Bleacher Bums Forum

I think the bullpen problem has been more with the manager than the bullpen itself.  The Cubs are 17th in the majors in bullpen ERA--solidly middle of the pack.  They've given up only 3 unearned runs, so it's not like they've hidden their poor performance by giving up a lot of unearned runs (19 teams have given up more unearned runs, just for context).  On the whole, they really haven't been that bad.  Several teams that are generally considered to be good (Orioles, Nationals, Red Sox, Indians, Cardinals, Rays) have higher bullpen ERAs. 

And even if you don't think they're a middle of the pack bullpen (as the stats say), their impact is limited.  Cubs relievers have only pitched 134 innings this year...only three bullpens have been used less often.  The Cardinals (133 1/3) and the Phillies (133) are within an inning of the Cubs, so there isn't really a difference there.   I think it's fair to say the overall bullpen performance isn't helping the Cubs...but I don't think it's fair to say that they have performed poorly enough that they are sabotaging the team.

It's really Sveum's bullpen usage that is the problem.  His depth chart seems to have Russell listed about 4th or 5th (even though he has the fifth highest WAR among major league relievers so far this year), and seems to have Marmol and Dolis as potential setup guys.  In all the time the Cubs were struggling for a closer before Gregg showed up, the only guy who didn't get a chance to close out a game was Russell.  Camp was pitching in (and blowing) high leverage situations for a month with an injury, and Sveum never even seemed to consider demoting him.  He looks at Villanueva as a one inning guy...he was even quoted as saying that Villanueva was too good to be "just" a long reliever (as if pitching 2-3 innings in a close game isn't more valuable than pitching 1 inning).  Failing to piggyback him with Garza in that game in Pittsburgh was awful.

It's not the bullpen that is the problem...it's the guy in the dugout.

I can't find the inherited runners scored percentage quickly (I thought it used to be on ESPN, but it's not there anymore).  However, Fangraphs' LOB% has the Cubs at 15th in MLB, also middle of the pack.  So it's not likely that they're getting runs charged to someone else any more often than the average MLB team.

It's Sveum putting the pitchers in roles where they're likely to fail that is giving us the perception that the bullpen sucks.

When you have pressure situations and are unwilling/unable to use Gregg or Russell, really it's pretty much a roll of the dice no matter who your manager is.  A manager is just going to look bad most of the time if his options are limited (self-imposed limitations or not) in big situations to the likes of Marmol, injured Fujikawa, Camp, Bowden, Rondon, Dolis, Loe, etc.

And while Russell should pitch more in big situations, he can't pitch in every big situation we have before the 9th inning. 

Again, I agree Sveum has been less than ideal in managing his bullpen.  Still, when your non Gregg and non Russell relievers have a 5.04 ERA collectively, it's not easy.

Two more quick things...

If you take out Shawn Camp (in addition to Russell and Gregg), you have a 4.55 ERA.  Not great, but probably about what you'd expect from your 3rd-6th best pitchers in an average major league bullpen.  Using Camp's 7.56 ERA in so many key situations was just awful.

Also, Russell has pitched in 25 games, but has pitched only 19 innings.  It's not just that Sveum isn't getting him in there in the biggest game situations outside the 9th inning...it's also that he's just being used as a LOOGY far too often.  There's no reason Russell shouldn't pitch a full inning pretty much every time he goes out there.

By the time Camp was finally DL'd, he was by far the worst reliever in the pen. But he was still pitching in high leverage situations over everyone but Gregg.

Yeah but if you're not going to use Camp and you're self limiting Russell to mostly LOOGY spots, who are you going to use?  Marmol, Bowden, Rondon, or Loe?  Granted, when Fujikawa came back off the DL, I was critical Sveum wasn't using him in a lot of those spots, but it turns out he's probably been pitching hurt most if not all of the season.  In hindsight, he would have been just as lousy of an option as the rest of them. 

Maybe at some points of the season when Bowden and Rondon were throwing better, you could argue either of them, but if you pitch those guys consistently in high leverage situations, you're probably going to be blowing a lot of leads using them as well.

You certainly won't get any argument from me that Russell should pitch more, and you won't get any argument from me about him not piggybacking Villanueva that one game in Pittsburgh.

But our relief problems are both bad bullpen management and bad bullpen talent past Gregg and Russell.  It's not just that Sveum is mismanaging an average major league pen.  (And while obviously any bullpen's ERA is going to rise when you take out your two best relievers, I'd still take a guess that the Cubs' 5.04 ERA with Relievers #3-#7 is probably one of the higher ones in the league.)

I suppose that depends upon whether or not the other guy's ERA inevitably drop.

I would think that more telling than bull pen ERA would be the number of bull pen blown saves.  Anyone know how they rank against other pens in that catagory?

Kind of like wondering where the offense will be once Schierholz, Valbuena and DeJesus revert to their career norms?

DeJesus has hit with a little more power than usual, that's all.  His current BA is identical to his career, and his OBP is actually 8 points lower.  His power will regress a little, but he's not really far out of line with his career norms (40 points of OPS)--it would only take him about 3 bad games to get there.  Castro improving to his career norms (about 75 points of OPS) would more than offset DeJesus' regression.

Schierholtz will regress some...but he has played most of his career in a ballpark that is really tough on LH hitters.  And like DeJesus, it's really only his power that is out of line with his career norms--his OBP of .318 is almost identical to his career .319.  Also, you can't really look at Schierholtz without taking into account the other half of the RF platoon.  Hairston has been so bad that Cubs RFs are hitting .234/.266/.431 overall (.697 OPS).  Hairston's OPS is .506, which is far out of line with his career .743.  He's likely to improve much more than Schierholtz will decline.  I would argue that even with a pretty substantial decline from Schierholtz, overall production from RF should improve as the season goes on and Hairston improves.

Valbuena...eh, I thought he had the potential to be basically what he's been so far before the season started (he's at .248/.361/.421; I think I suggested something like .260/.340/.425 was possible in a post during the offseason), so I'm not convinced his decline is inevitable.

It seems to me that it's possible to believe that (a) the Cubs should have a much better record than they do based on runs differential (even around a .500 record) and (b) the Cubs are not a very good team, not a playoff-level team.  The two propositions are not mutually exclusive.  Nor do I think that the Epstein regime is going to hesitate to make trades of veterans who could fetch genuinely promising talent for the future (if, indeed, they can do that) if the Cubs were playing at a .500 level.  It's inconceivable to me that they consider guys like Shierholtz and Valbuena to be anything more than transitional players.