PDA

View Full Version : Article: Would a Six-Man Rotation Make Sense?



Nick Nelson
01-03-2013, 11:38 PM
You can view the page at http://twinsdaily.com/content.php?r=1281-Would-a-Six-Man-Rotation-Make-Sense

glunn
01-03-2013, 11:54 PM
I think that you have a very good idea for making the most of a bad situation. This seems like a good strategy for getting a look at more starters and hopefully finding some who can perform. I also like the idea of not stressing the arms that are still fragile.

lightfoot789
01-03-2013, 11:55 PM
Couldn't say it better. GREAT IDEA !!!

old nurse
01-04-2013, 12:09 AM
As completing 6 innings might be a task also, there would still need to be the large bullpen. That would leave the bench short. A regulars day off would be called playing DH that day.

jmlease1
01-04-2013, 12:14 AM
Not the craziest idea I've heard this winter. It would allow Gibson to keep pitching longer into the year while still keeping his overall workload at the arbitrary innings cap he's going to be on. I wonder if that would help keep someone like Harden healthier over the course of the season as well?

Wear vs sharpness, maybe?

It would be creative. Would it create any additional strain on the bullpen? You'd essentially be dumping the long man/mop-up guy spot on the staff unless you carried 12 pitchers (a horrid idea, IMHO, but one the Twins have gone with before) If these guys are more capable of getting deeper into games, 5 guys in the 'pen should be enough, but too many bad starts in a row and you'd have to scrap the idea, I think.

It should be something worth considering, but it'll never happen. Gardenhire & Anderson are far too conservative to even bandy it about.

jorgenswest
01-04-2013, 12:34 AM
I agree with the concern about increasing the pitching staff size.

I also agree that the Twins enter the season with some fragile arms. I would use Correia as the "6th starter" from the pen when all are healthy. Insert him as needed to replace a starter following a high pitch count start. Insert him in the rotation in the middle of a long stretch without a day off. When the day to day injuries occur, be quicker to DL a pitcher and insert Correia in the rotation.

It takes more than 5 starters to get through the season(... except for the Reds). I would prefer Correia to be the pitcher that gets bounced back and forth between the pen and rotation.

glunn
01-04-2013, 12:40 AM
As completing 6 innings might be a task also, there would still need to be the large bullpen. That would leave the bench short. A regulars day off would be called playing DH that day.

In a pinch, maybe the guy who has had 5 days rest could come out of the bullpen, and everyone else could move up a day?

jimbo92107
01-04-2013, 02:57 AM
Isn't that already what the Twins did last season? They had about a dozen different starting pitchers. Why fight it, just bring in a whole bunch of guys, then rotate them in and out of the bullpen.

jwestbrock
01-04-2013, 07:46 AM
I think it is worth trying to start the year with this bunch of stuff, at least as long as the non-Tommy John/major shoulder brigade are being expected to go get 7 or 8 decently pitched innings. I think this could have a chance to keep the bullpen fresher compared to last year as well.

Brock Beauchamp
01-04-2013, 07:53 AM
Not a bad idea. I don't know if it's needed out of Opening Day (with all the off days that usually come with April) but it should definitely be explored as an option, especially if/when Gibson is ready for the rotation.

mike wants wins
01-04-2013, 07:57 AM
I think they should get rid of starters completely outside of Diamond and Worley. All others go 2 or 3 innings every 2 or 3 days. That way they can throw harder every outing. Some day, a team will succeed with this idea. There is no reason to ask all starters to try to be like all other starters.

ThePuck
01-04-2013, 08:48 AM
Wouldn't it make more sense to figure out who your best five guys are and have them pitch as opposed to giving 27 starts to your 6th best pitcher?

ericchri
01-04-2013, 08:55 AM
I'd really worry about our bench at that point. We barely have one as it is (especially with one of those spots being taken up by Butera). If we give up another of those spots to a pitcher, we essentially can't afford any injuries to any of our position players in a game, just shifting the injury concern around a little bit.

