PDA

View Full Version : Forget about a fifth starter


Railsplitter
05-23-2004, 08:59 AM
There is a stretch in schedule, coming up quicky where the Sox can forgo a fifth starter. It also hinges on whether Mark Burhle pitches ever fifth day rather than every fifth game.

Pitching Burhle that way give his next start May 26 at home vs. Texas. However, May 31 is an off day, which can give him a Start June 1 at Oakland, June 6 at Seattle, and June 11 against the Braves at home ( I have Tix for the June 11 game, but it's more than selfish reasons of wanting to see him pitch in person)

I have questioned the need for the fifth starter. Pitchers are stronger than ever, and besides, the only seem to go nine innings if there's a shutout, and sometimes not always that.

Four man rotations where the norm until the late 70's or early 80's. Part of the reason Denny McLain won 31 games in 1968 was the fact he started 41 of them.

samram
05-23-2004, 09:17 AM
The first thing Ozzie needs to do is have a policy about the use of a fifth starter. Manuel seemed to always make those decisions about a day or two before the fifth starter's spot and it would throw things off, IMO. The manager should let the team know at least a week in advance about the use of a fifth starter so either a guy can be brought up or the bullpen guy to start can prepare.

Also, if the idea is to use the fifth starter whenever there is no off day, someone has to be given the chance to make several starts in a row. Likewise if a fifth starter will be used regardless of off days. The Sox don't have a guy like Ramiro Mendoza or Tim Wakefield who can easily shift between the bullpen and starting pretty easily.

Finally, it would be difficult to simply switch to a four man rotation this early in the year. Pitchers now just don't train to pitch with three days rest for long stretches and it could lead to arm problems- and the Sox have seen enough of that.

Dadawg_77
05-23-2004, 12:32 PM
Originally posted by Railsplitter
There is a stretch in schedule, coming up quicky where the Sox can forgo a fifth starter. It also hinges on whether Mark Burhle pitches ever fifth day rather than every fifth game.

Pitching Burhle that way give his next start May 26 at home vs. Texas. However, May 31 is an off day, which can give him a Start June 1 at Oakland, June 6 at Seattle, and June 11 against the Braves at home ( I have Tix for the June 11 game, but it's more than selfish reasons of wanting to see him pitch in person)

I have questioned the need for the fifth starter. Pitchers are stronger than ever, and besides, the only seem to go nine innings if there's a shutout, and sometimes not always that.

Four man rotations where the norm until the late 70's or early 80's. Part of the reason Denny McLain won 31 games in 1968 was the fact he started 41 of them.

You can't shifted mid way through. If the Sox would need to comit to a four man rotation in Nov.

As for the fifth starter, maybe send Cotts down to AAA. Have him start there to work out his arm and structure the starts so his turn will come up when Sox need a 5th starter. Then call him up when you need him. No need to use a worse pitcher when you can use a better one. This way Cotts can get in some work as a starter without it effecting the team.

nasox
05-23-2004, 05:36 PM
the solution is to trade for a good starter, like a freddy garcia or someone similar. If we get an ace or a 2 or even a good 3, then we can bump everyone down. We do have tradeable players, and despite their gigantic contracts, this could be an option. THen, again, we could reach into that pool of outfield porspects we have. That being said, I don't want to trade for someone as a ''rental" player that we have no chance signing next year. We'll see what KW has in mind.

Bucktown
05-23-2004, 08:03 PM
What is all this gibberish about a 5th Starter? Why do we need a 5th starter beyone the usual suspects we have now? When the series come the 5th starter will go out to the bullpen. At that point we will wish we had Carlos Lee (the most mentioned trade bait).

Short of Randy Johnson I would stick ith what we have. There is no more potent offense in baseball. Let's not dilute so we can win the division by 9 games instead of 3.

MRKARNO
05-23-2004, 08:10 PM
Originally posted by Bucktown
What is all this gibberish about a 5th Starter? Why do we need a 5th starter beyone the usual suspects we have now? When the series come the 5th starter will go out to the bullpen. At that point we will wish we had Carlos Lee (the most mentioned trade bait).

Short of Randy Johnson I would stick ith what we have. There is no more potent offense in baseball. Let's not dilute so we can win the division by 9 games instead of 3.

Why do we need a fifth starter? To make sure that we actually get to the playoffs. We are embarassingly bad in games the last 2 years where the 5th starter pitched. If we even went. .400 last year when the 5th man pitched we'd have played in october. We can't keep wasting games whenever the 5th guy pitches.

