6 man rotation?

[wildcard]

Well really a 5 man rotation with a swing man.

One of the objective of the 2020 season is to trade Alex Cobb and  increase Bundy's value so he can be traded for a much as possible in the future.     I don't see that as a controversial statement.  

It would seem that Cobb and Bundy both do better for 5 days rest.   Here the stats:

Cobb

Career/ 2018 

4 days rest    4.12 ERA/6.94 ERA

5 days rest  3.49 ERA/3.38 ERA

Bundy   

Career/ 2019

4 days rest  4.74 ERA/5.76 ERA

5 days rest  4.97 ERA/3.52 ERA

For Bundy I think the 2019 numbers are more telling because they show how he has done with decreased velocity.

Means

2019

4 days rest  3.89 ERA

5 days rest  3.59 ERA

Wojciechowski

Career/2019

4 days rest   5.40 ERA/4.20 ERA

5 days rest   5.58 ERA/6.04 ERA

A 6 man rotation would not be as good for Wojo but I think the other three out weigh what is best for him.

I think trying to keep the O's rotation on  5 days of rest with  a 5 man rotation and a swing man for when the O's play 6 games in a row makes some sense to maximize the value of the O's starter.  Especially for the trade value of Cobb and Bundy.

Thoughts?

[DrungoHazewood]

41 minutes ago, wildcard said:

A 6 man rotation would not be as good for Wojo but I think the other three out weigh what is best for him.

Thoughts?

Asher Wojciechowski has made nine starts on five days rest in his MLB career.  Drawing conclusions based on nine starts spread over three seasons is a huge stretch.  You'd be more accurate if you just said we basically have no idea how moving to a six-man rotation would impact Wojciechowski, and have almost nonexistent meaningful data on Means.

[mdbdotcom]

Whatever Chris Holt thinks is best. I'm looking forward to seeing how he applies changes to pitching throughout the system in order to foster improved development at every level, culminating in better results at the major league level beginning in late 2021. 

[Redskins Rick]

Im sure that when teams first talked 5 man rotations, the purest turned over in their graves.

I suspect many are turning over in their graves at a 6 man rotation.

Personally, I dont like it, but I suspect it will happen at some point in the future.

My one con in this, you sign the guy for $31 mil a year, and he makes a few less starts, which makes his per game cost rise and you have to pay somebody else to take up those innings,

But, on the pro side of this, do you save innings and wear and tear on his arm/elbow/shoulder, and hence you get more of your money's worth from him?

[Pheasants]

I'd prefer the 5-man rotation with every pitcher knowing they were only going to pitch 5 innings. Then have 4-5 relievers planning to pitch 3 innings and a closer or two.  I think with the planned shorter outings, you could even go back to a 4-man rotation if pitchers were taught the rhythm of preparing for it in the minors.  This would be like the piggy-backing our minors do at times, and one could shift the reliever and starter if desired.

It would be nice to see scientific evidence of the effect on arms of pitching with different lengths of breaks between maximum stress.  Does it help or hurt the muscles, etc., to have more or less time between max use.  It would seem reasonable that rest helps, but would connections be stronger with more common use? (and, yeah, I know pitchers don't just sit around between starts.)

[LookinUp]

Heck, I'd like it if the O's can identify 5 arms good enough to call starters. Six seems like a luxury.

[DrungoHazewood]

4 minutes ago, Pheasants said:

I'd prefer the 5-man rotation with every pitcher knowing they were only going to pitch 5 innings. Then have 4-5 relievers planning to pitch 3 innings and a closer or two.  I think with the planned shorter outings, you could even go back to a 4-man rotation if pitchers were taught the rhythm of preparing for it in the minors.  This would be like the piggy-backing our minors do at times, and one could shift the reliever and starter if desired.

It would be nice to see scientific evidence of the effect on arms of pitching with different lengths of breaks between maximum stress.  Does it help or hurt the muscles, etc., to have more or less time between max use.  It would seem reasonable that rest helps, but would connections be stronger with more common use? (and, yeah, I know pitchers don't just sit around between starts.)

I think we eventually get to the point where most teams have their entire staff set up to throw once through the order.  You might have Strasburgs and Verlanders throw two times through, but most teams, most days will have each pitcher face nine batters.  With a LOOGY and/or a long man hanging out somewhere.  Mostly four pitchers a game, they'll go every three days.  The long man absorbs innings in case you're down 8-0 and don't want to get off schedule for everyone else.

A healthy regular guy in that kind of setup will get 54 games and about 126 max-effort innings a year.  And if you have someone good slotted in to the 3-5th inning role they could win 30+ because the starter is really an opener and ineligible for the win under current rules.

[Pheasants]

Just now, DrungoHazewood said:

I think we eventually get to the point where most teams have their entire staff set up to throw once through the order.  You might have Strasburgs and Verlanders throw two times through, but most teams, most days will have each pitcher face nine batters.  With a LOOGY and/or a long man hanging out somewhere.  Mostly four pitchers a game, they'll go every three days.  The long man absorbs innings in case you're down 8-0 and don't want to get off schedule for everyone else.