I think a 6-man rotation could work, if it was built with players you could trust more to be able to go at least 5 innings every time out so that you could drop a bullpen arm. I don't think this staff rates like that unfortunately, at least not initially (it will be interesting to see how well they pitch, it probably can't help but be better than last year's April pitching). Our bullpen looks like it could be pretty solid, though bullpens are traditionally pretty unpredictable. I think you just live with the fact that they're gonna get worked hard again this year. Burton is a healthy year removed from his surgery, so they don't have to be quite as cautious with him this time around, Duensing should be in the pen permanently with all the potential options to start they now have. If Fien can be even remotely close to what he was last year they've got 4 really good pitchers in the pen.

I'm with ThePuck on this one. Pick your best 5 and roll with it. If/when one of them falls apart try the next guy in line.

Brock Beauchamp
01-04-2013, 09:22 AM
Wouldn't it make more sense to figure out who your best five guys are and have them pitch as opposed to giving 27 starts to your 6th best pitcher?

The point is that right now, the Twins don't look much different #2 to #6 or #7. Most teams are front-loaded with pitchers that aren't awful. The Twins have Diamond (likely due to regression), Worley (quite large question mark with the minor injury and switch to AL), and then... five or six guys who could pitch anywhere between a 4.00 and a 6.00 ERA.

chaderic20
01-04-2013, 09:53 AM
I think they should get rid of starters completely outside of Diamond and Worley. All others go 2 or 3 innings every 2 or 3 days. That way they can throw harder every outing. Some day, a team will succeed with this idea. There is no reason to ask all starters to try to be like all other starters.

I've always thought this would be an interesting experiment for a team with a bad conventional starting rotation. A 12-man pitching staff: Nine what I'll call "primaries", instead of starters, and three "situationals", instead of relievers. The primaries are grouped into three sets of three that pitch approximately three innings each every three days. You can mix-and-match styles and righty/lefty to keep hitters off balance throughout the game since most hitters will only see each pitcher once or maybe twice. Then the situationals are brought in for specialty matchups in high-leverage situations and for extra innings.

Boom Boom
01-04-2013, 10:07 AM
Why stop at six?

ThePuck
01-04-2013, 10:17 AM
The point is that right now, the Twins don't look much different #2 to #6 or #7. Most teams are front-loaded with pitchers that aren't awful. The Twins have Diamond (likely due to regression), Worley (quite large question mark with the minor injury and switch to AL), and then... five or six guys who could pitch anywhere between a 4.00 and a 6.00 ERA.

I get the point, but the coaches need to figure out who their best 5 are and go with it. No need to give the 6th guy, even if it's really close between him and the others, 27 or so starts

Rosterman
01-04-2013, 10:28 AM
Someday, a staff of three inning (let's try and get once thru the order) pitchers. Boy, would that be something!

Willihammer
01-04-2013, 10:38 AM
I get the point, but the coaches need to figure out who their best 5 are and go with it. No need to give the 6th guy, even if it's really close between him and the others, 27 or so starts

It would be worth it if the added rest improves the output in the other 135 starts commensurately.

I ran some quick math on our likely front 5. Historically, they have all done a bit better on 5 days rest, although worse on 6+ days rest. It looks to me like there's not enough here to either support or not support the theory, just a little interesting.




worley
pelfrey
correia
diamond
blackburn
total


4 days rest GS
23.00
77.00
78.00
19.00
69.00

266.00


4 days rest IP
136.33
459.00
433.66
114.66
393.33

1536.98


4 days rest IP/GS
5.93
5.96
5.56
6.03
5.70

5.78


4 days rest ERA
3.70
4.45
4.71
4.32
4.74

4.53


5 days rest GS
12.00
44.00
50.00
7.00
43.00

156.00


5 days rest IP
75.33
274.00
291.66
49.66
258.66

949.31


5 days rest IP/GS
6.28
6.23
5.83
7.09
6.02

6.09


5 days rest ERA
3.46
3.97
4.32
1.45
5.29

4.29


6+ days rest GS
11.00
26.00
24.00
8.00
23.00

92.00


6+ days rest IP
56.33
146.66
128.66
47.66
138.00

517.31


6+ dyas rest IP/GS
5.12
5.64
5.36
5.96
6.00

5.62


6+ days rest ERA
3.36
4.91
4.90
5.10
4.17

4.55

ThePuck
01-04-2013, 10:39 AM
It would be worth it if the added rest improves the output in the other 135 starts commensurately.

