Really wish we could roll with 11 pitchers the rest of the year

[FanSince88]

Really liked having Mancini's bat off the bench yesterday.  Would be awesome if we could somehow keep him, Rickard, and Gentry on the team.  I like that we can put both Rickard and Gentry in the outfield late to strongly bolster the OF d, and then add Mancini as a sub to rake against lefty relievers.  

But I know in this day and age that's probably not do-able.  Unless we can somehow cycle fresh arms in and out of that last bullpen slot.  Or use Chris Davis as an emergency reliever a few times?

[DrungoHazewood]

I think MLB would be more enjoyable if there was a hard cap on pitchers on the 25-man. Start with 11, then 10 next year, then maybe nine in a few.  With corresponding deadening of the ball to compensate.

[sportsfan8703]

If we can shuttle pitchers then we should be able to shuttle bats.  I remember two years ago we called up C.Walker in a game at DET to face a tough LHP.  I was thinking after that game why didn't we do that more.  Well now we have about 10+ pitchers to fill the 5th starter and back of the bullpen.  We can do some more flexible things.  

[Aristotelian]

More guys with options this year. It could be done.

[Spy Fox]

I can see it working if the starters go 6 innings more often than last year. If not I think they might simply need too many relievers too often for it to be feasible even with an active Baltimore/Norfolk shuttle. 

[Moondoggie]

1 hour ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I think MLB would be more enjoyable if there was a hard cap on pitchers on the 25-man. Start with 11, then 10 next year, then maybe nine in a few.  With corresponding deadening of the ball to compensate.

I'm old enough to remember very well the days of the 4-man rotation and the 9 or 10-man pitching staff. Two things changed that. Primarily is was free agency because pitchers became such an expensive commodity that teams wanted to protect their investments. The other thing (in the AL only) was the designated hitter. Because you didn't have to pinch hit for pitchers, you could get away with less bench players. Teams started experimenting with 5-man rotations in the late 70s (free agency began in '75. the DH in '73).

I miss those days. Had the Orioles used a 5-man rotation, they'd have taken away 8 starts each from Palmer, McNally, Cuellar and Dobson in 1971. None of them would have won 20 that year. Every team used their best pitchers more often, which was good for the fans (a lot of guys finished their starts in those days too).

Fangraphs did a thing a few years back about this after the Rockies briefly flirted with a 4-man rotation. I forget all the details, but they determined that pitchers would be no less effective in a 4-man rotation today, but a club would need to strictly limit pitch counts (maybe to 75 or so) in order to protect pitchers' health. I haven't quite decided whether that would be a good idea for the Orioles since they don't have many good starters or a bad idea because the starters they have would blow past 75 pitches in the 4th inning.

 

[jamalshw]

I think you can keep a 5-man bench up until Tillman is ready if you really wanted to, but it would involve some Norfolk-Baltimore shuttling. 

So...you roll with the 4 starters and 5-man bench until the 15th, you send down Tyler Wilson (or DFA Oliver Drake depending on who goes on the 9th) and call up the starter (lets say Aquino for this example). 

Then, after his start, you send him back down and call up another long man (Mike Wright?) and then send him back down before the 22nd to promote Ynoa to make the start, send him back down and then call up Verrett or Asher or Bleier. By the next time you need the 5th starter, Aquino will be available to be recalled again and you can bring back Wilson right after. 

This isn't an approach you can take for an entire season, but if Tillman is back and ready by early to mid May, it can work for a month and a half. 

[scOtt]

2 hours ago, Moondoggie said:

I'm old enough to remember very well the days of the 4-man rotation and the 9 or 10-man pitching staff. Two things changed that. Primarily is was free agency because pitchers became such an expensive commodity that teams wanted to protect their investments. The other thing (in the AL only) was the designated hitter. Because you didn't have to pinch hit for pitchers, you could get away with less bench players. Teams started experimenting with 5-man rotations in the late 70s (free agency began in '75. the DH in '73).

