Six-man rotations?

by RVachon on Nov 25, 2007 5:34 PM EST Comment 19 comments

Okay, so with the recent (re-)signing of Curt Schilling by the Red Sox, the idea started to bounce around about the Sox using a six-man rotation. My initial reaction was that this is a horrendous idea. However, as I've thought about it, I can see some merit to the six-man rotation, especially with a rotation like the one the Sox will sport next year.

Though most teams have some type of mix between veteran starters and young pitchers breaking in, the Sox seem to be an extreme case. Two pitchers nearing Social Security in Wakefield and Schilling, two very young arms in Buchholz and Lester, a young Japanese import who appeared to tire down the stretch in Matsuzaka, and (of course) Josh Beckett. Here's how I envision a six-man rotation could work for the Sox:

The rotation would function just like a regular five-man rotation, and each week one pitcher (non-Beckett division) would be rotated out and replaced with the pitcher who was skipped the week prior. In this way, the Sox would gain additional rest for Schilling and Wakefield (which could help with the age concerns) and Matsuzaka (thus enabling him to remain fresh and strong deeper into the season), while also keeping the innings down on Lester and Buchholz, allowing them to break into the Bigs more gradually. It would also have the benefit of throwing Beckett out on regular rest all season, so you'd still get 30-35 starts from your ace.

Now this all comes with the caveat that no plan survives contact with the enemy, but if/when someone goes down with an injury, the rotation could then be converted to a simple five-man rotation.

Obviously, this would not be perfect for all teams. But with a team with such an extreme distribution of young pitchers and old pitchers, there seems to be a certain elegance, to my mind, in experimenting with this. And many teams could use a similar model to break in pitching prospects (as opposed to sending them to the bullpen when they first come up).

I guess I don't have too many questions about this idea (beyond am I a total bunny-boiler for thinking it up?), but I thought it was one of my more interesting concepts (however admittedly few they may be...).

0 recs | Comment 19 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Agree

I think a lot of teams are close to this right now. It's very unusual to go through a full season with the same 5 man rotation intact. A lot of teams stash insurance starters in AAA or in the bullpen. To make your idea work, though, you'd have to either carry 13 pitchers or ask a couple of your bullpen pitchers to pitch more innings, like 2-3 innings at a time and get above 100 IP/yr., or else make darn sure your starters go deep into games no matter what.

by DrBGiantsfan on Nov 25, 2007 5:29 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

yeah.. NO

Ok, first problem... SKIP Daisuke Matsuzaka? The Sox didn't throw a pile of money at this guy to skip him on a regular basis! No. Never. Bad.
Secondly. Ok, so you're going to skip a guy each turn... Did you not consider the amount of rust any of these guys is going to have after 10 or 11 days off? They'll get teed off on!
The concept of a 6 man rotation is not really a bad one. This particular method of applying a 6 man rotation however is AWFUL. Then again, the idea of having 27 starts from Beckett or Daisuke (in a straight 6 man rotation) instead of 32... gee, how could anyone resist? sarcasm
Buccholz will start the year farmed out, he'll come up as needed and then in 2009, he'll be a regular. That's the way it will be and that's the SMART decision.

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Nov 25, 2007 5:43 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Rust etc.

So I think I can tie in my response to DrB's comment here. In terms of using a 13 man staff, I think this can be addressed by allowing whichever pitcher is on their "off" week to throw a few innings from the bullpen if need be. This would also address Crimson's subtle concerns of rust (and honestly, I'm not too worried about a pitcher getting rusty by being skipped once every five weeks). I would also note that I think most teams are misallocating resources by using a 12 man pitching staff (I mean, LOOGY's can be useful, but they are more often than not a waste of a roster spot). Worst case scenario, you drop a guy from the back end of your bullpen to make room. I think in most cases this would be a negligible sacrifice.

Getting back to the point of pitchers being rusty in their return start, it's an apt point. But as I mentioned above, I think it's overblown. It's not like they wouldn't have regular throwing sessions in between, and the bullpen usage could also assuage this. The trick to pitching is balancing staying sharp with staying healthy. I don't think missing one turn every month to month and a half will cause guys to lose their edge. But the great thing is, if that appears to be the case, you can always go back to a regular rotation.

