Time, at last, for the six-man rotation?
In the old days, there were just pitchers: not starters, not relievers, not closers, and certainly not lefty specialists. And pitchers were expected to pitch a complete game (and pick up some innings on their off days if one of the other pitchers fell short). In the days of “Spahn and Sain and Pray for Rain,” there were no fixed rotations, as such. You might save your best pitcher for when you were facing the best team—after all, why waste Josh Beckett against the Royals? But in the 50s, teams began to realize that pitchers could be used in relief, as a regular feature. This new strategy allowed managers to put their starting pitchers on a regular schedule, which also allowed those pitchers to start more games and pitch more innings. In the 60s, the four-man rotation became de rigeur and by the early 70s some teams even started fooling around with three-man rotations. But in the mid-to-late 70s this trend reversed, and by the 1980s all teams were firmly entrenched in five-starter mode, with only occasional forays back into four-starter territory in situations of dire need.
Given this trend, it’s not surprising that we witnessed, in the 2007 season, even stricter limitations on pitchers, especially young pitchers. Case in point: the Joba Rules, which carefully proscribed Joe Torre’s use of hardthrowing prospect Joba Chamberlain as a reliever, dictating that the young fireballer, who is slated to be a starter in 2008, could not be used on consecutive days and could not come in to the middle of an inning. We saw something similar with the highly-touted Clay Buchholz in the Red Sox organization. Clay was subject to a strict pitch count in each game and a strict innings limit over the course of the season; in fact, Theo Epstein had given instructions that Buchholz was to be removed from his no-hitter against Baltimore if his pitch count reached 120 (thankfully, he retired the final batter on his 115th pitch, a beautiful curveball). Sox fans hoping to see Buchholz take the hill in the postseason were disappointed when management shut him down, citing a rigid 155 innings limit for a skinny kid who started the season in Double A. While pulling any pitcher out of a no-hitter in the 9th is inexcusable, an innings limit is hard to argue with—just think of Anibal Sanchez, another rookie who threw a no-no for the Marlins in 2006 but threw just 30 innings this year before having season-ending surgery for a torn labrum in June.
Given these two trends—mandating kid gloves for young hurlers and limiting pitchers of all ages to a certain number of pitches—it is only a matter of time before we see the advent of the six-man rotation. We probably would have seen it before now if not for the expansion era and the resultant shortage of quality pitching. But these days, with plenty of young talent in the pipeline and plenty of old talent hanging on by their surgically reconstructed fingernails, the era of the six-pitcher rotation may have finally arrived.
It’s been a subject of growing discussion in Boston this month, as the Sox have six starting pitchers slated to go in 2008: Josh Beckett, Daisuke Matsuzaka, Curt Schilling, Tim Wakefield, Buchholz, and Jon Lester. Among fans, the six-man rotation has been discussed mostly because the Fenway Faithful are loath to see any of these players go: Beckett is the staff ace; everyone expects Dice-K to break out next year; the city practically demanded Theo find a way to re-sign Schilling; Wakefield is a perennial fan favorite, still pitches extremely effectively, and costs practically nothing; Buchholz has the no-no under his belt and nasty stuff at his fingertips; and Lester, in addition to being the clinching pitcher of the 2007 World Series, has had the city’s heart in his hands ever since his diagnosis with cancer last year.
But sentiment is no reason to make poor baseball decisions, and Theo and Co. are about as unsentimental a management team as exists in baseball: if, say, the Marlins call them this afternoon and offer them, say, Miguel Cabrera for Jon Lester, that’s a deal they’d make. But this morning, on WEEI’s morning talk show, Schilling himself explained some practical reasons why you just might see the six-starter scenario play out in Fenway Park next year. “Simple math tells you if they start out with Lester and Buchholz in the rotation and they make every start of the year, don’t miss a turn, that they won’t be able to pitch in September and October,” Schilling said, referring to the front office’s innings limits on their two crown jewels. In addition to the younsters, there’s the oldsters—Schilling referenced himself and Tim Wakefield, tacitly admitting that neither of them is exactly the innings-eating horse they once were. Plus, as Schilling also noted, Daisuke Matsuzaka was accustomed to pitching on a six-man rotation in Japan. Given the other factors at play here, and given their huge investment in Matsuzaka, the six-man rotation is something the Red Sox have to be considering. Plus, if someone gets hurt, you could just go to a regular, five-man rotation without too much disruption. As Schilling concluded, “There’s a lot of things that lend itself to this being just about the perfect storm if it’s going to happen.”
