Article: Possibility Of A Six-Man Rotation For The Twins

[gocgo]

 

If you look at midseason trade returns for comparable pitchers, I don't think you're going to like what you see.  Actually, it seems most comparable guys don't even get dealt because the potential return is so minimal.

 

Even if Pelfrey still somehow has a 2.28 ERA at the end of July, you're almost certainly better off riding whatever voodoo witchcraft is going on rather than trying to flip him for anything meaningful, given his history.  (FWIW, he had a 2.23 season ERA on June 12, 2010 too, in more innings than he has in 2015.)

So then the question becomes, do you resign him?  If so, what would you be willing to spend?

[Willihammer]

Getting back to the original question - I think its an interesting idea for a few reasons. Like the Mets, the Twins have some starters coming off arm injuries. We are all too aware of how starkly different an unhealthy Nolasco and Pelfrey look compared to being at full strength. If an extra day of rest / fewer starts is good for their health, it ought to be good for their output too.

 

Gibson, May, and Hughes are healthy, though not pitching well enough to really force the issue IMO. And there is a lot of team control left for all 3 so maybe conserving innings now, while the opportunity is there (and when Santana returns), might be prudent.

 

And as Chief has pointed out, there's no point carrying 13 pitchers if 2 of them are going to sit all the time. Swapping a reliever for a starter who is guaranteed innings might trim some of that inefficiency.

Edited June 12, 2015 by Willihammer

[Kirby_waved_at_me]

If they do switch to 6 starters, would they still carry a long reliever? I guess Graham isn't going anywhere. I also wonder if a 2 or 3 of the starters could be counted on every now and then to pick up an inning or two out of the pen (say Gibson has one of his bad starts and Graham pitched two plus innings the night before - could Pelfrey or Milone give them a bridge for few frames to the late innings since they won't be pitching again for several days?) 

[Mike Sixel]

Is there actual evidence doing this would protect anyone's arm that is already used to throwing starter innings? I'm guessing ZERO, otherwise every team would do it.

[Kirby_waved_at_me]

 

Is there actual evidence doing this would protect anyone's arm that is already used to throwing starter innings? I'm guessing ZERO, otherwise every team would do it.

The benefit is that at the end of the season, each starter has thrown fewer innings than they would have in a 5 pitcher rotation. The obvious drawback is same thing; each starter has thrown fewer innings. 2 good starters and 3 ok starters is better than 2 good / 4 ok starters.

 

This year, there's less of a drop off in quality from Hughes to Gibson to Pelfrey to May to Milone than last year, so maybe the Twins wouldn't miss out that much. Ideally, you have fewer starters getting more innings...  

 

It probably doesn't have far-reaching injury prevention benefits. If you have guys on innings limits, then it makes sense so they can still pitch in Aug/Sept/Oct without hitting that limit. Otherwise, you're getting too many starts from a guy other teams would stash in AAA.

[spinowner]

Gibson pitched on long rest last week against the Brewers and pitched poorly. Bert mentioned that sinkerballers tend to throw flat pitches when they are too strong. A 6-man rotation would probably be contraindicated for a rotation that includes Gibson.

[Willihammer]

Ah yes the old, too strong to get anyone out excuse. I love that one.

[drivlikejehu]

 

Is there actual evidence doing this would protect anyone's arm that is already used to throwing starter innings? I'm guessing ZERO, otherwise every team would do it.

 

I think logically it has to reduce injury risk. Pitcher injuries are from throwing pitches, causing stress on the arm, and fatigue that causes dangerous mechanical variances or structural weaknesses.

 

Throwing fewer pitches reduces the chance of injury on both counts... there is less wear-and-tear, and pitchers have greater recovery time and therefore less risk of fatigue (if the pitches per start remains constant).

 

The problem with it is that you only get 6 relievers, unless you go with no bench like the Twins, and also that few if any teams usually have a 6th starter they want out there. 

[Mike Sixel]

 

I think logically it has to reduce injury risk. Pitcher injuries are from throwing pitches, causing stress on the arm, and fatigue that causes dangerous mechanical variances or structural weaknesses.

 

Throwing fewer pitches reduces the chance of injury on both counts... there is less wear-and-tear, and pitchers have greater recovery time and therefore less risk of fatigue (if the pitches per start remains constant).

 

The problem with it is that you only get 6 relievers, unless you go with no bench like the Twins, and also that few if any teams usually have a 6th starter they want out there. 

 

Ya, I think that's like the earth is flat, and I don't mean that as an insult......., it seems obvious, but it must not be real, otherwise teams would be doing it, and we'd see all kinds of internet articles about how this is the answer to injuries. I think you are making a ton of assumptions, and there is no evidence that it works......