As for skipping Daisuke... um, yeah, I absolutely would, if it meant keeping him fresh for October. True, the Sox threw a lot of money at him, but I'd rather sit him once a month or so if that means he's at close to 100% come the playoff push. As opposed to the wonderous 7+ ERA he was throwing up there in Sept this past season. Though I will say, if you go back and re-read my original post, at no time did I advocate skipping Beckett. In fact, I stated the complete opposite. He'd be the one guy who remains on regular rest throughout the season. Why waste AAA innings on Buchholz when you can get those innings from him at the MLB level. And, after all, as DrB noted, there will be injuries, which will solve all the problems with this method.

"When you have a fat friend there are no see-saws. Only catapults." -Demetri Martin

by RVachon on Nov 25, 2007 6:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think

The Colorado Rockies would disagree with you about the harm from a long layoff. You're messing with a rhythm most of these pitchers have had for most of their careers. Whether it was pitching every 5 days or every 6, that rhythm DOES matter and who knows what asking them to come out of the bullpen will do to them. Some guys just don't feel comfortable doing it.
yeah, Daisuke tired down the stretch... so you're just going to give up on any possibility of building up his endurance? Switching to a 'normal' 6 man rotation would make FAR more sense than telling these 5 guys, "Hey, we're gonna screw around with your rhythm". There's only one word to describe this idea.... it begins with 'stu' and ends with 'pid'.
yeah, you didn't advocate skipping Beckett. Which is brilliant! Make the most injury prone guy pitch the most! I love it! sarcasm
Thank god you don't run the Red Sox.

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Nov 25, 2007 6:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Stupid?

That's a pretty strong word there, Crimson. College pitchers routinely pitch once a week and it doesn't seem to hurt them. In fact, it may be what allows them to pitch deeper into games than their professional counterparts.

Also, over the last 2-3 years, the Giants have had tired pitchers skip a turn to catch their breath and they have almost always come back stronger for the experience. They've done this with minor league pitchers too with similar results.

by DrBGiantsfan on Nov 25, 2007 6:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

College Pitchers

Or it could be that they have fewer innings on their arm, face weaker hitters, have a much shorter season and have coaches who rarely give a shit about what happens to them once they leave their college.

What's being advocated isn't the same as saying that all pitchers will pitch every 6 days or every 7 days. instead it's that they'll pitch every 5 days, then every couple weeks pitch every 10-11 days. Sorry, I know stupid is a very strong word but that's the only description I can think of for this idea.
Actually potentially disastrous works too. Especially adding in the factor that Beckett is the most injury prone of the players in the Sox rotation and he's the one guy you've got pitching every 5 days.

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Nov 25, 2007 8:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

6-man

There will be planned DL stints for Wakefield and Schilling, plus whatever other injuries pop up. Keep in mind, Beckett has made it through a season without a DL stint once in his career. Coincidentally, 2006 was his worst year. While everyone is healthy, either Lester or Buchholz will be taking regular turns in AAA. The playoff rotation will sort itself out.

by rwperu34 on Nov 25, 2007 6:14 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Interesting, but I have a better Idea

I think everyone but Beckett needs the six-man rotation, Wake and Schilling for age/injury, Lester and Buchholz for innings count, and Dice-K for fatigue prevention. But pitching Beckett every sixth day hurts the team, so what to do?

Here's my idea. It might be a bit complicated, but you could have a normal six man rotation, except with Beckett sliding up one spot in the order every run through. In this way everyone except for Beckett pitches every six starts, and Beckett pitches every five. So three rotations through (18 starts) it would look like this:

Beckett
Schilling
Matsuzaka
Wakefield
Lester
Beckett
Buchholz
Schilling
Matsuzaka
Wakefield
Beckett
Lester
Buchholz
Schilling
Matsuzaka
Beckett
Wakefield
Lester

As you can see everyone is pitching every six games, except for Beckett, who pitches every five. This is a highly unconventional rotation in that it essentially changes every run through, but it fulfills the team needs could really mess with other teams trying to predict the rotation. Thoughts?

