April Rotation

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I think one thing that could be helpful is that other than the six games against the Cardinals, April isn't that tough of a month. We have 5 vs the Reds. While they have a better offense, Williams and Rusch are about as good as any pitcher they throw out there. We have 3 vs the Pirates, 3 vs the Dodgers, 3 vs the Marlins who shouldn't be too tough, and 3 vs the Brewers. If we can get Prior and Wood healthy by May 1st, we should be able to at least float near or even above .500 for April.

[BigbadB]

I agree, you can have a crappy innings eater who may save you some innings in the bullpen but is not able to keep the game close enough to give you a chance to win.

 

Hypothetical:

 

Zambrano goes 6 innings and throws 110 pitches. He's pinch hit for in the bottom of the 6th. Game becomes tied and ends up going 14 innings. That's 8 innings from the bullpen.

 

Maddux gives up 10 runs in 1.1 innings. He obviously doesn't have anything decent and this game is already way out of hand. You can leave Maddux in, but why stretch him anymore than the 75 pitches he's already thrown? So, now you have to use the entire bullpen to finish up the last 7.2 innings of this game.

 

Next game, Rusch fouls a pitch off his ankle in his first at bat and cannot continue in the game. The bullpen now has to work another 5 to 7 innings.

 

Wouldn't it be nice if you weren't completely wearing out the bullpen in Maddux' meaningless blow out game? The bullpen might have been able to be sharp covering for Rusch.

 

You have 4 starters, 7 bullpen guys and 1 long relief man for bullpen protection.

 

Sure, my hypothetical is far fetched. But, it's not impossible. It's also not impossible to have back to back extra inning affairs. And it's not unreasonable to think that there might be a 1 1/2 hour rain delay after the 1st inning of an April game that would send your starter to the showers early, forcing you to use the bullpen for that entire game as well. There is room at the end of the bench for a spot starter/long relief guy, even if he isn't all that good. Rain happens, injuries happen and extra inning games happen.

 

The extra arm is more important than the extra bat, IMO.

[goonys evil twin]

You don't make roster moves on random hypotheticals.

 

7 bullpen arms is more than enough.

[stitchface]

not to mention you can make a roster move after the season starts - like say putting rusch on the DL and calling up another pitcher.

[BigbadB]

You don't make roster moves on random hypotheticals.

 

7 bullpen arms is more than enough.

 

When was the last time the Cubs DIDN'T have a long man in the bullpen for security?

[BigbadB]

not to mention you can make a roster move after the season starts - like say putting rusch on the DL and calling up another pitcher.

 

Sure, you can call someone up, but what good does that do you when you are out of bullpen arms and the game is going to extra innings?

[goonys evil twin]

You don't make roster moves on random hypotheticals.

 

7 bullpen arms is more than enough.

 

When was the last time the Cubs DIDN'T have a long man in the bullpen for security?

 

I don't know. Either way, you don't save a spot specifically for a longman. Especially not when you have 7 relievers. If things get off to a rough start, go ahead and make some moves. But you don't purposefully handicap your roster because of hypotheticals.

[BigbadB]

I'm just saying, if you are going North with only 4 starting pitchers, one of your bullpen guys needs to be able to go 4 or 5 innings.

 

You can disagree with me all you want, but it won't change my opinion. If they had 5 starters healthy in April, you may not need that long man in the pen. But, with only 4, someone has to be able to step up out of the pen.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

not to mention you can make a roster move after the season starts - like say putting rusch on the DL and calling up another pitcher.

 

Sure, you can call someone up, but what good does that do you when you are out of bullpen arms and the game is going to extra innings?

 

This is like the situation with Macias last year. He was lauded as the 3rd catcher, but it was a worthless title. Macias was ALWAYS used before Blanco, so his use as a 3rd catcher was absolutely pointless. The hypotheticals you bring up are pretty far-fetched to be making roster decisions off of.

[goonys evil twin]

not to mention you can make a roster move after the season starts - like say putting rusch on the DL and calling up another pitcher.

 

Sure, you can call someone up, but what good does that do you when you are out of bullpen arms and the game is going to extra innings?

 

On day 1, you have Zambrano starting, then 10 people available to relieve him if necessary (not gonna need 'em). One game 2, you have Maddux starting and 9 people available for relief (not gonna happen). On game 3, you have Rusch/Williams starting, with 8 guys available for relief. At this point, everybody would have already had at least 2 off days. If, for some reason, you had to burn your pen in those first 3 games, then you can make a move or two. Most likely your pen will be perfectly fresh. So, you go into game 4 with 7 relievers available, maybe minus 1 or 2 guys who might have gone more than an inning the day before. Game 5, Zambrano, 7 relievers. Again, if at any point your pen has been trashed in one game, call guys up the next. But 7 relievers is more than enough to get you through a game. And both Williams and Rusch can be emergency longmen in games 1 or 2 if need be, with the other the emergency guy in game 3.

