Rotation

[CubinNY]

Pitcher's have their routines. The mechanical work, the conditioning and throwing phase and the mental game are part of that routine. Now, if you take that pitcher out of a routine he has been using for years, he is not going to have the same results in my opinion. The single most important thing when you look at a pitcher is his daily routines.

 

Where do you come up with this stuff?

 

I agree with him. You can't just go to a 4 man rotation b/c it makes statistical sense. If we brought guys up through the minors using a 4 man rotation, the mental approach and physical approach (limiting pitch counts, getting your body adjusted to the different strain and healing processes) would be different. Expecting to take a crowd of guys raised on the 5 man rotation to go to a 4 man rotation and put up similar numbers and avoid injury is silly.

 

I'd be all for going to the 4 man rotation in the minors and raising the next gen of pitchers on it, but converting current ML pitchers to the 4 man is just asking for injuries.

 

Except in the playoffs when it really counts.

 

BTW: I'm not supporting a 4 man rotation. My question had nothing to do with a 4 man rotation. It has to do with the bolded above.

[RichHillIsABeast]

Pitcher's have their routines. The mechanical work, the conditioning and throwing phase and the mental game are part of that routine. Now, if you take that pitcher out of a routine he has been using for years, he is not going to have the same results in my opinion. The single most important thing when you look at a pitcher is his daily routines.

 

Where do you come up with this stuff?

 

I agree with him. You can't just go to a 4 man rotation b/c it makes statistical sense. If we brought guys up through the minors using a 4 man rotation, the mental approach and physical approach (limiting pitch counts, getting your body adjusted to the different strain and healing processes) would be different. Expecting to take a crowd of guys raised on the 5 man rotation to go to a 4 man rotation and put up similar numbers and avoid injury is silly.

 

I'd be all for going to the 4 man rotation in the minors and raising the next gen of pitchers on it, but converting current ML pitchers to the 4 man is just asking for injuries.

 

Except in the playoffs when it really counts.

 

BTW: I'm not supporting a 4 man rotation. My question had nothing to do with a 4 man rotation. It has to do with the bolded above.

 

That's also only going to happen for a handful of starts. Hopefully the body can stand it. It's a risk, but most teams feel like taking it. You may never get another shot at the WS as a player.

 

Ah, sorry I misunderstood you, CubinNY. IMO, the routine thing is important from a physical aspect. From a mental aspect I think you could adjust fairly quickly. Guys go back and forth from the rotation to the pen all the time (and say it is tough mentally, but they do it).

[Jerry Mumphrey]

Maybe Glavine was offering an excuse as to why the Braves are so woeful in the playoffs: Their pitchers are too fine-tuned to start a game unless they know their opponent and rest schedule five days in advance.

 

I think a straight-up four-man rotation was the way to go before teams stopped giving up outs at so many positions like they once did. Nowadays I don't think you can coast through innings against anyone.

[baseball7897]

Pitcher's have their routines. The mechanical work, the conditioning and throwing phase and the mental game are part of that routine. Now, if you take that pitcher out of a routine he has been using for years, he is not going to have the same results in my opinion. The single most important thing when you look at a pitcher is his daily routines.

 

Where do you come up with this stuff?

 

I agree with him. You can't just go to a 4 man rotation b/c it makes statistical sense. If we brought guys up through the minors using a 4 man rotation, the mental approach and physical approach (limiting pitch counts, getting your body adjusted to the different strain and healing processes) would be different. Expecting to take a crowd of guys raised on the 5 man rotation to go to a 4 man rotation and put up similar numbers and avoid injury is silly.

 

I'd be all for going to the 4 man rotation in the minors and raising the next gen of pitchers on it, but converting current ML pitchers to the 4 man is just asking for injuries.

 

Except in the playoffs when it really counts.

 

BTW: I'm not supporting a 4 man rotation. My question had nothing to do with a 4 man rotation. It has to do with the bolded above.

 

Being a pitcher means you have to have to put in a tremendous amount of work. And it all starts with a simply having a practice routine that you stick with no matter what. Having a regular routine is critical for being successful as a pitcher.

 

Barry Zito's thoughts on a regular routine:

"It's unbelievable. I see guys who don't have a routine. And they bounce from team to team. When you have a solid plan that you have been doing for years and years, you just don't ever get stressed out because you know you are prepared."

[Rob]

To everybody who is arguing against a four man rotation on the basis of daily routines being important,

 

You do realize that pitchers are asked to adjust their routines much more drastically quite often, right? Hell, we're in the middle of moving Wood from the rotation to the bullpen... he's going to completely change his routine..

 

We send young kids down from the major league pen and have them start at AAA constantly.

 

How about the swingman role? He doesn't get to have a routine all year.

 

Now mind you, I'm not trying to argue that the routines are unimportant. They certainly are important. But if Rothschild were really half the pitching coach he's supposed to be, he should be able to come up with routines to help guys get through 4 man rotations.

 

And I'm all for setting up a 4 man, tandem rotation. It would free up a slot or two on the bench that would otherwise go to somebody like Novoa.