I miss those days. Had the Orioles used a 5-man rotation, they'd have taken away 8 starts each from Palmer, McNally, Cuellar and Dobson in 1971. None of them would have won 20 that year. Every team used their best pitchers more often, which was good for the fans (a lot of guys finished their starts in those days too).

Fangraphs did a thing a few years back about this after the Rockies briefly flirted with a 4-man rotation. I forget all the details, but they determined that pitchers would be no less effective in a 4-man rotation today, but a club would need to strictly limit pitch counts (maybe to 75 or so) in order to protect pitchers' health. I haven't quite decided whether that would be a good idea for the Orioles since they don't have many good starters or a bad idea because the starters they have would blow past 75 pitches in the 4th inning.

 

Don't know why Guest neg-repped you...

[flaoriolesfan]

I sure wish MLB would allow 1 more player on the rosters.

[Tx Oriole]

2 hours ago, Moondoggie said:

I'm old enough to remember very well the days of the 4-man rotation and the 9 or 10-man pitching staff. Two things changed that. Primarily is was free agency because pitchers became such an expensive commodity that teams wanted to protect their investments. The other thing (in the AL only) was the designated hitter. Because you didn't have to pinch hit for pitchers, you could get away with less bench players. Teams started experimenting with 5-man rotations in the late 70s (free agency began in '75. the DH in '73).

I miss those days. Had the Orioles used a 5-man rotation, they'd have taken away 8 starts each from Palmer, McNally, Cuellar and Dobson in 1971. None of them would have won 20 that year. Every team used their best pitchers more often, which was good for the fans (a lot of guys finished their starts in those days too).

Fangraphs did a thing a few years back about this after the Rockies briefly flirted with a 4-man rotation. I forget all the details, but they determined that pitchers would be no less effective in a 4-man rotation today, but a club would need to strictly limit pitch counts (maybe to 75 or so) in order to protect pitchers' health. I haven't quite decided whether that would be a good idea for the Orioles since they don't have many good starters or a bad idea because the starters they have would blow past 75 pitches in the 4th inning.

 

I too remember those days. 

[Moondoggie]

18 minutes ago, scOtt said:

Don't know why Guest neg-repped you...

Doesn't like 4-man rotations? Ah, well. Doesn't matter to me. 

[Moondoggie]

39 minutes ago, flaoriolesfan said:

I sure wish MLB would allow 1 more player on the rosters.

I've long advocated a 27-man roster, so teams could have an extra pitcher and an extra bench player. The way teams use pitchers today, 25 just isn't enough. You would think the union would be all for it since it would mean 30 (or 60 if you went to 27) more jobs. But owners don't like to pay salaries, so maybe that's the problem.

[flaoriolesfan]

2 hours ago, Moondoggie said:

I've long advocated a 27-man roster, so teams could have an extra pitcher and an extra bench player. The way teams use pitchers today, 25 just isn't enough. You would think the union would be all for it since it would mean 30 (or 60 if you went to 27) more jobs. But owners don't like to pay salaries, so maybe that's the problem.

This is even a better idea than 1 extra player. To think what the owners pay players nowadays it is a shame they would not be into paying what would be your 26th and 27th players on your roster.

[El Gordo]

3 hours ago, Moondoggie said:

I've long advocated a 27-man roster, so teams could have an extra pitcher and an extra bench player. The way teams use pitchers today, 25 just isn't enough. You would think the union would be all for it since it would mean 30 (or 60 if you went to 27) more jobs. But owners don't like to pay salaries, so maybe that's the problem.

I've always thought it would be a way of moving toward parity. The 10 playoff teams the previous season get 25, the next 10 in the stsandings get 26 and the bottom 10 get 27. Or base it on payroll.

[Moondoggie]

15 hours ago, El Gordo said:

I've always thought it would be a way of moving toward parity. The 10 playoff teams the previous season get 25, the next 10 in the stsandings get 26 and the bottom 10 get 27. Or base it on payroll.

An interesting idea, although I can't see them doing anything like that.