Has the era of the six-man rotation finally dawned? And if it has, are we happy about it?
October 27th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Random Facts about Mike Lowell:
Mike Lowell does not play third base. He merely finds it a convenient place to ambush unsuspecting baseballs.
A-Rod wears Mike Lowell pajamas.
Mike Lowell has drawn a bases clearing Walk.
The Infield Fly rule does not apply to Mike Lowell, as he has never dropped a ball.
Mike Lowell can will bunts foul.
Mike Lowell grew his beard at age 4 in order to intimidate opposing pitchers in T-ball. It became salt-and-pepper in high school because “the chicks dig it.”
Report this comment
October 27th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
More Random Facts About Mike Lowell:
1) On Halloween A-Rod dresses up as Mike Lowell.
2) Mike Lowell once turned an unassisted quadruple play.
3) Mike Lowell’s glove is like a black hole: neither light nor balls can escape it.
4) Fox didn’t just stop using Scooter the talking baseball… Mike Lowell killed him.
5) The reason Julio Lugo makes so many errors is that every time he looks at Mike Lowell he shits his pants.
6) Mike Lowell does not catch baseballs, they throw themselves at him.
7) Bill Belichick gets all his humble pie from Mike Lowell.
8) Mike Lowell’s beard never grows. It’s too scared of what he might do.
9) George Steinbrenner once offered Mike Lowell’s eyebrows $27 million to play 3rd base.
10) Mike Lowell doesn’t have a batting average, he has a batting superlative.
11) When Chuck Norris goes to bed at night he checks his closet for Mike Lowell.
Report this comment
November 14th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
The six man rotation might be the right call for the Sox, but I don’t think it is the answer for most teams. The majority of teams are struggling to find five decent starters for next season.
Also, teams that start out with six starters seldom finish with that many. Last season, the Phils started the year with six guys (Hamels, Myers, Lieber, Eaton, Garcia and Moyer) and only Moyer didn’t miss significant time with injury.
Report this comment
November 14th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
There have also been teams toying with the idea of going to a 4 man rotation. Cleveland is one organization that has thought about adopting it in their farm system due to economic reasons as well as the theory that pitchers would be stronger if they pitched more. There have been statistical studies showing pitchers that routinely throw over 100 pitches in the 1st half of the season have a lower era in the 2nd half. One could theorize that a pitcher only going every fifth day wouldn’t be stronger down the stretch but actually weaker since they hadn’t worked their arm enough. The other question you have to ask is do the top pitchers want less outings which would lower their win total and effect their market value? Doesn’t Boston want Josh Beckett taking the mound every 5th day if he gives them the best chance of winning? A team should actually want their best pitchers getting more starts not less.
Report this comment
November 14th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Coley, I disagree. I think that the Sox are not the right team to break this barrier. Over 162 games (assuming each guy makes their scheduled starts), a five-man rotation allows each team’s #1 guy to start 33 games. Bump it up to a six-man and it plummets to 27 starts. That’s six games that will not feature Josh Beckett on the mound. I respect what guys like Tim Wakefield have done with their careers, but putting him in the rotation at the cost of those six Beckett starts is a big step back. It may cost them two or three wins, which, I think we’ll all agree, is a big deal – especially with the Yankees in the AL East.
Yes, it may very well be that pitchers would respond well to an extra day of rest (or, it could have negative consequences in their individual performance. Who knows?), but whatever benefits that may provide is more than offset by the difference created by 33 vs. 27 starts by aces like Beckett.