I ran some quick math on our likely front 5. Historically, they have all done a bit better on 5 days rest, although worse on 6+ days rest. It looks to me like there's not enough here to either support or not support the theory, just a little interesting.






worley
pelfrey
correia
diamond
blackburn
total


4 days rest GS
23
77
78
19
69

266


4 days rest IP
136.33
459
433.66
114.66
393.33

1536.98


4 days rest IP/GS
5.927391
5.961039
5.559744
6.034737
5.700435

5.77812


4 days rest ERA
3.7
4.45
4.71
4.32
4.74

4.527331


5 days rest GS
12
44
50
7
43

156


5 days rest IP
75.33
274
291.66
49.66
258.66

949.31


5 days rest IP/GS
6.2775
6.227273
5.8332
7.094286
6.015349

6.085321


5 days rest ERA
3.46
3.97
4.32
1.45
5.29

4.293718


6+ days rest GS
11
26
24
8
23

92


6+ days rest IP
56.33
146.66
128.66
47.66
138

517.31


6+ dyas rest IP/GS
5.120909
5.640769
5.360833
5.9575
6

5.622935


6+ days rest ERA
3.36
4.91
4.9
5.1
4.17

4.553587




Dig the research, thanks!

70charger
01-04-2013, 11:07 AM
I've always thought this would be an interesting experiment for a team with a bad conventional starting rotation. A 12-man pitching staff: Nine what I'll call "primaries", instead of starters, and three "situationals", instead of relievers. The primaries are grouped into three sets of three that pitch approximately three innings each every three days. You can mix-and-match styles and righty/lefty to keep hitters off balance throughout the game since most hitters will only see each pitcher once or maybe twice. Then the situationals are brought in for specialty matchups in high-leverage situations and for extra innings.

Locking your starters into a 9-and-3 rotation just as restrictive as the 5-man rotation; it suffers from the same flaw as the five-man starter rotation - it presumes that each "starter" or "primary" is roughly equivalent. They're obviously not, hence the push toward something more rational. However, this idea isn't any better, and depending on the rotation might be quite a bit worse. If you have Verlander, are you really going to give him 3 innings at a time? Only 9 innings over the course of 9 to 10 days? I wouldn't. And on top of that, this idea would have the added handicap that no current "starter" would ever want to do it. They like being "starters."

If we can agree that the typical rotation doesn't work optimally because the idea behind it is reductive, then this sort of rotation wouldn't work because it's just as reductive. I'd prefer modifying the pitchers' roles based on the team dynamics, as I think this original article was proposing. The current Twins would consider a 6-man rotation because our crop of 6 or 7 "starters" are roughly interchangeable, and generally not very good. The current Tigers would be hobbled by this, because their crop of 5 "starters" are not interchangeable, and they're certainly better than our top 7.

One day, I'd like to see a manager unafraid to actually use his players in an individually-optimal way. I would have no problem riding a guy like a 1984 Jack Morris to 250 innings a year. On the other hand, if I had someone like a 2008 Rich Harden, I'd absolutely want to find a way to limit his innings to protect the contract investment. And if my fifth guy was interchangeable with my 8th guy, then maybe the back of the rotation would be something in between relievers and starters and should be counted on in a hybrid role. Each pitcher is different. Why not use him like he is?

Winston Smith
01-04-2013, 11:22 AM
Get some decent pitchers so we don't need to worry about it!

Or are we still going with throw enough mud against the wall maybe some will stick plan?