And dont listen to these silly rumors, Carlos Lee and probably none of the other set in stone regulars are going anywhere. If we get a 5th starter it will be for prospects. There is a clear need for a 5th starter and to deny it is to be blind to the need.

batmanZoSo
05-23-2004, 08:18 PM
Originally posted by Bucktown
What is all this gibberish about a 5th Starter? Why do we need a 5th starter beyone the usual suspects we have now? When the series come the 5th starter will go out to the bullpen. At that point we will wish we had Carlos Lee (the most mentioned trade bait).

Short of Randy Johnson I would stick ith what we have. There is no more potent offense in baseball. Let's not dilute so we can win the division by 9 games instead of 3.

It's a home run hitting team, they're streaky. The last two weeks are the prime example of that fact. Right now there's no way to contain them. Other times we won't be able to muster 3 runs off a rookie pitcher.

We need a competent pitcher in the 5th spot if it means moving Garland down there after we get this 'ace' we've been looking for.

OEO Magglio
05-23-2004, 08:21 PM
Originally posted by batmanZoSo
It's a home run hitting team, they're streaky. The last two weeks are the prime example of that fact. Right now there's no way to contain them. Other times we won't be able to muster 3 runs off a rookie pitcher.

We need a competent pitcher in the 5th spot if it means moving Garland down there after we get this 'ace' we've been looking for.
That still scares me more then anything, that this offense will go on a huge hitting slump again. That's why I still think the offense needs to be broken up a little bit, one more left handed bat, preferably one who could play cf.

mrwag
05-23-2004, 09:58 PM
Originally posted by OEO Magglio
That still scares me more then anything, that this offense will go on a huge hitting slump again. That's why I still think the offense needs to be broken up a little bit, one more left preferably one who could play cf.
I agree 100%. In 2 weeks or so, we'll be bitching about the lack of hitting again and everyone will be screaming for trading Lee and Konerko.

StepsInSC
05-23-2004, 10:51 PM
Originally posted by Bucktown

Short of Randy Johnson I would stick ith what we have. There is no more potent offense in baseball. Let's not dilute so we can win the division by 9 games instead of 3.

Eh huh? There is at least one more 'potent' offense...the Yanks.

Our boys have been tearing the cover off the ball and while they may score a lot for the rest of the year, I can't expect them to keep pace with what they've been doing recently.

Bucktown
05-24-2004, 12:01 AM
Originally posted by StepsInSC
Eh huh? There is at least one more 'potent' offense...the Yanks.

Our boys have been tearing the cover off the ball and while they may score a lot for the rest of the year, I can't expect them to keep pace with what they've been doing recently.
Excuse me, the Yankees? Are you watch ESPN Sports Classic?

In which hitting category do the Yankees lead the White Sox (in 2004). Not average The Yankees are 23rd (Sox 4th). Not HRs, Runs or RBIs either.

Someone could make a case for Anaheim or Texas, but not the Yankees. Of course we will settle those arguments soon.

Don't worry, I have watched an ESPN classic game in the past thinking it was a live game. That happens to all of us. However, I have never done it for an entire season.

MRKARNO
05-24-2004, 12:03 AM
Originally posted by Bucktown
Someone could make a case for Anaheim or Texas, but not the Yankees. Of course we will settle those arguments soon.


A very intersting homestand coming up where the Sox no. 3 offense in baseball gets puts up to the test against the no. 1 and No. 2 offenses in baseball.

lowesox
05-24-2004, 12:10 AM
Originally posted by OEO Magglio
That still scares me more then anything, that this offense will go on a huge hitting slump again. That's why I still think the offense needs to be broken up a little bit, one more left handed bat, preferably one who could play cf.

I think that's a pretty good reason to trade a guy like Lee (or Konerko). Because one way to avoid going into offensive slumps is to do the little things like bunt, hit and run, or steal bases. If we explore a trade to bring in a starter, I hope it'll be a two for two (including a bomber like Lee) bringing us a speedy player who can bunt and steal bases.

elrod
05-24-2004, 12:27 AM
Let's consider another side to our fifth starter woes. How much run support has our fifth starter gotten this year? Let's look at each game:

4/11 NYY 5-4 L 4 runs Wright
4/16 TB 3-0 L 0 runs Wright
4/24 TB 4-1 L 1 run Wright
5/1 (DH) Tor 10-6 L 6 runs Wright
5/13 Bal 6-5 W 6 runs Diaz
5/17 Cle 7-2 L 2 runs Diaz
5/22 Min 9-1 L 1 run Cotts

In four of the seven starts our offense scored 2 runs or less. No White Sox starter could be EXPECTED to win any of those games. Of the other three, the first game against NYY wasn't a terrible outing, the last Wright start Danny gave up 6 runs (the bullpen gave up the other 4, though asking the bullpen to shut out the Jays is unfair), and the first Diaz start was a win.