Report this comment
November 14th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
Paul, I didn’t say the six man rotation was the right call for the Sox. I said it MIGHT BE the right call. As in, I haven’t really given it much thought.
My point was simply that teams who enter the season with six starters seldom finish the season with that many.
Report this comment
November 14th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
What’s wrong with putting Wake in the pen? See how his back holds up for the early part of the season, and see what Lester and Buchholz can do. If Wake proves he can still go and one of the young guys falters, then you have an easy solution.
Report this comment
November 15th, 2007 at 4:40 am
I’ve said this all before on umpbump a few times, but I don’t remember where, so I’ll just say it again. I DON’T think the next logical step is to a six man rotation. I think the next logical step is to a four-man rotation.
With pitchers on such strict pitch counts, they are not feeling as exhausted between starts as they used to and this is why you see starters coming in in relief sometimes these days. And the jury is still out on what is healthy for young arms and what is not. Frankly I think putting young pitchers on innings limits and then shutting them down completely is stupid and possibly even counterproductive.
All the best evidence we have suggests that it is not how many innings you throw, but what kind of innings those are and how stressful those innings are. One guy throws 25 pitches every inning, but another guy throws only 10 pitches an inning, so it’s crazy to have an organization-wide innings limit.
I generally agree with the notion that if you can keep away from high-stress situations, it is actually healthier to throw more often than less. My personal hero Leo Mazzone always believed in having the Braves starters throw a lot more between starts, and I think it produced results, and Japanese pitchers throw a *lot* more but I don’t think they necessarily have more injuries.
But most of all, the six man rotation is stupid because as Paul wisely notes, you are taking away lots of starts from your best three pitchers, and giving them to your worst two pitchers, plus another even worse guy who wouldn’t have even been good enough to crack a 5-man squad. You want guys like Josh Beckett and Johan Santana starting 35 games a year, not 26.
Put everyone on a hard 100 pitch limit and pitch them every 4 days is what I say. That way, you are taking away about 160 innings that would have been pitched by a fifth starter type, and giving dividing them among your best pitchers. Then we can get back to having 30 game winners again and 275 innings pitched in a season.
Report this comment
November 15th, 2007 at 4:42 am
Also, if you actually are going to have a six man rotation, it should be used the Japanese way, in which you pitch to matchups and sometimes guys start on 3 days rest, and your ace starts much more often than your no. 6 guy.
Report this comment
November 15th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
I think the main point that Coley made, that teams rarely finish the season with the number of starters they began it with, is the essential one. Even if the Red Sox do start the season using all six guys, one or more of them will spend time on the DL. It’s just the nature of the beast.
@ Melissa, I would be extremely interested to see those studies! The different training methods for pitchers has been one of my points of interest for a while now. In my gut, it seems stupid and counterintuitive that throwing *less* would somehow make you a better pitcher—doesn’t practice make perfect? And when I go to the gym, after all, I *try* to tire myself out because that’s how the body gets stronger. Plus, I think complete games are cool. But when I see young pitchers blowing out their arms, or see the terrible starts some older pitchers make after throwing a lot of pitches in their previous game, I start to wonder. In a similar vein, I’ve been very interested since the AL Cy Young was announced to read that Sabathia himself did not feel tired pitching in the postseason. Numerous baseball eggheads have also come forward to say that they *don’t* think his high IP during the regular season left him depleted during the playoffs. (This does raise the question, then why the hell did he pitch so terribly?)
@ Paul, I think Wakefield’s days as a reliever are over. Yes, he has been Boston’s Mr. Versatility in the past, but in reality, you don’t want a knuckleballer coming out of the bullpen. There’s just too much variability. In his regular starts, Wakefield can sometimes give up only four hits in a game—but all four could be in the same inning. When I think back to the days when Wake occasionally closed for the Red Sox, I get chills down my spine and wonder why I wasn’t more terrified at the time.