[Jazz]

By the way, it shouldnt be called a 4 man rotation since it would involve 8 guys.

[UK1679666180]

I would be against it, the difference between 75 and 95 pitches a start isn't worth the extra day of recovery or the additional bat off the bench.

[treebird]

I would be against it, the difference between 75 and 95 pitches a start isn't worth the extra day of recovery or the additional bat off the bench.

 

Far be it from me to question you, but I'm just curious as to how you came to this conclusion. I've read some pretty convincing arguments that suggests that pitchers would be fine in a four man rotation.

[UK1679666180]

Question me all you want, I'm not better than anyone else here or knowing more about the game than anyone else.

 

I'll address it in two points. A)Health B)Practical usage.

 

I'll use Z as the primary example...

 

If Z throws 120 pitches... His between schedule routing will likely consist of...

 

Day 1-Game

Day 2-Weight lifting and little throwing

Day 3-Heavy throwing (mechanical adjustments)

Day 4-Weight lifting and medium throwing

Day 5-Not much throwing and no weight lifting

Day 6-Game

 

To me, with the amount of stress given in a 120 pitch outing or a 75 pitch outing, they can't sacrifice one of those days. The 4 man rotation could work when they can take something off their FBs for half of the line-up and still win games, the stress is greater than it once was. You take away one of those days and the increase of injuries goes up much higher even under a controlled environment more than typical usage of a 5 man rotation.

 

As far as being practical, I'll use this previous example....

 

Day 1 -- Zambrano/Marshall

Day 2 -- Lilly/Marquis

Day 3 -- Hill/Miller

Day 4 -- Prior/Rusch

 

Just in that group, you have 4 pitchers that missed sign. amounts of time due to injuries. It is too dependent on the health of pitchers always being injury free.

 

That'll leave 3 relievers for spare parts. That'll give you approx. only 4-5IP of Z, Lilly, Hill, and Prior.

 

If Z is doing well and get thru 5, you're leaving 4IP at the hands of likely of a lesser pitcher with the game still in doubt most of the time. It's one thing to take the ball out of his hands in the 8th b/c of health concerns, it's another to do so after 5.

 

It doesn't allow the team the luxury of being able to fully capitalize from the occasions of a starter having a real good outing.

Edited December 15, 2006 by UK

[baseball7897]

Question me all you want, I'm not better than anyone else here or knowing more about the game than anyone else.

 

I'll address it in two points. A)Health B)Practical usage.

 

I'll use Z as the primary example...

 

If Z throws 120 pitches... His between schedule routing will likely consist of...

 

Day 1-Game

Day 2-Weight lifting and little throwing

Day 3-Heavy throwing (mechanical adjustments)

Day 4-Weight lifting and medium throwing

Day 5-Not much throwing and no weight lifting

Day 6-Game

 

To me, with the amount of stress given in a 120 pitch outing or a 75 pitch outing, they can't sacrifice one of those days. The 4 man rotation could work when you they can take something off their FBs for half of the line-up and still win games, the stress is greater than it once was. You take away one of those days and the increase of injuries goes up much higher even under a controlled environment more than typical usage of a 5 man rotation.

 

As far as being practical, I'll use this previous example....

 

Day 1 -- Zambrano/Marshall

Day 2 -- Lilly/Marquis

Day 3 -- Hill/Miller

Day 4 -- Prior/Rusch

 

Just in that group, you have 4 pitchers that missed sign. amounts of time due to injuries. It is too dependent on the health of pitchers always being injury free.

 

That'll leave 3 relievers for spare parts. That'll give you approx. only 4-5IP of Z, Lilly, Hill, and Prior.

 

If Z is doing well and get thru 5, you're leaving 4IP at the hands of likely of a lesser pitcher with the game still in doubt most of the time. It's one thing to take the ball out of his hands in the 8th b/c of health concerns, it's another to do so after 5.

 

It doesn't allow the team the luxury of being able to fully capitalize from the occasions of a starter having a real good outing.

 

Well said.

[CubinNY]

As far as being practical, I'll use this previous example....

 

Day 1 -- Zambrano/Marshall

Day 2 -- Lilly/Marquis

Day 3 -- Hill/Miller

Day 4 -- Prior/Rusch

 

Just in that group, you have 4 pitchers that missed sign. amounts of time due to injuries. It is too dependent on the health of pitchers always being injury free.

 

But isn't that a problem regardless of the set up?

 

Anyway, I suppose one could argue that less pitches per start would equal less injuries. The question seems to be would this be the case?

 

I would love to see this type of thing tried at higher levels in the minors. It would be an interesting experiment.

 

It could be as revolutionary as the five man rotation and closer.

 

Baseball is fighting a never ending battle against history.

Edited December 15, 2006 by CubinNY

[UK1679666180]

With that scenario, you're expecting your 4 main starters to get about 200IP and 4 relievers to get between anywhere between 100-200IP. Using the Cubs current expected rotation (Z, Lilly, Hill, Marquis, Prior), there's really one unproven starter (durability not production) and one that is coming off injury plagued seasons.