[BigbadB]

You don't make roster moves on random hypotheticals.

 

7 bullpen arms is more than enough.

 

When was the last time the Cubs DIDN'T have a long man in the bullpen for security?

 

I don't know. Either way, you don't save a spot specifically for a longman. Especially not when you have 7 relievers. If things get off to a rough start, go ahead and make some moves. But you don't purposefully handicap your roster because of hypotheticals.

 

It's not purposefully handicapping your roster because of hypotheticals. It's being prepared.

[goonys evil twin]

It's not purposefully handicapping your roster because of hypotheticals. It's being prepared.

 

Prepared for things that probably won't happen. You would be prepared for reality though.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

You don't make roster moves on random hypotheticals.

 

7 bullpen arms is more than enough.

 

When was the last time the Cubs DIDN'T have a long man in the bullpen for security?

 

I don't know. Either way, you don't save a spot specifically for a longman. Especially not when you have 7 relievers. If things get off to a rough start, go ahead and make some moves. But you don't purposefully handicap your roster because of hypotheticals.

 

It's not purposefully handicapping your roster because of hypotheticals. It's being prepared.

 

What if Neifi and Cedeno both get hurt in the same game? Who's going to play SS? You can't possibly cover every hypothetical situation, and a 6 men pen does plenty to cover all except the most extreme hypotheticals, especially with the ability to recall extra arms between games.

[BigbadB]

not to mention you can make a roster move after the season starts - like say putting rusch on the DL and calling up another pitcher.

 

Sure, you can call someone up, but what good does that do you when you are out of bullpen arms and the game is going to extra innings?

 

This is like the situation with Macias last year. He was lauded as the 3rd catcher, but it was a worthless title. Macias was ALWAYS used before Blanco, so his use as a 3rd catcher was absolutely pointless. The hypotheticals you bring up are pretty far-fetched to be making roster decisions off of.

 

With the injuries this team suffers, I don't know how any Cub fan can call any hypothetical too far fetched.

[BigbadB]

What if Neifi and Cedeno both get hurt in the same game? Who's going to play SS? You can't possibly cover every hypothetical situation, and a 6 men pen does plenty to cover all except the most extreme hypotheticals, especially with the ability to recall extra arms between games.

 

Did you ever hear me say we need a 3rd shortstop or a 3rd catcher? I never said we did. Bullpen guys are trained to be effective for an inning or two at the most. With only 4 starters, why make all of your bullpen arms guys who only have the capability to pitch an inning or two when a guy might be needed to pitch 4 or 5? I'll make a wager with you right now that the Cubs WILL NOT handicap the team going into this season with only 4 starters and nothing but short relievers. It's not going to happen.

 

And why won't it happen? And if you think it will happen, what shall the wager be?

[Transmogrified Tiger]

What if Neifi and Cedeno both get hurt in the same game? Who's going to play SS? You can't possibly cover every hypothetical situation, and a 6 men pen does plenty to cover all except the most extreme hypotheticals, especially with the ability to recall extra arms between games.

 

Did you ever hear me say we need a 3rd shortstop or a 3rd catcher? I never said we did. Bullpen guys are trained to be effective for an inning or two at the most. With only 4 starters, why make all of your bullpen arms guys who only have the capability to pitch an inning or two when a guy might be needed to pitch 4 or 5? I'll make a wager with you right now that the Cubs WILL NOT handicap the team going into this season with only 4 starters and nothing but short relievers. It's not going to happen.

 

And why won't it happen? And if you think it will happen, what shall the wager be?

 

How can you possibly bet on that?

 

What's this talk of only short relievers? My point is about the total in the pen. I can't even tell what you're arguing anymore.

[goonys evil twin]

I'll make a wager with you right now that the Cubs WILL NOT handicap the team going into this season with only 4 starters and nothing but short relievers. It's not going to happen.

 

And why won't it happen? And if you think it will happen, what shall the wager be?

 

And if the Cubs do it that's supposed to be the right decision?

[BigbadB]

How can you possibly bet on that?

 

What's this talk of only short relievers? My point is about the total in the pen. I can't even tell what you're arguing anymore.

 

What do you think the long man/spot starter is? He's a reliever. In your pen, you need a guy who can give you more than just an inning or two. Glendon Rusch was the long man last year, and if I recall correctly, he came into a few games early and pitched several innings.