Andrew Bryz-Gornia
01-04-2013, 12:20 PM
The idea is good in theory, especially with giving fewer innings to all the pitchers coming back from injury, but as jmlease1 said above, Gardy and Anderson would never do it. They'd probably cite something like "pitchers are uncomfortable if they were asked to regularly start every 6th day."

Jim Crikket
01-04-2013, 12:45 PM
Get some decent pitchers so we don't need to worry about it!

Or are we still going with throw enough mud against the wall maybe some will stick plan?

I believe that even those of us who held out hope a couple of months ago that there would be a genuine effort to improve the top of the rotation realize now that the "throw mud and see what sticks" approach is, indeed, the plan... again.

As for the 6 man rotation approach, if you had 6-7 #3 starters, I might buy in to it because you could shave your bullpen by one arm. But when you've got 6-7 back-end starters, you need to keep a full contingent of bullpen arms. There's really no way to go with one fewer position player, especially when you don't exactly have a roster of offensive talent that you can count on every day.

Chance
01-04-2013, 01:12 PM
I don't see what people have against the twins carrying extra pitchers. The bench players the twins carry are all versital enough to cover rest days at several positions. We don't carry a bench guy who can only play 3rd or 1st. With mastroanni covering all outfield positions, and all the guys that regularly get rotated in the MI can also give Plouffe rest, parmelee and mauer can cover first Doumit can catch. We would most likely be choosing between carrying an extra pitcher or butera.

go with a 6 man rotation and then skip the sore arms or limited pitchers on off days to keep the strain even lower. They could last a whole season then if healthy and pitching well.

Chance
01-04-2013, 01:14 PM
We don't have a pitcher that HAS TO pitch every 5th game.

sotafan
01-04-2013, 01:20 PM
If you were to go with this 6 man rotation idea the question is do you keep 12 or 11 pitchers? If they are willing to at least try this idea, one thing that could work and still keep 11 pitchers would be to have one or two of the starters not throw their bullpen/side session until the 7th or 8th inning of the game. So if you do needed a mopup/long man because the starter got shelled/hurt early, there would still be someone available.

This would allow the bench to be full and not down a man.

ThePuck
01-04-2013, 01:25 PM
If you were to go with this 6 man rotation idea the question is do you keep 12 or 11 pitchers? If they are willing to at least try this idea, one thing that could work and still keep 11 pitchers would be to have one or two of the starters not throw their bullpen/side session until the 7th or 8th inning of the game. So if you do needed a mopup/long man because the starter got shelled/hurt early, there would still be someone available.


This would allow the bench to be full and not down a man.

Wouldn't the bullpen still need to be used the same amount? We've often carried 5 guys for the rotation and 8 guys in the pen (13 pitchers). Now we're talking about adding a sixth starter, but the bullpen will still be worked the same amount. We gonna drop a reliever? If so, we're still looking at 13 pitchers along with our 3 catchers.

Boom Boom
01-04-2013, 01:48 PM
Wouldn't the bullpen still need to be used the same amount? We've often carried 5 guys for the rotation and 8 guys in the pen (13 pitchers). Now we're talking about adding a sixth starter, but the bullpen will still be worked the same amount. We gonna drop a reliever? If so, we're still looking at 13 pitchers along with our 3 catchers.

Don't forget that the Twins always carry one position player who isn't available but isn't put on the DL either.

jeffk
01-04-2013, 02:21 PM
This came up some last year as well. I actually don't see why not break down the distinction between "starter" and "reliever". The added flexibility would keep oppoents off-balance in terms of platoons, and you would be free to quickly remove a pitcher who wasn't having a good day. Nobody would wear themselves down throwning 100 pitches. Pitchers who only have two good pitches wouldn't be as exposed, and most would only see each batter once or twice at the most. The entire distinction seems somewhat arbitrary, borne out of baseball history.