 

That's a much separate and lesser risk from expecting Rusch, Marshall, and Miller to provide 100-200IP as well as the rotation staying injury free.

 

As far as less pitches per start, it's always better to lean on the side of caution. I'd rather see a pitcher get pulled 10 pitches too early rather see him laboring for an additional 10 pitches while fatigued. The less you pitched while fatigued, the less likely you'll throw with altered mechanics, and the less likely you add more stress than usual per pitch. It's up to the PC to be able to use his expertise and know when the pitcher is putting himself at risk by throwing while he's drained. A pitcher can become fatigued after only 75 pitches or 95, it all depends on his body for that start and how well he prepared himself between starts, which is why I have a hard time just pointing to pitch counts and using it as a reason why he got hurt.

 

You can't underestimate the importance of recovery time between starts.

 

You're never going to be able to eliminate injuries, whether they're blunt traums or accumulative, but being extra cautious is better than being careless.

[cheapseats]

 

You can't underestimate the importance of recovery time between starts.

 

Rany Jazayerli has done research on this. The extra day of recovery does nothing to prevent likelihood of injury. In fact, those in a five-man rotation were injured slightly more often, although the difference is so slight I don't consider it significant.

 

As has been mentioned many times on this board, the 5-man rotation was instituted not to protect pitchers' health, but because the Dodgers had 5 good pitchers and wanted each to start.

 

And innings pitched isn't really an issue; Greg Maddux might throw 75 pitches in 9 innings, and Zambrano might throw 110 in 6 innings. Pitches per start is the relevant statistic. Fergie Jenkins, for example, threw 325 innings in 1971 and was just fine.

[UK1679666180]

He used data from the 70s as his primary research focal point, when pitching stats in general favored the pitcher much more than today. It's a different ballgame than it was in the 60s and 70s, hitters have more patient approaches and 1-8(9) is much stronger than it was back then. Most hitters are unafraid to get two strikes, unlike 30 years ago.

 

I know pitches per start is more important as I mentioned the 75 and 95 as well as the 120. PIP favored pitchers back then more than today and so did the amount of hitters a pitcher can ease his arm.

[cheapseats]

and so did the amount of hitters a pitcher can ease his arm.

 

That's pure conjecture.

 

And none of the rest of what you wrote has anything to do with rest in between starts. Even if pitchers really did exert themselves more per pitch in today's game (and you've presented no evidence - how about citing radar gun fluctuations corresponding to place in the order?), you still haven't presented any evidence that an extra day's rest helps recovery, and you haven't refuted Jazayerli's article that shows a slight improvement in longevity for those in a 4-man rotation.

[UK1679666180]

Have you ever seen thermographic imaging of a pitcher's shoulder during his 5 day cycle? The soft tissue around the shoulder is less damaged going into day 5 than day 4.

 

Hoping a pitcher doesn't get abused in a 5 man rotation is a stretch, a 4 man rotation is even more unlikely, look at the '95 Royals and what happens when a manager doesn't adjust pitch totals for short rest.

 

Where is there any proof from either side? What did Rany provide?

 

I didn't see anything from Jazayerli's article that stated why a 4 man rotation would be better in today's environment.

 

Statistically, pitching was better back then because of factors that go beyond the 5th starter taking up 32 starts. Smaller parks, bigger hitters, tighter baseball, etc.

 

Relievers had better numbers in the 70s than today as well, that doesn't equate to them being used better today.

 

If you want an article from the same site as to why pitching is diff. today than 30 years ago...

 

http://www.baseball-analysis.com/article.php?articleid=2008

 

If you can show me where Rany adjusted for the differences in pitching between now and then, I'd love to see it. If not, I don't think it can be applied in today's game.

Edited December 15, 2006 by UK

[Jerry Mumphrey]

uk wrote:

If Z is doing well and get thru 5, you're leaving 4IP at the hands of likely of a lesser pitcher with the game still in doubt most of the time. It's one thing to take the ball out of his hands in the 8th b/c of health concerns, it's another to do so after 5.

 

It doesn't allow the team the luxury of being able to fully capitalize from the occasions of a starter having a real good outing.

 

I considered that when suggesting a strict 90 pitch count limit for the 1st man. If Z is really on for his first 90 pitches, I've gotta think he's already gotten you through the 7th inning. It's just that you need to pull him at that point so he can recover in four days. No pitcher is going to be as effective the 4th or 5th time through the batting order anyways.

[UK1679666180]

Z isn't that type of pitcher though to stay around 13 pitcher per inning, even when he's doing well.

 

I think 90 pitches would be too excessive for a 4 man rotation in today's game. Most starting pitchers today avg 95 pitches. Obviously Z avg'd more under Baker and has shown to be able to handle a greater workload than 95. But if go with a 4 man rotation, you have to look to start pulling a pitcher at the first sign of fatigue usually from body language (most times around 75 pitches) compared to a 4 day rest which you can use that extra day to keep him out there till about say 110. That all depends on how economical he has been as well, a pitcher that labored thru 3 of his 6 innings will be fatigued going into the 7th than someone who has cruised.