 

I never brought up SS and I never brought up C. My argument is that you need a guy in the pen who can provide long relief when necessary. It's what I have been saying since I jumped into this argument. Go back and read all of my posts.

 

Who will the long man be when we break camp? Hill, Guzman, Koronka, etc...? A guy like that needs to be 1 of the 7 bullpen arms. That's all I have been saying all along. Goony doesn't believe you need a guy who can provide more than an inning or two. I disagree.

[BigbadB]

I'll make a wager with you right now that the Cubs WILL NOT handicap the team going into this season with only 4 starters and nothing but short relievers. It's not going to happen.

 

And why won't it happen? And if you think it will happen, what shall the wager be?

 

And if the Cubs do it that's supposed to be the right decision?

 

I disagree with Cubs management on more things than most people, and I know you won't argue that point with me. Anymore disagreements and people might start questioning my loyalty. However, yes I think it is the right decision to have a swing man in the pen, ESPECIALLY when you only have 4 starting pitchers on the squad.

[goonys evil twin]

Goony doesn't believe you need a guy who can provide more than an inning or two. I disagree.

 

I didn't say that.

 

I said you don't set aside a roster spot for the mythical longman.

 

Glendon Rusch went 2 and a third on opening day. Then he had 2 outings where he went one third, and then he went 3 innings. The Cubs can get similar pitching out of some of the 7 guys they will have.

 

If you start with 4 starters, bring your best 7 relievers. Don't bring a Rusch impersonator because you think you might need him one day.

[BigbadB]

Goony doesn't believe you need a guy who can provide more than an inning or two. I disagree.

 

I didn't say that.

 

I said you don't set aside a roster spot for the mythical longman.

 

Glendon Rusch went 2 and a third on opening day. Then he had 2 outings where he went one third, and then he went 3 innings. The Cubs can get similar pitching out of some of the 7 guys they will have.

 

If you start with 4 starters, bring your best 7 relievers. Don't bring a Rusch impersonator because you think you might need him one day.

 

Who in our bullpen is going to go 3 innings? Wuertz, Eyre, Howry, Williamson, Dempster, Ohman? That's 6 guys who are likely locked in. That leaves one spot for a guy who can pitch more than 2 innings (Welly, Hill), and you take that guy over Novoa who can't, IMO.

[CUBZ99]

who can't eat up innings? i've never understood why guys who get battered around for 5-6 innings get praised simply for taking up innings.

 

They can help take the strain off of an overworked bullpen, which is what happened to the Cubs last year.

 

That doesn't change the fact that almost anybody can do it. Hill could do what Rusch does (suck for 5-6 innings at a time), and do it cheaper.

 

Maybe you should check the stats, because Hill actually performed considerably worse than Rusch last year with a 9.13 ERA. Among the other #5 starters Koronka had a 7.47 ERA and Mitre had a 5.37 ERA. So if your argument is that Rusch and his 4.50 ERA is garbage, your argument is utterly ridiculous as well as uninformed.

 

Based on some of your argument regarding "innings eaters" and how little value they had, I looked up some of the pitching staffs in the NL Central.

 

Suprisingly, compared to NL central staffs Rusch is was actually better than or equivalent to every other teams #5 starters (except the Cardinals Marquis 4.13 ERA). Also, Rusch's ERA was better than most NL central teams #4 starters.

 

I know it may be popular to criticize Rusch, due to the fact that his stuff is not the greatest or that he is not the flashiest pitcher, but if you would like to make the argument that he is a worthless pitcher or worthless to the Cubs please back your statement up with some actual facts or substance.

[Mark Priors Calves]

who can't eat up innings? i've never understood why guys who get battered around for 5-6 innings get praised simply for taking up innings.

 

They can help take the strain off of an overworked bullpen, which is what happened to the Cubs last year.

 

That doesn't change the fact that almost anybody can do it. Hill could do what Rusch does (suck for 5-6 innings at a time), and do it cheaper.

 

Maybe you should check the stats, because Hill actually performed considerably worse than Rusch last year with a 9.13 ERA. Among the other #5 starters Koronka had a 7.47 ERA and Mitre had a 5.37 ERA. So if your argument is that Rusch and his 4.50 ERA is garbage, your argument is utterly ridiculous as well as uninformed.

 

Based on some of your argument regarding "innings eaters" and how little value they had, I looked up some of the pitching staffs in the NL Central.

 

Suprisingly, compared to NL central staffs Rusch is was actually better than or equivalent to every other teams #5 starters (except the Cardinals Marquis 4.13 ERA). Also, Rusch's ERA was better than most NL central teams #4 starters.