[drivlikejehu]

 

Ya, I think that's like the earth is flat, and I don't mean that as an insult......., it seems obvious, but it must not be real, otherwise teams would be doing it, and we'd see all kinds of internet articles about how this is the answer to injuries. I think you are making a ton of assumptions, and there is no evidence that it works......

 

Like I said, there are downsides to it. Even if it would reduce injuries, clubs would only change over if the positives outweighed the negatives. It is clearly wrong to say that "it must not be real," since they could avoid the 6-man rotation because the trade-offs aren't worth it, or they could avoid it in error (as baseball teams have done and continue to do with various other strategies).

Edited June 12, 2015 by drivlikejehu

[spinowner]

 

Ah yes the old, too strong to get anyone out excuse. I love that one.

I don't know the pitching mechanics behind this but I've heard the too strong reason (not excuse) several times before from several sources, all much more baseball-savvy than I am. If you know enough about pitching at the major league level to explain why you feel it's not a valid explanation I'd be very interested to read your analysis.

[USAFChief]

 

Ya, I think that's like the earth is flat, and I don't mean that as an insult......., it seems obvious, but it must not be real, otherwise teams would be doing it, and we'd see all kinds of internet articles about how this is the answer to injuries. I think you are making a ton of assumptions, and there is no evidence that it works......

I'm not an advocate of a six man rotation, but wouldn't the theory of "less innings might mean less injuries/more effectiveness" be the same as when teams went from 4 man rotations to five man ones?

[Willihammer]

 

I don't know the pitching mechanics behind this but I've heard the too strong reason (not excuse) several times before from several sources, all much more baseball-savvy than I am. If you know enough about pitching at the major league level to explain why you feel it's not a valid explanation I'd be very interested to read your analysis.

Yeah I've heard it too. I vividly remember Nick Blackburn telling that to the KFAN morning show guys around May 2011, for instance.

 

First things first. Gibson did throw 7 innings in that Brewer game and got 13 ground balls to 5 fly balls. Only, 3 of those 5 left the park. So it was far from his worst outing. In fact he's had some very good starts on 5 days rest (Apr 26, May 12, May 24). Obviously I can't say for a fact he would perform materially better with 5 than 4 since its never really been tried for any length of time with him or really on any MLB team ever (they do it in Japan however).

 

There's a lot of research out there backing up the theory that increased velocity leads to increased effectivesness - sinkerballers included. I would also point to spring training when Gibson was consistently 94-95 and just dominating. Pelfrey too - he's always been more effective at 94+. Less than that, and he gets knocked around. Leaguewide, the best sinkerballers are hard throwers - Zimmerman, Lynn, Kluber, etc. Its a myth that sinkerballers need to be "tired" or they become ineffictive at higher velocities. The opposite is true.

[spinowner]

 

Yeah I've heard it too. I vividly remember Nick Blackburn telling that to the KFAN morning show guys around May 2011, for instance.

 

First things first. Gibson did throw 7 innings in that Brewer game and got 13 ground balls to 5 fly balls. Only, 3 of those 5 left the park. So it was far from his worst outing. In fact he's had some very good starts on 5 days rest (Apr 26, May 12, May 24). Obviously I can't say for a fact he would perform materially better with 5 than 4 since its never really been tried for any length of time with him or really on any MLB team ever (they do it in Japan however).

 

There's a lot of research out there backing up the theory that increased velocity leads to increased effectivesness - sinkerballers included. I would also point to spring training when Gibson was consistently 94-95 and just dominating. Pelfrey too - he's always been more effective at 94+. Less than that, and he gets knocked around. Leaguewide, the best sinkerballers are hard throwers - Zimmerman, Lynn, Kluber, etc. Its a myth that sinkerballers need to be "tired" or they become ineffictive at higher velocities. The opposite is true.

Thanks for the response.

On Gibson's last start, I think it's also worth noting that the three HR's came early in the game, which is when the too-strong effect would have been most pronounced. His performance improved as the game went on. Regarding velocity, my guess (and it's only a guess) is that the too-strong effect is the result of less spin on the ball, meaning the pitches flatten out. A good sinker at 90 is more effective than a straight fastball at 95.

[Mike Sixel]

I'm not an advocate of a six man rotation, but wouldn't the theory of "less innings might mean less injuries/more effectiveness" be the same as when teams went from 4 man rotations to five man ones?

It seems obvious, but lots of things seem that way......how far do you extend the logic? 8 man rotation?

[drivlikejehu]

 

It seems obvious, but lots of things seem that way......how far do you extend the logic? 8 man rotation?

 

You are talking about two completely separate things - (1) does pitching less reduce injury risk? and (2) how many starters is it practicable to have?

 

The fact that (1) is true doesn't make it possible to have 8 starters on a 25-man roster. 

[DaveW]

I'd much rather have the twins go to a 6 man batting order

[USAFChief]

I'd much rather have the twins go to a 6 man batting order

Winner.