Maybe it wouldn't work. But when you have nothing to lose and terrible starting pitching (not to mention decent relief pitching) perhaps it's the next moneyball.

jorgenswest
01-04-2013, 02:30 PM
Someone is going to figure out how to utilize the pitching staff to get the numbers back down to an 11 man staff.

The decrease in bench spots has taken away true platooning from baseball.

Look at the 1991 Twins roster. They must have had a 10 man staff at times. Look at the possibilities on the bench. You have a true platoon at 3B. You have bench bats in Larkin, Bush, Leius/Pags and Munoz. They still had a spot for a back up catcher in Ortiz and middle infielder in Newman. How would the Twins have configured that roster if they had to carry 12 or 13 pitchers? They would have to have Newman and Ortiz. They were lucky to have a starting corner OF who could move to CF allowing them to carry a guy like Bush. If it is a 13 man staff, that is it. No Leius, Larkin or Munoz.

Let's be the team that figures out how to increase the bench and reduce the size of the pitching staff. The first step is to utilize and reconfigure the bullpen very differently.

Kwak
01-04-2013, 02:34 PM
It seems like a poorly conceived idea. The Twins lack quality in the starting pitcher category, therefore it make more sense to reduce the number of SPs. Use a 4-man rotation, limit to 5 innings and have 4 designated middle/long relief (one for each) to pitch 2-3 innings. Add 3 setup/extra innings guys and one closer for a total of 12 pitchers.

Boom Boom
01-04-2013, 02:43 PM
Someone is going to figure out how to utilize the pitching staff to get the numbers back down to an 11 man staff.

The decrease in bench spots has taken away true platooning from baseball.

Look at the 1991 Twins roster. They must have had a 10 man staff at times. Look at the possibilities on the bench. You have a true platoon at 3B. You have bench bats in Larkin, Bush, Leius/Pags and Munoz. They still had a spot for a back up catcher in Ortiz and middle infielder in Newman. How would the Twins have configured that roster if they had to carry 12 or 13 pitchers? They would have to have Newman and Ortiz. They were lucky to have a starting corner OF who could move to CF allowing them to carry a guy like Bush. If it is a 13 man staff, that is it. No Leius, Larkin or Munoz.

Let's be the team that figures out how to increase the bench and reduce the size of the pitching staff. The first step is to utilize and reconfigure the bullpen very differently.

A couple things TK did differently in 1991 was that he a) allowed his pitchers to throw more than 100 pitches if they could, and b) he brought Aguilera in for saves in the 8th inning if it was a platoon advantage.

johnnydakota
01-04-2013, 03:25 PM
I fully expect Nick Blackburn to be spoon fed innings this spring training(softer minor leaquers)so his numbers appear better then they should, giving the Twins an exscuse to bring him north, so there is 1 spot that will be opening up in may or june for Pelfrey or Gibson

ashburyjohn
01-04-2013, 05:05 PM
I can see two main objection to a 6-man: a) it takes innings away from your best, or two best, or three best starters (not an issue for a last-place team like the Twins who lack a defined ace), and b) it takes away an available relief arm, making it usually necessary to add another pitcher to the staff (already discussed).

So I think the main time it would make sense to go this route is if you have a rotation composed entirely of 5.00 ERA innings-eaters - guys who can be counted on to usually give you seven innings at which point they've given up 2-to-5 runs, which you then turn over to the bullpen depending on how much you are ahead or behind.

A rotation of fragile-armed starters is kind of the opposite of that criterion.

