 homers in 56.1 innings.
Angel Guzman, the other candidate, has given up 36 hits in 52 innings.
As far as WHIP:
Guzman: 0.98
Marmol: 1.47
Gregg: 1.30
Let's hope there's a lesson here somewhere. Maybe Big Jim can forget about shelling out big bucks for a closer next year and let his homegrown players compete for the job.
Speaking of math, the Cubs face, not an impossible task, but a huge uphill climb to get into the postseason. They're 6 down to the Cards in the NL Central, 4 in the loss column. The two teams play similar schedules the rest of the way, so the Cubs must get extremely hot (something they've shown no penchant for doing), or the Cards must hit a big cold streak (see "penchant"). At 68-52, the Cardinals can go 22-22 and finish 90-74. The Cubs, at 60-56, would have to go 30-18 to finish 90-74.
The division might be the Cubs' best chance to get in. The Phillies, Marlins and Braves are 1-2-3 in the East, and each has a better winning percentage than the Cubs. In the West, it's the Dodgers, Rockies and Giants, and yep, they all have better winning percentages than the Cubs.
Of course, the Cubs had a mathematical stranglehold on the wild card in 2004 until that second-from-last weekend in New York. See LaTroy Hawkins above.
We'll see what Lou says when he meets the media in San Diego. That and the lineups when they come my way later.
ugh.
...to the Cubs making it. You hear about other teams getting on improbable runs - '04 and '05 Astros, '07 Rockies, hell, the '69 Mets, but not the Cubs. They're usually on the receiving end ('69 and '04) of it. Hope I'm wrong, but 35 years of watching these guys tells me I'm not.
I have to say that I don't think they'll be able to do it, but hell, Philadelphia was 3.5 out (4 more losses) on SEPTEMBER 10th last year and they won the world series. It's not like the Cubs need to go on a "Rockies '07" run -- they just have to play what they are "capable" of playing -- which unfortunately they haven't really played all year long.
I don't want to jinx it, but as the Cubs sit getting ready to play the "most important game the season"*, everyone else is losing or tied. With everything holding steady (and a couple Nationals runs), the Cubs could be looking at being only 3 out at the end of the night with a win. Easier said than done, but things are definitely a little sunnier than they seem.
And when it comes to odds to making the playoffs, I say, well, successively navigating the asteroid field was approximately 3,720 to 1, and Han made it through with little to no damage! So never tell me the odds!
(*every game on the day it's played should be looked upon that way.)
Bruce-- it seems that closers have a short life span nowadays. Is it the scouting or overuse? Do teams and batters get more looks at the guys over the course of a year or two and figure them out or is it the strain and wear/tear that limits the ability to get people out every year? Is it time for a new idea for the end of the bullpen? Go back to 2 inning closers and have 2 or 3 guys that can actually do it a couple times a week? I know the "closer by commitee" did not work out well in the past but with all of the sabermetric guys in the league now there has to be a new idea whose time has come...I don't really want to see a 3 year 20 million dollar deal for Rodney or Rafeal Sorianio at the end of this season.
Unless your name is Trevor Hoffman or Mariano Rivera, I guess you might not have a long shelf life. It's funny how these things evolve. Goose Gossage and Tug McGraw were able to work more than one inning. I wouldn't mind seeing that again. A lot of it is the game's own fault, as managers and management have "defined" certain "roles." A guy is the "closer" or the "setup" guy or the "seventh-inning" guy. Players, being human beings and creatures of habit, starting thinking of themselves as those role players. As I said earlier in this blog, groom a closer if you're going to have a designated closer.
Marmol has the job for now, as I've posted on a later blog.
that is one thing I have noticed in the recent draft classes for the Cubs. It seems they saw more value in late inning relievers than most teams. On the face some of the trades and draftees are not as amazing as some other teams prospects and do not have the high potential....But most of the pitchers have experience from college and the arms to be in the back-end of a bullpen. I would think most will be groomed to work as closers and when the Cubs hit on one, they will also have some assets to use in trades. I do not see a lot of #1 type starters, but a lot of guys with strong arms and ability. I like this trend after seeing them going out an 'overpaying' for bullpen arms every couple years.
The Cubs drafted Cashner as a closer and made him into a starter. Who knows how it will end up. Huseby is closing at Peoria. The overall inventory of arms includes Stevens, Gaub and Archer from the DeRosa trade in addition to Cashner, Huseby, Carpenter, Coleman, Jackson, Atkins(?), Berg, Kirk and others whose names aren't coming readily to mind as I type.