@ Nick—-wow. So you would actually go back to the method they were using in ye olden days? Here is what BP had to say about a flexible rotation adjusted for matchups:
“In the 1950s, Casey Stengel routinely saved his best pitcher, Whitey Ford, to pitch against the best teams in the American League. While Ford’s starts may have been more valuable in such an arrangement, he never started more than 33 games under Stengel. Stengel was fired after the 1960 season and replaced with Ralph Houk, who immediately switched the Yankees to a fixed rotation. The result: in 1961, Ford started 39 games, threw 283 innings, and won 25 games–all career highs.”
Report this comment
November 15th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
No, I’m not calling for a return to those days. In ye olden days, you had a four man rotation and pitchers were also expected to pitch complete games and there were no pitch counts. I’ve read accounts about how pitchers in the 70s would be completely unable to use their arm for two days after a start. But now we have pitch counts, and nobody gets to throw 230 pitches in a game anymore. So why do we still need the 5-man rotation? I don’t think that we do.
Report this comment
November 15th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Sarah, one thing regarding CC and (Fausto) that I haven’t seen bandied about: It was the first postseason for both of them. Maybe they just couldn’t handle the pressure.
Report this comment
November 15th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Ah, Rich! You aren’t opening up the “intangibles” can of worms, are you? My God, man, don’t you know that baseball players are emotionless androids who perform the same under any and all circumstances? Any mere anecdotal data that suggests otherwise is just suffering from a small sample size!
Report this comment
November 15th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
Well, yeah. Pitchers get hurt. But I still don’t see how this point becomes something that supports a six-man rotation. Rotations constantly change due to injuries. But that’s what the long man in the pen or starters in AAA are for.
As for Wake in the pen, Sarah, I understand your point. Plus with the whole fixation on Wake having his own catcher would make this difficult. But you’re talking to a guy who thinks that Wakefield isn’t good enough to warrant this kind of special attention. Tell me though? Which option sounds better to you? Josh Beckett starting 33 games or 27 games? And if it’s true that Wakefield doesn’t have it anymore, I’m not sure that’s a case for putting him into the rotation. Sounds a bit backwards. Most guys aren’t in the bullpen because they have “ice in their veins”. They’re there because they couldn’t hack it as a starter, so they get thrown into the pen where the damage they can cause is limited.
And Nick, not sure if I’m with you on the 4-man idea. If it COULD work, I’d support it wholeheartedly. I just don’t think it can. For one, I don’t think many pitchers would be OK with that anymore. I mean, we’re talking about a bunch of guys who follow the same exact routine day in and day out because they think that it somehow helps them during the game. And your suggestion goes far, far beyond what color socks to wear. I’m sure some guys would like the idea, but I’d assume that most wouldn’t be too happy with it. And not sure if I follow you on the 100-pitch count thing either. Shouldn’t it be a case-by-case basis? Some guys are perfectly fine going 110 or 120. Why limit that?
Report this comment
November 15th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Well, I wouldn’t limit pitch counts like that if a team stayed with a five man rotation. But if it went to a four man I would, and teams are basically limiting guys to 100 now already, anyway.
I think four man could work if you made it an organization-wide thing, like Melissa was talking about in reference to the Indians.
Report this comment
November 15th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Well, yeah. But even changing organizational culture in that way will take some years. Plus, FA pitchers may not consider it to be a very attractive option.
Rich and Sarah, why do you open up cans of worms? Why are we talking about this? We all know that stats are meaningless and that therefore players should only be evaluated by comments like “his intestinal fortitude rates as a plus-plus. i mean, he once shot a man just to watch him die. therefore, he must be great at hitting the ball opposite field.” Let’s all annoint Daivd Ortiz as the most clutch hitter ever although his .766 OPS during “close and late” situations in 2007 was unfathomably worse than Alex Rodriguez’ 1.125 OPS in similar situations. You know, because sample sizes never matter.
Report this comment
November 15th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
When you can’t come up with a tangible explanation, look to the intangible.
Besides, it’s fun to watch the worms squirm.
