PDA

View Full Version : Thoughts on a 6-man rotation


Sox-o-matic
07-16-2006, 05:15 PM
There are 71 games left to play, and something is wrong with our starting pitching.

If a six man rotation were to start tomorrow, perhaps at the expense of Ross Gload and calling up or acquiring another arm, each starter for the remainder of the season would have 12 starts.

As it stands, assuming no injuries or trades involving our starters, Garland and Vazquez have 15 more starts left while Contreras, Buehrle, and Garcia would have 14.

Right now, the following starters are averaging appromimately:

Contreras 7 IP per game
Buehrle 6 2/3 IP per game
Garcia 6 1/3 IP per game
Garland 6 1/3 IP per game
Vazquez 6 1/3 IP per game

This means that if a six man rotation were put in place, Contreras would save approximately 14 IP off his arm, Buehrle 13 1/3 IP, Garcia 14 2/3 IP, Garland 19 IP, and Vazquez 19 IP.

I know this isn't much at all, but it is enough for at least two playoff starts for the starters who would be in the postseason.

Do you think that this would be enough to make a difference? Or would it possibly only make things worse?

eurotrash35
07-16-2006, 05:22 PM
or if we're that worried about saving innings we could just dump one of them on the market, get a top flight bullpen arm in return to make up those innings, and catch some gravy in terms of top-level prospects as well. that way we don't waste a roster spot on a guy that works once a week. but then again, ross gload works once a week at best also. :D:

Daver
07-16-2006, 05:22 PM
It would make things worse.

Pitchers are creatures of habit, take away their regimented routine and you are asking for disaster.

Sox-o-matic
07-16-2006, 05:28 PM
or if we're that worried about saving innings we could just dump one of them on the market, get a top flight bullpen arm in return to make up those innings, and catch some gravy in terms of top-level prospects as well. that way we don't waste a roster spot on a guy that works once a week. but then again, ross gload works once a week at best also. :D:

Yeah, but our starters are already not making it out of the seventh inning. The next step down is asking them only to go five.

SoxEd
07-16-2006, 05:28 PM
It would make things worse.

Pitchers are creatures of habit, take away their regimented routine and you are asking for disaster.

What he said!

I also reckon that pitching every sixth day (as opposed to every fifth) would make it much harder for them to adjust back to a four-man rotation come the playoff games.

Then again, was this argument also advanced against the switch to five-man rotations rather than four-man rotations?

Did that 'paradigm shift' happen mid-Season, or did it generally occur at the start of a new Season, meaning that no pitchers had to break their established 'rhythm' mid-way through the schedule?

eurotrash35
07-16-2006, 05:31 PM
Yeah, but our starters are already not making it out of the seventh inning. The next step down is asking them only to go five.

that would be next to impossible. going to a 6 man rotation would only make sense if you're going to increase the number of innings pitched per outing, not reduce them. basically you're adding an extra pitcher that isn't available to pitch save for once a week at the expense of a guy off your bench or an arm in the bullpen. with the way our bullpen has been stretched at times this year as it is it would be an unmitigated disaster to try to have them make up 4 innings a game. not to mention the number of extra inning games we've been involved in already.

Sox-o-matic
07-16-2006, 05:33 PM
that would be next to impossible. going to a 6 man rotation would only make sense if you're going to increase the number of innings pitched per outing, not reduce them. basically you're adding an extra pitcher that isn't available to pitch save for once a week at the expense of a guy off your bench or an arm in the bullpen. with the way our bullpen has been stretched at times this year as it is it would be an unmitigated disaster to try to have them make up 4 innings a game.

No, I'm not saying that. That post was in response to your suggestion that it would be better to go with a five man rotation and have more work put in with the bullpen. If the bullpen does any more work than they are already doing, it will mean the starters are only pitching five innings.

Sox-o-matic
07-16-2006, 05:35 PM
What he said!

I also reckon that pitching every sixth day (as opposed to every fifth) would make it much harder for them to adjust back to a four-man rotation come the playoff games.