So what does all this mean? Partly that the fifth starter position stinks. But also that the fifth starter has been unlucky. Do you think E-Lo or even Buehrle would have beaten Radke the other day? Or Lee in Cleveland? I think that if Ozzie went with somebody and stuck with him then we'd have a better indication of whether or not he can survive poor run support.

Railsplitter
05-24-2004, 08:26 AM
One of the reasons I started this thread is the fact I'm old enough to remember when there were no fifth starters. Teams had what were called "spot" starters, guys who went to the bump in the second game of a double header or during extended periods without an off day. In some cases, there were the guys who came out of the bull pen if the starter got rovked in the early innings.

In any case, if I'm old enough to remember four man rotations, surely some of the sportswriters stating the need for a fifth starter are.

samram
05-24-2004, 08:47 AM
Originally posted by elrod
Let's consider another side to our fifth starter woes. How much run support has our fifth starter gotten this year? Let's look at each game:

4/11 NYY 5-4 L 4 runs Wright
4/16 TB 3-0 L 0 runs Wright
4/24 TB 4-1 L 1 run Wright
5/1 (DH) Tor 10-6 L 6 runs Wright
5/13 Bal 6-5 W 6 runs Diaz
5/17 Cle 7-2 L 2 runs Diaz
5/22 Min 9-1 L 1 run Cotts

In four of the seven starts our offense scored 2 runs or less. No White Sox starter could be EXPECTED to win any of those games. Of the other three, the first game against NYY wasn't a terrible outing, the last Wright start Danny gave up 6 runs (the bullpen gave up the other 4, though asking the bullpen to shut out the Jays is unfair), and the first Diaz start was a win.

So what does all this mean? Partly that the fifth starter position stinks. But also that the fifth starter has been unlucky. Do you think E-Lo or even Buehrle would have beaten Radke the other day? Or Lee in Cleveland? I think that if Ozzie went with somebody and stuck with him then we'd have a better indication of whether or not he can survive poor run support.

On the other hand, it could be that the team puts more pressure on themselves when the fifth starter is going because they know if they don't get at least 5 or 6 runs, they will lose. It's easier to score a lot when the team is loose and has confidence in the starting pitcher- look at Buehrle's run support for his last three starts.

elrod
05-24-2004, 09:22 AM
I'm not sure the team really puts more or less pressure on itself when the 5th starter throws. The opponents in these games are usually either the opposing team's #1 (Radke), red hot (Cliff Lee) or a rookie we've never seen before (the TB pitcher). I say it's bad luck - given the way off days work it's likely the #5 will go against a #1 a lot.

gosox41
05-24-2004, 09:46 AM
Originally posted by Bucktown
What is all this gibberish about a 5th Starter? Why do we need a 5th starter beyone the usual suspects we have now? When the series come the 5th starter will go out to the bullpen. At that point we will wish we had Carlos Lee (the most mentioned trade bait).

Short of Randy Johnson I would stick ith what we have. There is no more potent offense in baseball. Let's not dilute so we can win the division by 9 games instead of 3.

This team is built around power and that comes and goes in sprts. I don't expect the Sox offense to score in double sigits 5 out of every 13 games.

Remember 2 weeks ago when the Sox offense looked awful as they were losing to Gresiger and another rookie by 4-2 scores? Where was our stellar offense then.

I'm all for power hitters, but a team needs to have more flexibility then just waiting for the long ball. I think the last 3 seasons pretty much shows you what happens when the hitters go cold.


Bob

StepsInSC
05-24-2004, 10:40 AM
Originally posted by Bucktown
Excuse me, the Yankees? Are you watch ESPN Sports Classic?

In which hitting category do the Yankees lead the White Sox (in 2004). Not average The Yankees are 23rd (Sox 4th). Not HRs, Runs or RBIs either.

Someone could make a case for Anaheim or Texas, but not the Yankees. Of course we will settle those arguments soon.

Don't worry, I have watched an ESPN classic game in the past thinking it was a live game. That happens to all of us. However, I have never done it for an entire season.

Looking at the Yankees lineup would you not agree its more potent than ours? Its nothing but an all-star team. I didn't say they were outperforming ours, but I'd still consider them more potent based upon the calibur of players.

Sorry but you're talking about potency, and I don't think current performance is as relavent as possible performance based upon the definition of the word. Maybe its a difference of opinion on the conotation of it all...