Overall, the system has yet to produce the "impact" player at the big-league level, but the Cubs have gotten serviceable work out of several.
Gregg...in bad skid, average at best
Marmol....BB per inning, too young and too wild
Guzman....has been the best reliever but less than 150 career innings pitched
Grabow and Marshall....need to keep the two lefties in the pen
Heilman....say what?
Stevens/Samardzija....no way, better at AAA
Dempster....has past success as closer for the Cubs, is having mediocre year in rotation, team guy, Cubs have six starters when Zambrano returns if all are healthy and Gorzellany keeps pitching like he has in his first three games
Besides, if Guzman or Marmol is inserted as the closer and the Cubs are out of the playoff race, there wouldn't be much pressure so how much would it help them prepare to be a closer next year? Dempster is their best chance at their remote chance of making the post season.
I don't think he wants to do it in the first place. The Cubs have other viable candidates within.
52 BB's in 56 innings and a 1.47 WHIP...love the K's and the BAA and OPS but how long will Lou stick with Marmol when he walks the bases full the first time he's called upon to pitch the ninth with a save opportunity on the line? Gregg would get it over in a hurry by giving up the long ball, and Marmol will give Lou an ulcer with slower, more painful blown saves.
At least you made me laugh with that one.
has terrible WHIP numbers in two critical areas.
vs RHP 1.52
Away 1.55
Add to that he has given up 6 HR in only 15.2 innings since the break
A good closer must be consistent. He's our last line of defense and the opposing manager has the last option to determine which matchup will happen because the closer is almost never relieved.
BTW, it's interesting to note that the three relievers you mentioned all were identified as being inefficient well before the manager was forced to make changes.
Spening on a big-name closer is a waste. For anyone who disagrees just ask the Indians how Wood is working out for them.
The Cubs have some really good talent in the minors with Stevens, Gaub and Huseby looking like they could be ready for big leagues next year. That closer money is better spent on the rotation or bringing in a middle infielder.
Bruce- have you considered live-blogging the away games?
He's an interesting name, another in the DeRosa trade. He's got an 0.62 WHIP at Iowa. Huseby has been called the best "strike-thrower" in the organization. I'd like to see them give a homegrown guy a shot.
Yes, I've been watching the stats for the pitchers the Cubs got for DeRosa. Gaub's are certainly very impressive numbers in limited innings at AAA and he's still a fairly young lefty at 24 years of age. Has anyone seen him pitch in person? Bruce, how high are the Cubs on Gaub? When the DeRosa trade was made, it was written that none of three pitchers the Cubs got were among the Indians' top 20 prospects except for Stevens, and he was like 18th or something like that.
Gaub has been somewhat of a suprise, but the Cubs have been very high on Archer. who has a good fastball and changeup. I've learned over the years not to get too caught up in rankings. The Cubs were No. 1 with the likes of Patterson, Choi, Kelton, Goldbach, Christensen, Cruz and Zambrano a few years ago. Lately, they've supposedly stunk, but they've been able to get guys like Harden from using their system. Truthfully, even if those rankings are accurate, the Cubs weren't going to get Top 5 prospects for a guy DeRosa's age and with him being a free agent at the end of this year.
While I follow the evaluations of individual players, I've always had issues with organizational rankings. I tend to think they're more of a "give the fans what they want" item rather than something serious. I once pointed out to Will Lingo at Baseball America that St. Louis was always in the lower half of BA's rankings, often near the bottom -- yet the Cardinals always had the chips to bring in guys like Mark McGwire, Jim Edmonds, and Scott Rolen when they went on the market while still developing guys like Albert Pujols, Matt Morris, and J. D. Drew (and let's not forget that when he came up Ricky Ankiel looked like he would be a staff ace for a decade or more). I think it's ironic that Walt Jocketty made effective use of his organization's minor league system to keep the Cardinals at or near the top of the standings for more than a decade, yet in the end he lost his job in part because ownership got fed up with always seeing St. Louis rank low in the prospect books.
...Live blog the away games, but I'm not there. We'll see in September. One benefit from watching on TV is listening to Len and Bob. Bob has been on fire lately. I'm around the TV and the computer during the away games this year, so fire away.