Then again, was this argument also advanced against the switch to five-man rotations rather than four-man rotations?

Did that 'paradigm shift' happen mid-Season, or did it generally occur at the start of a new Season, meaning that no pitchers had to break their established 'rhythm' mid-way through the schedule?

I do agree with you, and this thread was just designed to facilitate discussion, but just for the sake of making an argument, extra rest didn't seem to hurt any of our starters last year during the playoffs.

eurotrash35
07-16-2006, 05:39 PM
No, I'm not saying that. That post was in response to your suggestion that it would be better to go with a five man rotation and have more work put in with the bullpen. If the bullpen does any more work than they are already doing, it will mean the starters are only pitching five innings.

ah, gotcha

SoxEd
07-16-2006, 05:47 PM
I do agree with you, and this thread was just designed to facilitate discussion, but just for the sake of making an argument, extra rest didn't seem to hurt any of our starters last year during the playoffs.


Ah, d'accord.

Can anyone answer my question about the timing of most teams' switch to five-man rotations rather than four-man ones?

WAS it mid-Season, or at the start of a new Season?
:dunno:

Daver
07-16-2006, 05:49 PM
Ah, d'accord.

Can anyone answer my question about the timing of most teams' switch to five-man rotations rather than four-man ones?

WAS it mid-Season, or at the start of a new Season?
:dunno:

The move to a five man rotation came not long after the season was expanded from 154 games to 162.

SoxEd
07-16-2006, 05:54 PM
The move to a five man rotation came not long after the season was expanded from 154 games to 162.

Aye, but did ONE team (e.g. the Phillies) switch to five at the start of one of those new 162-game seasons, and the others then all follow suit at various points during that season..?

...or did one team create the innovation, and then others go to it in the next off-season, after it had borne fruit for the innovative team?

(Does that question make sense?)

Lip Man 1
07-16-2006, 05:57 PM
It's not going to happen anyway. On White Sox.com there is a story with postgame comments and such. Ozzie is quoted as saying he 'sees no need to go away from a five man rotation.'

I could see doing this at the start of the year (if you were going to do it) but it's simply not fair to McCarthy now to say 'OK we need you to start' after 3 1/2 months in the pen.

My take, if you are going to do it you do it from day one. And personally given the number of innings the starters have thrown the past few years, the length of last season and the insane WBC it's not a bad idea...for April, not July.

Lip

MrRoboto83
07-16-2006, 05:58 PM
I like the idea of having McCarthy in the bullpen, not many teams have a guy who can come in and pitch 4 innings if needed. Where are the sox going to find an arm to replace Brandon in the bullpen? Trading away one of the Big Guns will probably only get you prospects. I'm a betting man, and I am betting on the current starting staff to turn this thing around.

Daver
07-16-2006, 06:03 PM
Aye, but did ONE team (e.g. the Phillies) switch to five at the start of one of those new 162-game seasons, and the others then all follow suit at various points during that season..?

...or did one team create the innovation, and then others go to it in the next off-season, after it had borne fruit for the innovative team?

(Does that question make sense?)

I don't remember which team was the first, but it was a gradual switch, the teams with weaker starting pitching being at the forefront.

SoxEd
07-16-2006, 06:08 PM
I don't remember which team was the first, but it was a gradual switch, the teams with weaker starting pitching being at the forefront.

But, did they make the switch one team at a time from e.g. May to August in the same year, or in e.g. year 2 to year 7 of the 162-game schedule, each team switching at the start of a new season?

(I want the Moon on a Stick, me, eh? :wink:)

Daver
07-16-2006, 06:11 PM
But, did they make the switch one team at a time from e.g. May to August in the same year, or in e.g. year 2 to year 7 of the 162-game schedule, each team switching at the start of a new season?

(I want the Moon on a Stick, me, eh? :wink:)
You'd have to do the research yourself, I am old, but not old enough to remember what happened in the late fifties/early sixties.

SoxEd
07-16-2006, 06:27 PM
You'd have to do the research yourself, I am old, but not old enough to remember what happened in the late fifties/early sixties.