Report this comment
November 15th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Oh Paul. So many little inaccuracies to unpack in Comment No. 12. First, Coley’s point (which I was referencing) was not at all that the likelihood of injuries support a six-man rotation. It was that even if you plan to have a six-man rotation, by July you will probably have a five-man rotation by default (if not sooner).
Second, nowhere in my post or my comment do I say that Wakefield can’t hack it anymore. Far from it. Yes, the man is old, and there may be some bumps and bruises along the way. But he pitches late into games, saves the bullpen from overwork, and he had 17 wins this year (just as many as he had in 1998). God bless Tim Wakefield and his flighty flutterball! And if anyone says otherwise, they’re getting an arrow straight to the neck.
And not to pile on (she said, before she piled on) but since when do pitchers move to the bullpen just because they’re failed starters? That sort of thinking is about as au courant as parachute pants. There are many reasons certain pitchers make better relievers than starters, not just the squishy intangible of which liquid they have in their veins. Maybe the guy only has a couple of pitches, or maybe his arm isn’t up to starting, or maybe his fabulous “out” pitch is only fabulous the first time through the lineup. In fact, I would argue that some of the “failed starters” who end up shunted to the bullpen are actually set-up-to-fail relievers who were forced to start when that wasn’t in their best interest. There’s no shame in moving to the bullpen. It worked for Dennis Eckersley!
(Just throwing this out there: is it totally insane to suggest that maybe Pedro Martinez should be converted to a closer? He has lost the physical capability to go six innings every fifth day for six months, but his pitches are still deadly, he’s still one of the smartest pitchers in the game, and he still wants to go out there and kick some ass. Just a thought.)
Report this comment
November 15th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Sarah, I guess I misinterpreted what you meant by Wakefield’s days as “Mr. Versatility” are over. My mistake.
But it sounds like you misinterpreted something I said too. I didn’t say that all relievers end up there because they couldn’t start. But it’s true for most. Why are starters paid so much more money than relievers? Because on the whole, starters are better and are counted on to pitch more innings as a result. I didn’t mean to make it seem like being sent to the pen is shameful or anything. It’s true. Some guys like Mo Rivera and Eric Gagne weren’t good starters but made terrific relievers. But even the best closer makes $10m. That’s Ted Lilly money. If most of them had the choice, (again, most, not all) I’d say they’d rather start and go after the big bucks. But they’re just not good enough.
And the idea of Pedro in the pen has been brought up by Mets fans. I just can’t support it. Not only could this mess with his already fragile body, it takes the guy far too long to warm up.
Report this comment
November 15th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Well, you’re bringing in a new element when you start talking about money, and I think you’re conflating “better” with “more innings” with “more money.” Starters make more money because they pitch more innings. Position players get more money in part because they play more games. (But you don’t see pitchers lining up to be position players, and people don’t say that position players are “better” than starting pitchers.) As far as I’m concerned, the money here is a separate issue. I’m not even sure you can say that more innings = better pitcher, when you’re trying to compare starters with relievers. It’s a sport with many different positions, each of them essential, each of them specialized. So if you have a great situational reliever who can get you out of jams, do you really consider him “worse” than your starter? If so, why are starting pitchers often relieved when their pitch count is getting up, the bases are loaded, and there’s one out in the inning? If they were really “better,” why not leave them in? I feel like you’re sort of comparing apples and oranges, here. I don’t think you can compare a closer with a set-up man with a LOOGY. It’s like trying to compare a catcher and a centerfielder and a shortstop. It’s not about who is “better” or “worse.” It’s about how their performance in their specific role helps the team.
Report this comment
November 15th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
Paul,
It may take an organization time to develop a 4 man rotation but it certainly could be done. The fact of the matter is there used to be 4 man rotations and the overall pitching in the game was stronger. This was during the days when they actually lowered the mound because pitching was dominant. I’m not sure how you can simply dismiss it as not being possible. If pitchers are trained to pitch to a different routine, you have to consider it possible for them to succeed in that system. It makes sense for organizations that have economic constraints to attempt to develop this concept if they have good scouting and player development.
Report this comment