Also, I would prefer to do it with a manager who was more comfortable with an 11-man staff (when using 5 starters), and that is a rarity these days. If Gardy would go to the 6-man rotation only if he had 13 pitchers on the roster, and given his preference for 3 catchers, it would mean also the batting lineup needs to be nearly set with productive regulars at every position, which is far from the case, again this shaping up as a last-place team.

krada1212
01-04-2013, 05:13 PM
I'm just afraid that not even 5 of these guys will be serviceable, let alone 6. Maybe try it out for the first couple of weeks to weed out the worst guy.

darin617
01-04-2013, 05:59 PM
You can view the page at Twins Daily - Would a Six-Man Rotation Make Sense? (http://twinsdaily.com/content.php?r=1281-Would-a-Six-Man-Rotation-Make-Sense)

So if the Twins would go with a 6 man rotation they would have to add 3 more starters.
Diamond
Worley
Pelfrey
FA
FA
FA/ Dudeno?

noonespecial
01-04-2013, 08:14 PM
Since Twins pitchers are limited to 100 pitches they should go with a 4 man rotation and keep 2 in reserve as needed. Our current staff would hit 100 pitched by the 6th inning. With off days there is a reduced need for a 5th starter. The 2 extras could be used in relief and then as starters when they play a bunch of games without a break. I wish Gardy and Andy would get more creative.

noonespecial
01-04-2013, 08:20 PM
Since Twins pitchers are limited to 100 pitches they should go with a 4 man rotation and keep 2 in reserve as needed. Our current staff would hit 100 pitched by the 6th inning. With off days there is a reduced need for a 5th starter. The 2 extras could be used in relief and then as starters when they play a bunch of games without a break. I wish Gardy and Andy would get more creative.

TheLeviathan
01-04-2013, 08:35 PM
As for the 6 man rotation approach, if you had 6-7 #3 starters, I might buy in to it because you could shave your bullpen by one arm. But when you've got 6-7 back-end starters, you need to keep a full contingent of bullpen arms..

Yeah...pretty much this.

twinsnorth49
01-04-2013, 08:54 PM
I've got to side with going with the best 5, that may change from time to time at the back end but taking away starts from your top 3, whoever they might be, isn't giving you your best shot of winning.

I'm also not sure how going with a six man rotation saves your bullpen with less arms available.

kab21
01-04-2013, 11:20 PM
The problem is that a 6 man rotation almost certainly means that the team would have 13 pitchers on the team. The bullpen isn't going to be used less and if you are concerned about injuries then you shouldn't be randomly using any of these pitchers out of the bullpen. Pick 5 starters and have Gibson/Harden ready to go in AAA.

mako83
01-05-2013, 12:58 AM
Why not have Diamond and Worley every five days and have the other four rotate thru that so a rotation within a rotation deal.

Shane Wahl
01-05-2013, 10:17 AM
A few things:

Gardenhire is never doing anything besides a traditional rotation, but that aside . . .

I don't think the 6-8 pitchers (or more) up for this are equal. Diamond would have to regress pretty damn far for that, and Worley is certainly up there with him. After that it drops to Correia aside from improvements from Hendrik, Deduno, Walter, BLACKBURN, Vasquez, and DeVries, or a hopeful breakout from Hernandez. All until Pelfrey (who, again, isn't good by any means) and Gibson, who is in the first group and might be at the top.

It would seem that a 4-man rotation is a better idea, especially given pitch counts . . . and that fact that aside from the first inning debacle, Twins pitching seem to break down around inning 5 and 6 (though Liriano was a big culprit for both). This would add to the bullpen and create for more situational matchups which might actually be good. Now if someone is really cruising along and goes deep into or completes a game, they just get an extra day.

I am not sure how a team struggling to come up with 5 legitimate starters would INCREASE the size of the rotation instead of decreasing it to create more lefty/righty situations.

fairweather
01-05-2013, 10:48 AM
How do you make a 6 man rotation out of 2 1/2 starting pitchers? Worley and Diamond are the 2 and Gibson the half. So far this off season we've heard that the Twins were going to go hard at starting pitchers. Then Deduno was taken off the MLB roster and I said then that makes sense because the Twins CLAIM that they are going to add 3 MLB pitchers better than Deduno. Well to make a long explanation short I just don't see how Pelfrey in his first year after TJ surgery or Correia are better than Deduno or DeVries for that matter. I'm hoping the Twins still take a flyer on Brandon Webb.