A healthy regular guy in that kind of setup will get 54 games and about 126 max-effort innings a year.  And if you have someone good slotted in to the 3-5th inning role they could win 30+ because the starter is really an opener and ineligible for the win under current rules.

If that becomes the norm the rule on who gets the win will need to be changed.  Probably only after its been the norm for ten years, but eventually.

[wildcard]

17 minutes ago, LookinUp said:

Heck, I'd like it if the O's can identify 5 arms good enough to call starters. Six seems like a luxury.

Getting 6 starters would be Elias job.

[LookinUp]

Yeah, I get it. Didn't mean to be dismissive of the conversation, so sorry about that.

It is an interesting one. Several of the best teams this year didn't have great starting pitchers. They actively managed games in ways we'd never see a decade ago, and it worked. I know everyone will still want the great arms, but there's probably not a pitcher who ever pitched a significant amount of innings whose ERA was better the 2nd/3rd time through the order. Will a 6-man staff or some other construct around openers, along the lines of what Drungo posted, be the new normal? I'd say yes.

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, Redskins Rick said:

Im sure that when teams first talked 5 man rotations, the purest turned over in their graves.

The four-man rotation was only the standard for everyone from the early 60s into the 70s.  Prior to 1960 there were more rainouts, more train travel, many more doubleheaders, and teams readjusted the rotation on the fly all the time.  Prior to WWII you had different ideas about pitching staffs, like Carl Hubbell would start 33 games, relieve in another 12, and lead the league in wins, ERA, saves, and innings.  In the 20s and 30s it was common for even a good team to have one or two guys make 30+ starts, and all of the relievers would start sometimes.

Firpo Marberry is sometimes thought of as the first real, kind of modern reliever, and he had multiple years where he led the league in saves and started 15-20 games.

Pick out a Yanks team from the 1950s... say, the 1954 team that won 103 games.  Whitey Ford led the team with 28 starts.  Eddie Lopat was 2nd with 23.  They had 13 pitchers make starts.  154 divided by four is 38.5, so in a strict four-man you'd expect regular starters to get 35-40 starts.  From 1946-1960 there were only 16 teams, or about one per year, that had as many as two pitchers make 35+ starts.  From 1961-75 there were 115 such teams.  From 1976-90 that was down to 66, and from '91-2005 it was back down below the 1950's level to 17 (with many more teams).

[DrungoHazewood]

15 minutes ago, Pheasants said:

If that becomes the norm the rule on who gets the win will need to be changed.  Probably only after its been the norm for ten years, but eventually.

The current win rule hasn't made a lot of sense since about 1925.  I guess one of these evolutions might eventually convince them to modify it.

For a long time I've advocated that the rule should be this: "The official scorer uses his best judgment to award the win to whichever pitcher from the winning team he thinks most contributed to the victory."  If John Means throws eight scoreless innings and they win it in the 9th after a reliever came on, he still gets the win.  If the opener throws two perfect innings and everyone else allows a run or two in a 11-10 win, give it to the opener.

[wildcard]

I'd like to hear some discussion on the point I was trying to make.   If Cobb and Bundy both pitch better with 5 days rest,  wouldn't it be smart to try to have them pitch every 6th day as much as possible?

[Can_of_corn]

38 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

I think we eventually get to the point where most teams have their entire staff set up to throw once through the order.  You might have Strasburgs and Verlanders throw two times through, but most teams, most days will have each pitcher face nine batters.  With a LOOGY and/or a long man hanging out somewhere.  Mostly four pitchers a game, they'll go every three days.  The long man absorbs innings in case you're down 8-0 and don't want to get off schedule for everyone else.

A healthy regular guy in that kind of setup will get 54 games and about 126 max-effort innings a year.  And if you have someone good slotted in to the 3-5th inning role they could win 30+ because the starter is really an opener and ineligible for the win under current rules.

Welcome aboard.

[foxfield]

5 minutes ago, wildcard said:

I'd like to hear some discussion on the point I was trying to make.   If Cobb and Bundy both pitch better with 5 days rest,  wouldn't it be smart to try to have them pitch every 6th day as much as possible?

IF they are traded...wouldn't how they are used be up to their respective teams?  Not trying to be snarky.  I think your premise that both be traded asap is sensible and if one or both remain with the club going into 2020, then sure baby em and see if the results garner more interest.  At the same time, trading both...even if it takes till June, means we need 6 starters to have a 6 man rotation.  I think we would need to acquire 3 before March if that is the goal.  I just do not think Elias will rush he arms on the farm that fast.

Because of that, I think Elias will likely make the best deal for either Cobb or Bundy over the off season and if he doesn't like the offer(s) I think he simply tries to maximize the performance/value as best as possible going forward.