Oh, OK.

You make a good point there - I didn't (consciously) realise that it was so long ago - I still think of the late eighties as being 'recent', so it doesn't enter my consciousness that that period is actually over forty years ago now, unless I make a specific effort.

I guess this is a sign that I'm getting older.
:rolleyes:

Soon I'll be moaning that the cops all look so flippin' young these days (I'm already waay past finding most current pop music absolutely unlistenable).

Just pass me the pipe and slippers...
:redface:

jortafan
07-16-2006, 09:19 PM
The first team I recall seriously using a five-man pitching rotation is the Yankees, and this dates back to the late 1970s.

I first began seriously following baseball in the early 70s (the '72 Sox and Dick Allen were the first team I followed) and the four-man rotation was still firmly in place. As I remember, the Yankees went to a five-man rotation because they discovered their young pitching prospect in 1976 and 1977 (Ron Guidry) pitched better if given the extra day of rest involved with a five-man rotation. When Guidry had his fabulous season in 1978 (25-3 with something like a 2.12 ERA, if I remember right), it cemented the notion in the Yankees mindset, and I recall a lot of other ballclubs following suit.

This is just my memory, and I'm sure someone around here will be quick to point out some other team that experimented with five-man rotations a year or two before the Yankees. But I dout anyone would find a serious five-man rotation in the late 1950s, as some have hinted here.

rick smeitz
07-16-2006, 10:26 PM
yup yup yup

nug0hs
07-16-2006, 10:43 PM
Well, 12 of Tracey's 20 outings for Charlotte this season have been starts, and his numbers are not exactly bad...so at the least we have added someone who can go a few innings at a time once he logs some time in the bigs.

CallMeNuts
07-16-2006, 10:55 PM
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/GS_leagues.shtml
shows the most number of starts made by a pitcher, within his league, by year. As the number of pitchers in the rotation increases, the number of starts a pitcher gets decreases.

What you will see if you plot the data is a decrease in the maximum number of starts from approximately 1969 to approximately 1984. (I excluded the aberration named Wilbur Wood from my considerations for this purpose.) So I would classify this era as a transition period from 4 to 5 man rotations.

(A pitcher sticking to a 4 man rotation for an entire year would get 40 starts. The last time that a non-knuckleballer did that was in 1982 by Jim Clancy of Toronto. Charlie Hough did it in 1987.)

Different teams were doing it differently during the transition era. Back then, you'd hear terms like spot starts and swing men. They even had scheduled doubleheaders back then. In general, the rotation was a lot less consistent thing than it is today.

soxfanreggie
07-17-2006, 01:30 AM
We could see B.M.A.C. getting called up into the rotation and one of the guys getting some pen duty. This is also a suggestion. If our struggles continue, we should give him a look.

Deuce
07-17-2006, 06:38 AM
We could see B.M.A.C. getting called up into the rotation and one of the guys getting some pen duty. This is also a suggestion. If our struggles continue, we should give him a look.http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/575/redcard2ul.png

Ol' No. 2
07-17-2006, 05:24 PM
Oh, OK.

You make a good point there - I didn't (consciously) realise that it was so long ago - I still think of the late eighties as being 'recent', so it doesn't enter my consciousness that that period is actually over forty years ago now, unless I make a specific effort.

I guess this is a sign that I'm getting older.
:rolleyes:

Soon I'll be moaning that the cops all look so flippin' young these days (I'm already waay past finding most current pop music absolutely unlistenable).

Just pass me the pipe and slippers...
:redface:I'm pretty sure the 5-man rotation started with the 1969 Mets. I'm not going to look through the whole season's game logs (you can find them at retrosheet.org), but they had five different starters in the first five games. Other teams started imitating them in ensuing years.

Daver
07-17-2006, 05:25 PM
I'm pretty sure the 5-man rotation started with the 1969 Mets. I'm not going to look through the whole season's game logs (you can find them at retrosheet.org), but they had five different starters in the first five games. Other teams started imitating them in ensuing years.

This does sound correct.