WilltheThrill
Well-Known Member
I think this is pretty spot-on. When Dyson was our set-up man, particularly last year, he had the nastiest and most unhittable stuff I've seen in a really long time. Since he's transitioned to the closer role, that nasty stuff has disappeared big time. He's still got effective pitches, but he's not dominating guys like he used to. His control seems to have taken a hit, as has his velocity. Perhaps he has changed his approach (whether consciously or not) since moving into the role, perhaps fatigue from over-use has taken over, or maybe even a little of both (although I definitely lean toward fatigue more than anything).When Dyson first took over as closer his stuff was as good as any I've seen. Lights out as I remember. Since then he has lost a lot of what he had and has not shown signs of getting it back. Therefore we have guys capable of doing the job. I'll let you decide "closer" or" best" available.
Dyson is still effective as a closer, as he's converted 21 of 24 this year. But anyone who has watched him pitch over the last month and a half knows that he can often be a bit shaky and rarely does he have a true shutdown inning where the opposition doesn't even sniff getting someone on base. He isn't the same dominant Dyson we saw in 2015 and the first 1-2 months of this season.
I think we probably stick with Dyson as closer unless he starts to really blow up. At that point, I have a feeling that Banister would go with a Bush-Kela-Diekman-Jeffress closer committee, or much like Romeo and other have suggested, no real closer role.