2018 Rotation discussion

[Jasonbay44]

These are all good depth guys, and should remain as such. Wright could be very good for us again, but after such a long time off, we really can't know what to expect.

 

My guess is that if Price is out for 2018, we will acquire another starter, but it won't be a #1 guy. IMO, it will be a mid rotation type.

 

I don't even consider Owens a good depth guy. A random free agent pitcher is probably better depth/starter than ever using Owens.

[harmony]

I suggest "tandem starters" a few years back, but mostly as an idea for maybe the 4 and 5 slot only.

 

The idea of having 8 tandem starters on a roster seems too problematic, unless one or two of them could be used more than once every 4 days.

 

The plan would only work, if you were pretty much sure the tandem would get you to the 8th or 9th inning very often. I'm not sure how realistic that is. Having only 4 short relievers could be big trouble, if they don't get you at least into the 7th inning just about every game.

The current common setup of one-inning relievers carries risks as well. The one-inning reliever may be pulled without recording an out if he doesn't have his "stuff." Likewise, a long reliever under similar circumstances may be pulled without recording an out but that must be weighed against the greater potential benefit of three innings of relief.

[Bellhorn04]

The current common setup of one-inning relievers carries risks as well. The one-inning reliever may be pulled without recording an out if he doesn't have his "stuff." Likewise, a long reliever under similar circumstances may be pulled without recording an out but that must be weighed against the greater potential benefit of three innings of relief.

 

To me it all comes down to run-scoring stats across baseball. In recent years run-scoring was dropping and dropping, suggesting that pitching was dominating the game. It has gone back up again, and a lot of people including me are wondering if that's because the ball is juiced.

[moonslav59]

The current common setup of one-inning relievers carries risks as well. The one-inning reliever may be pulled without recording an out if he doesn't have his "stuff." Likewise, a long reliever under similar circumstances may be pulled without recording an out but that must be weighed against the greater potential benefit of three innings of relief.

 

I get it, but you are assuming 3-4+ 3-4 IP each and every 4 games. And, when one fails to go even 1 IP, you're stuck with just 4 pitchers to end the game and be ready for the next one.

 

You'd probably need one of the 4 to be a 2-3 IP type RP'er leaving just 3 short guys.

[harmony]

I get it, but you are assuming 3-4+ 3-4 IP each and every 4 games. And, when one fails to go even 1 IP, you're stuck with just 4 pitchers to end the game and be ready for the next one.

 

You'd probably need one of the 4 to be a 2-3 IP type RP'er leaving just 3 short guys.

All but the rare reliever would be expected to go at least two or three innings.

 

Most MLB pitchers were starters who converted to relief at some point in their life, most often in professional ball. Their development would no longer shrink their expected appearances to a single inning.

[Kimmi]

I don't even consider Owens a good depth guy. A random free agent pitcher is probably better depth/starter than ever using Owens.

 

Probably. Owens would be way down on the depth chart for sure.

 

I'm thinking we definitely need to pick up another starter for next year. At least a #3 type, if not better.

[Kimmi]

The current common setup of one-inning relievers carries risks as well. The one-inning reliever may be pulled without recording an out if he doesn't have his "stuff." Likewise, a long reliever under similar circumstances may be pulled without recording an out but that must be weighed against the greater potential benefit of three innings of relief.

 

I'm guessing that there will come a day when "tandem starters" becomes a regular type of thing.

[moonslav59]

I'm guessing that there will come a day when "tandem starters" becomes a regular type of thing.

 

It could be a natural progression, but it will be hard to change overnight.

 

My guess is, it might start with just the 4 and 5 slot pitchers and maybe slowly move to all 5.

[Bellhorn04]

All but the rare reliever would be expected to go at least two or three innings.

 

Most MLB pitchers were starters who converted to relief at some point in their life, most often in professional ball. Their development would no longer shrink their expected appearances to a single inning.

 

The big advantage of having a closer or setup guy pitch only a single inning, though, is that he can do it 3 games in a row, or more in a playoff series.

[Kimmi]

It could be a natural progression, but it will be hard to change overnight.

 

My guess is, it might start with just the 4 and 5 slot pitchers and maybe slowly move to all 5.

 

It definitely won't happen overnight. A team will try it and other teams will slowly follow suit, depending on how successful it is.

[Bellhorn04]

It definitely won't happen overnight. A team will try it and other teams will slowly follow suit, depending on how successful it is.

 

My question is why would anyone want to try radically reconfiguring how pitching staffs are utilized. The current model works quite well most of the time.

[S5Dewey]

I've been wondering about this trend too, one of starters pitching fewer and fewer innings with designated pitchers for the 7th, 8, and 9th. If this continues we could have starters going 5 innings to get the Win followed by four other pitchers each with a designated inning, and three other guys in the pen in case one of them fails that day.

 

The game is changin'. No doubt about it.

[Bellhorn04]

I've been wondering about this trend too, one of starters pitching fewer and fewer innings with designated pitchers for the 7th, 8, and 9th. If this continues we could have starters going 5 innings to get the Win followed by four other pitchers each with a designated inning, and three other guys in the pen in case one of them fails that day.