 

I know it may be popular to criticize Rusch, due to the fact that his stuff is not the greatest or that he is not the flashiest pitcher, but if you would like to make the argument that he is a worthless pitcher or worthless to the Cubs please back your statement up with some actual facts or substance.

 

Rich Hill threw 24.2 innings in 2005. He only started 4 of the 10 games he appeared in. Simply saying that Rusch was better because of Hill's misuage and ineffectiveness last year is not correct. Hill was far was good last year but the extremely small sample size and use of the bullpen has as much do to with that as anything.

[CUBZ99]

who can't eat up innings? i've never understood why guys who get battered around for 5-6 innings get praised simply for taking up innings.

 

They can help take the strain off of an overworked bullpen, which is what happened to the Cubs last year.

 

That doesn't change the fact that almost anybody can do it. Hill could do what Rusch does (suck for 5-6 innings at a time), and do it cheaper.

 

Maybe you should check the stats, because Hill actually performed considerably worse than Rusch last year with a 9.13 ERA. Among the other #5 starters Koronka had a 7.47 ERA and Mitre had a 5.37 ERA. So if your argument is that Rusch and his 4.50 ERA is garbage, your argument is utterly ridiculous as well as uninformed.

 

Based on some of your argument regarding "innings eaters" and how little value they had, I looked up some of the pitching staffs in the NL Central.

 

Suprisingly, compared to NL central staffs Rusch is was actually better than or equivalent to every other teams #5 starters (except the Cardinals Marquis 4.13 ERA). Also, Rusch's ERA was better than most NL central teams #4 starters.

 

I know it may be popular to criticize Rusch, due to the fact that his stuff is not the greatest or that he is not the flashiest pitcher, but if you would like to make the argument that he is a worthless pitcher or worthless to the Cubs please back your statement up with some actual facts or substance.

 

Rich Hill threw 24.2 innings in 2005. He only started 4 of the 10 games he appeared in. Simply saying that Rusch was better because of Hill's misuage and ineffectiveness last year is not correct. Hill was far was good last year but the extremely small sample size and use of the bullpen has as much do to with that as anything.

 

Do you suggest a measure of how effective a pitcher was beside performance? His statement that Hill could be as effective as Rusch has been for the Cubs is not substantiated by anything other than his "opinion." All I'm asking is that if someone makes a broad statement or tries to criticize the use of a term "innings eater", etc have something to back it up.

[Mark Priors Calves]

who can't eat up innings? i've never understood why guys who get battered around for 5-6 innings get praised simply for taking up innings.

 

They can help take the strain off of an overworked bullpen, which is what happened to the Cubs last year.

 

That doesn't change the fact that almost anybody can do it. Hill could do what Rusch does (suck for 5-6 innings at a time), and do it cheaper.

 

Maybe you should check the stats, because Hill actually performed considerably worse than Rusch last year with a 9.13 ERA. Among the other #5 starters Koronka had a 7.47 ERA and Mitre had a 5.37 ERA. So if your argument is that Rusch and his 4.50 ERA is garbage, your argument is utterly ridiculous as well as uninformed.

 

Based on some of your argument regarding "innings eaters" and how little value they had, I looked up some of the pitching staffs in the NL Central.

 

Suprisingly, compared to NL central staffs Rusch is was actually better than or equivalent to every other teams #5 starters (except the Cardinals Marquis 4.13 ERA). Also, Rusch's ERA was better than most NL central teams #4 starters.

 

I know it may be popular to criticize Rusch, due to the fact that his stuff is not the greatest or that he is not the flashiest pitcher, but if you would like to make the argument that he is a worthless pitcher or worthless to the Cubs please back your statement up with some actual facts or substance.

 

Rich Hill threw 24.2 innings in 2005. He only started 4 of the 10 games he appeared in. Simply saying that Rusch was better because of Hill's misuage and ineffectiveness last year is not correct. Hill was far was good last year but the extremely small sample size and use of the bullpen has as much do to with that as anything.

 

Do you suggest a measure of how effective a pitcher was beside performance? His statement that Hill could be as effective as Rusch has been for the Cubs is not substantiated by anything other than his "opinion." All I'm asking is that if someone makes a broad statement or tries to criticize the use of a term "innings eater", etc have something to back it up.

 

Obviously, performance is the best measure of the effectiveness of the pitcher. But if that performance is based upon only a handful of appearance and even less in the appropriate role of the player (as a starting pitcher), then I don't think, in this case, its an adequate measure.