Article: Would a Six-Man Rotation Make Sense?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chaderic20

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?

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?

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."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winston Smith

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.

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.

We don't have a pitcher that HAS TO pitch every 5th game.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sotafan

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ThePuck

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.

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jorgenswest

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.

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

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nick Nelson

You can view the page at Twins Daily - 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?

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jim Crikket

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.