 

The game is changin'. No doubt about it.

 

Yeah, it has changed. But it isn't really changing radically. You would still like your starting pitcher to be able to go at least 6 innings. I don't think any manager gets excited about the idea of the starter being pulled after 5 and having to use the pen for 4 innings every game.

[S5Dewey]

Yeah, it has changed. But it isn't really changing radically. You would still like your starting pitcher to be able to go at least 6 innings. I don't think any manager gets excited about the idea of the starter being pulled after 5 and having to use the pen for 4 innings every game.

 

I'm not trying to be argumentative.. honest... but we 'old timers' can remember when it wasn't unusual for a pitcher to throw a complete game. Then we started having a designated "Closer". Now we're having someone designated to pitch the 8th, and even down into the 7th. Can the 6th be far behind, especially if a team has built a bullpen with that kind of depth.

 

Picture our starters going 5 innings, then a closing staff of Kelly for the 6th, Smith for the 7th, Thornburg for the 8th, and Kimbrel for the 9th. That would leave guys like Ross, Hembree, Abad, and Workman to fill in as needed for a partial inning or for long relief, with long relief defined as 'up until the 6th inning', or if a game got out of hand early.

 

Is that was DD was trying to accomplish?

[Bellhorn04]

Picture our starters going 5 innings, then a closing staff of Kelly for the 6th, Smith for the 7th, Thornburg for the 8th, and Kimbrel for the 9th. That would leave guys like Ross, Hembree, Abad, and Workman to fill in as needed for a partial inning or for long relief, with long relief defined as 'up until the 6th inning', or if a game got out of hand early.

 

But then you have to do it all over again the next game and the game after that...

 

I still think you'd rather have the starter go at least 6.

[notin]

Yeah, it has changed. But it isn't really changing radically. You would still like your starting pitcher to be able to go at least 6 innings. I don't think any manager gets excited about the idea of the starter being pulled after 5 and having to use the pen for 4 innings every game.

 

Agreed. But the strategy might become to employ the bullpen in that fashion for the 4th and 5th starters, enabling many teams to use cheaper pitchers in the rotation for two slots....

[Bellhorn04]

Agreed. But the strategy might become to employ the bullpen in that fashion for the 4th and 5th starters, enabling many teams to use cheaper pitchers in the rotation for two slots....

 

The 4th and 5th starters are usually cheap anyway, though, no?

[moonslav59]

It definitely won't happen overnight. A team will try it and other teams will slowly follow suit, depending on how successful it is.

 

I meant more about just one team transitioning into that plan. Their minor league system would have to ready their pitchers for the new system. I think it might start with a team using tandem starters for the 5 slot, then move to the 4 slot and so forth. I can see a benefit of using a Chris Sale type every 4 days, instead of 5 but with less innings each start.

[a700hitter]

The 4th and 5th starters are usually cheap anyway, though, no?

Not if your name is Porcello.

[moonslav59]

Not if your name is Porcello.

 

Or, Dempster.

[Bellhorn04]

Call me when this new cutting edge system kicks in.

[Spudboy]

Or, Dempster.

 

Or Masterson.

[moonslav59]

Or Masterson.

 

Or...

 

Buchholz

 

Peavy ($14.5M in 2014)

 

Dice-K (Not meant to be a #5, but...)

 

Smoltz+ Penny ($10.5M combined)

 

[Spudboy]

Or...

 

Buchholz

 

Peavy ($14.5M in 2014)

 

Dice-K (Not meant to be a #5, but...)

 

Smoltz+ Penny ($10.5M combined)

 

 

Dumpster Diving can be expensive.

[moonslav59]

Dumpster Diving can be expensive.

 

It kind of begs the question, is it better to pay $30M for Price or $15M for Peavy plus $13M for Dempster?

[Bellhorn04]

It kind of begs the question, is it better to pay $30M for Price or $15M for Peavy plus $13M for Dempster?

 

I'd go with the $30M for Price, but not the Price we've had so far, the one we were expecting.

[moonslav59]

I'd go with the $30M for Price, but not the Price we've had so far, the one we were expecting.

 

Perfect response.

[Kimmi]

Call me when this new cutting edge system kicks in.

 

It probably won't initially be done on purpose. I'm thinking someone will 'piggy back' two pitchers out of necessity, like many teams have already done many times, and have such great success with it that they will continue to use it. Other managers will start leaning towards this type of tandem more and more often when one of their regular starters get injured. Then eventually, GMs will start signing these types of pitchers with that idea in mind.

[Bellhorn04]

It probably won't initially be done on purpose. I'm thinking someone will 'piggy back' two pitchers out of necessity, like many teams have already done many times, and have such great success with it that they will continue to use it. Other managers will start leaning towards this type of tandem more and more often when one of their regular starters get injured. Then eventually, GMs will start signing these types of pitchers with that idea in mind.

 

The 'piggy back' usually involves 2 #5/#6 type starters, so I'm not sure how successful it would be on an ongoing basis.

[Northern Star]

But he has A BEARD!

 

Did I mention the beard? I think I did. It's not Kuechel level, but it's a beard.