Shane Wahl
01-05-2013, 12:43 PM
How do you make a 6 man rotation out of 2 1/2 starting pitchers? Worley and Diamond are the 2 and Gibson the half. So far this off season we've heard that the Twins were going to go hard at starting pitchers. Then Deduno was taken off the MLB roster and I said then that makes sense because the Twins CLAIM that they are going to add 3 MLB pitchers better than Deduno. Well to make a long explanation short I just don't see how Pelfrey in his first year after TJ surgery or Correia are better than Deduno or DeVries for that matter. I'm hoping the Twins still take a flyer on Brandon Webb.

Yes to Webb because why not? Deduno or DeVries available for 1/10 the cost and probably the exact same result as Correia. I agree that it is much easier to get 4 starters out of this bunch than 6.

Nick Nelson
01-05-2013, 01:09 PM
I myself have said Gibson should probably start in the minors, but the more I think about it, the more I think he won't. He was essentially major-league ready when he got hurt, and last year he pitched basically the entire second half, working his way back up to Triple-A then making six starts in the AFL.

The Twins are going to want to take their best five starters north from Ft. Myers. I'm pretty sure they view Gibson as one of those five and he'll likely reinforce that in spring training.

howeda7
01-05-2013, 10:06 PM
Assuming they have 12 pitchers either way, I'm not a fan of a 6-man rotation unless 2 of Pelfrey, Gibson and Harden are in the rotation at once. I'd much rather have Corriea/Blackburn as a long man in the bullpen and have a quicker hook when a guy is having an off night.

Curt
01-05-2013, 10:25 PM
"It's easier to find four good pitchers than five."

Earl Weaver on why he had a four man rotation rather than five, which all other teams had moved to.

glanzer
01-06-2013, 02:37 AM
Given what Gardy has to work with, I'd say a 9-man rotation might make sense. For the first time since I started cheering for the Twins in 1993 I have no hope at all going into the season.

jlovren
01-06-2013, 05:03 PM
As completing 6 innings might be a task also, there would still need to be the large bullpen. That would leave the bench short. A regulars day off would be called playing DH that day.


With the current make up of the rotation, we do not currently have any guys to take us into the 7th-8th innings on a regular basis. I totally agree that in order for a 6 man rotation to work you would need to carry 12 pitchers. Our bullpen has been inconsistent and we simply don't have that kind of staff where we could sustain any positive results. I think we need to take a cautious approach with Gibson, Pelfrey and Harden (if he even makes the club) to ensure there are no set backs from recovery.

IdahoPilgrim
01-06-2013, 06:33 PM
An intriguing idea. I suspect that, right now, everything is on the table. They don't really know what they have to work with right now; they'll use spring training to assess that. My guess is they customize their pitching plans based on what they see in February and March.

And who knows? Perhaps the season won't be as bad as everybody is anticipating? Look at the Vikings. Nobody expected them to be even close to contending, and they made the playoffs. I'm not predicting post-season play for Gardy and the boys, but it would only take a couple of the gambles the Twins have made this offseason to work out to make things interesting.

Just as a rule of thumb, it's when everybody else is predicting disaster that I look for upside surprise.

h2oface
01-06-2013, 11:19 PM
I still miss the 4 man rotations.

TheLeviathan
01-07-2013, 11:29 AM
I think someone should do a follow-up to this entitled "Would playing three of our middle infielders every day make sense?"

Same principle, :)

Shane Wahl
01-07-2013, 12:47 PM
I think someone should do a follow-up to this entitled "Would playing three of our middle infielders every day make sense?"

Same principle, :)

Haha, I agree. I don't understand how a 4-man rotation, given this crop of "talent" wouldn't make more sense. Obviously, Gardy is going with a 5-man rotation, but the principle matters. The Twins have 2 goodish pitchers and several varying question marks. Keep the question marks low at 4, maximize the utility of the bullpen (which would be 8 guys), and keep me sane.

mike wants wins
01-07-2013, 12:50 PM
Right, two man rotation, and a lot of 2-3 inning guys.