Hey fish, leave those kids alone!

by The Congo Hammer on Nov 25, 2007 6:28 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

That was another method...

that I thought a bit about, and I think it could also be beneficial. My only worry about this type of rotation is that you have guys used to pitching on six days rest (except for Beckett, of course), but come playoff time you need to alter that a bit. Maybe it is detrimental, maybe not.

A third option would be to pair a couple of guys up, such as Buchholz and perhaps Wakefield, and use them as tandem starters (i.e. one throws five or six innings, the other comes in from there). The problem with this third option is that it cuts down on the number of innings you get from each. And if one guy is cruising, it's tough to take him out.

I guess it's a nice problem to have, though. All in all.

"When you have a fat friend there are no see-saws. Only catapults." -Demetri Martin

by RVachon on Nov 25, 2007 6:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

interesting idea

and it's got flexibility...

Jay Bruce can DISAPPEAR

by ufoboy90 on Nov 25, 2007 6:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I would do this

if I didn't have proven vet starters. I was thinking about this the other day for the D'Rays. Conceivably they could go left-right all the way thru. And they have the type of pitchers (power lefties vs. control/finesse righties) that would show their opponents different looks/approaches.

1- Kazmir 2- Shields 3- Price 4- Sonnastine 5- McGee 6- W.Davis or Niemann

This would save wear & tear on their arms, they could practice a bit more, throw their bullpens. It might seem weird at first but eventually they would get used to it (or develop a rhythm). Young pitchers like the Rays have are kind of used to it already. And maybe with off days and rainouts you keep your best starters on their "normal" five days rest.

Of course the drawback is not starting your best pitchers as much as you could, plus there is always the "xenophobic factor" (most everyone is afraid to try something new or unconventional). So as soon as the 1st losing streak hit the nay-sayers would all be howling.

Its too bad too, I was a big fan of the 2- closer approach that Boston was going to try out; but they were crucified so for it; to me the idea was brilliant but their execution of it (wrong personnel) was what backfired.

Mulder: Babe Ruth was an alien? Arthur Dales: sure; all the great ones were aliens.

by dew on Nov 25, 2007 6:56 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Sunday Starter

Will Caroll over at BP was floating an idea of having a Sunday starter when Jason Schmidt was about to come off of the DL. The idea is, there would be a normal roation, with Schmidt pitching every Sunday. Unfortunatly I don't remember the exact details and don't have the link. The Red Sox also have two old guys they'd need to protect.

by rwperu34 on Nov 25, 2007 10:51 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

4 Man Rotation

The move towards more and more starters is indicative of what's wrong with pitching today. Teams are spread thinner, due to expansion, and clearly the influx of world talent still isn't enough to give every team 5 quality starters. So, why not a move back to the 4 man. Pitchers are sharper on 4 days rest, too.

I realize that people will scream pitcher abuse, but I really believe that its a matter of conditioning and seperating the wheat from the chaff. The strong will survive and a 4 man rotation will make your team more competitive.

I really think the 4 man, or even a 4 man with a sunday starter (or 4.5 man) is what would be best for the teams in the majors since it would increase the productivity of their pitchers. Back to the glory days of the 4 man rotation, I say!

by GuyinNY on Nov 25, 2007 11:19 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Pitchers are breaking down left and right ...

... and you want to start throwing them 40 times a year instead of 32? Brilliant.

Next time you take a look at old baseball footage (not even that old, from the 70s and before), check out the pitchers' motions. I guarantee you they were not nearly as max-effort and violent back then as they are now.

The game has changed dramatically. A team that tried a four-man rotation would not make it to the All-Star break without either a revolt or a massive breakdown in their starting staff.

by Flynn Blake on Nov 26, 2007 10:40 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Max Effort

That's an interesting point. I wonder if the max effort makes them more effective? Or if it does, is the increased effectiveness offset by less durability?

I remember Bob Gibson being a pretty max effort guy. Would pitchers like Warren Spahn or Juan Marichal be as effective nowadays? Maybe pitchers need to dial it back a notch and try to stay healthier.

by DrBGiantsfan on Nov 26, 2007 12:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Effort

An excellent question. It would be interesting to see if some of the star pitchers of the past would be as effective today (paging "Doc" Brown...). My guess is that they would not. Hitters today have better conditioning programs and nutritional suppliments (and by that I do not mean steroids or PEDs), and, I would guess, have a more advanced and patient approach at the plate. Not to mention, with the increased integration of international players, I think the average hitter is more talented today than ever. As a result, I think the pitchers of today HAVE to work harder to get outs.

Can I prove any of this? Nope. But I'd be willing to place a substantial wager upon it. That's not to say that Gibson or Spahn or Marichal wouldn't still be great pitchers. But I don't think they would be significantly better than the big names of today.

"A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day." - Calvin

by RVachon on Nov 26, 2007 12:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Pitchers too

Pitchers are bulking up quite a bit. Old-time sportswriters say ballplayers used to be normal-sized human beings and rarely lifted weights. Now we've perfected the art of maximizing muscle productivity through diet and exercise, and that's great, but tendons and ligaments can't keep pace and weren't meant to, and that's why we're seeing all the breakdowns these days.

In the extreme, when you add steroids to the mix, you get a guy like Brian Bosworth, who was an absolute beast but whose body broke down quickly because his joints just weren't meant to handle all the added strain. But even without PEDs, maximizing muscle productivity is going to wear them out before their time.

by Flynn Blake on Nov 26, 2007 1:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Radar guns

I honestly think they're the biggest reason why the 4 man wouldn't work. I'll explain more later...

BUT - in brief : Livan, Maddux, Duque, Wells...Or, for the younger crowd, Zito, Buerhle, Bannister...

There is (as stated elsewhere in this thread) much better conditioning of pitchers today. That means that in addition to just plain throwing harder, they can throw harder with less effort. So, rather than heaving it for 90-91, take a little bit off and work at 87-88. Develop a better change, and learn to get some grounders and rely on your defense.

I understand there's been a great deal of research which says that strikeouts are the most effective route for a pitcher, and I do agree with that - to a certain extent. Part of a starter's job is to get innings and TRYING for a strikeout is counterproductive. They are a means to an end, albeit a highly effective one. A groundball can be just as good, and it could even lead to a double play (or yes, an error, but that's why we try and put a GOOD defense on the field, even if it means sacrificing a little slg).

The more I think about it, the more I realize it's the fascination with K's that is driving up pitch counts, much like the fascination with the long ball and obp that drove up strikeout totals for hitters. I suppose the game's evolving, but I really think of it as devolution. The three true outcomes are a false premise. I can beat you just as well and often with a Roy Halladay complete game and a lineup full of Jimmy Rollins' as you can me with a strikeout laden rotation and pen (Boston? Beckett-MDC-Papelbon) and a lineup of Ryan Howards and Adam Dunns. Remember that WARP, albeit poorly, includes speed and defense.

I suppose what I mean is that there are plenty of ways to skin a cat, and people who offhand dismiss the 4 man in the name of pitch counts or innings , oftentimes, refuse to think of another way to play the game.

by GuyinNY on Nov 27, 2007 7:11 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I like all these ideas...

Each individual team and their pitching staff could quite possible benefit from different methods. I think a 6-man rotation is great for teams like the D-Rays and Pirates, young and needing to explore their talent with not much concern for winning now, but bad for a team like the Red Sox, a winning team that needs to maximize the talent they have at the top. I also think a team with really durable veteran starters, like the White Sox(pre-Garland trade), could've benefited from a 4-man rotation. If teams sometimes just accept that a standard 5-man rotation is the best philosophy, although it makes the most sense in general, I think it could hold them back.

by mateodh on Nov 26, 2007 12:42 AM EST reply actions 0 recs