This is an idea I've floated around in my head for years now, but I think it's finally time to speak up about it. There are many #5 starters that are just not good, or perhaps not worth pitching every five games or so. If possible, it would be great to not only limit their amount of innings starting a game, but also give them more opportunities for mop-up or long relief work, as well as giving your other four starters more opportunities to pitch.
Considering they are all familiar with the idea of pitching every five games and that there are plenty of times where they don't get that off-day in between, it would be much better to manage with this concept in mind instead:
Four starters in your rotation throw every five days.
Simple concept, but perhaps not grasped quite the best. But hear me out: Let's say we start off the year with six games in six days, and then there is an off-day and then maybe another six consecutive games. So those first five games, you will have five different starters. That is, you'll actually throw your #5 starter. But then you'll have an off-day, which means that every pitcher will get an extra day of rest. What if, because of that off-day, we don't throw the #5 starter the next time around? Once the #4 pitcher has his start, you'll go back to the top of the rotation the next game. That way, your pitchers still have five days of rest and you still have that #5 starter for long relief duty if you need him.
So here's an example using my Giants. Here's our starting rotation:
1) Lincecum (2-0, 0.90 ERA)
2) Zito (2-0, 2.25 ERA)
3) Cain (0-0, 4.26 ERA)
4) Sanchez (1-0, 2.19 ERA)
5) Wellemeyer (0-1, 9.58 ERA)
And the start of our season went as follows (with these starters):
April 5 - Lincecum (@ HOU)
April 6 - Zito (@ HOU)
April 7 - Cain (@ HOU)
April 8 - Off-day
April 9 - Sanchez (vs ATL)
April 10 - Wellemeyer (vs ATL)
April 11 - Lincecum (vs ATL)
April 12 - Zito (vs PIT)
April 13 - Cain (vs PIT)
April 14 - Sanchez (vs PIT)
April 15 - Off-day
April 16 - Wellemeyer (@ LAD)
April 17 - Lincecum (@ LAD)
April 18 - Zito (@ LAD)
What if we scheduled our starters like this instead?
April 5 - Lincecum (@ HOU)
April 6 - Zito (@ HOU)
April 7 - Cain (@ HOU)
April 8 - Off-day
April 9 - Sanchez (vs ATL)
April 10 - Lincecum (vs ATL)
April 11 - Zito (vs ATL)
April 12 - Cain (vs PIT)
April 13 - Sanchez (vs PIT)
April 14 - Wellemeyer (vs PIT)
April 15 - Off-day
April 16 - Lincecum (@ LAD)
April 17 - Zito (@ LAD)
April 18 - Cain (@ LAD)
Obviously this is a short example since Wellemeyer only misses one start, but after some time this would add up pretty well. But basically, every pitcher except for Wellemeyer pitches every five days, and that off-day affects them none. The only one it would affect is Wellemeyer, who could get some relief duty in between those days of not being scheduled to pitch. That way he can work some long innings with possibly chances to practice his stuff and get better for those days that he actually does start, and your other starters get the opportunity to throw more and more.
It's not exactly a four-man rotation, but this is an amicable solution to the problem I'd say. Sorry for the long example, but I wanted to know what everyone else thought. As you can see, no starter except for Wellemeyer has taken a loss, and that's how it tends to be with this rotation as well as many others'. I'd rather take the loss less than I would more.
Considering they are all familiar with the idea of pitching every five games and that there are plenty of times where they don't get that off-day in between, it would be much better to manage with this concept in mind instead:
Four starters in your rotation throw every five days.
Simple concept, but perhaps not grasped quite the best. But hear me out: Let's say we start off the year with six games in six days, and then there is an off-day and then maybe another six consecutive games. So those first five games, you will have five different starters. That is, you'll actually throw your #5 starter. But then you'll have an off-day, which means that every pitcher will get an extra day of rest. What if, because of that off-day, we don't throw the #5 starter the next time around? Once the #4 pitcher has his start, you'll go back to the top of the rotation the next game. That way, your pitchers still have five days of rest and you still have that #5 starter for long relief duty if you need him.
So here's an example using my Giants. Here's our starting rotation:
1) Lincecum (2-0, 0.90 ERA)
2) Zito (2-0, 2.25 ERA)
3) Cain (0-0, 4.26 ERA)
4) Sanchez (1-0, 2.19 ERA)
5) Wellemeyer (0-1, 9.58 ERA)
And the start of our season went as follows (with these starters):
April 5 - Lincecum (@ HOU)
April 6 - Zito (@ HOU)
April 7 - Cain (@ HOU)
April 8 - Off-day
April 9 - Sanchez (vs ATL)
April 10 - Wellemeyer (vs ATL)
April 11 - Lincecum (vs ATL)
April 12 - Zito (vs PIT)
April 13 - Cain (vs PIT)
April 14 - Sanchez (vs PIT)
April 15 - Off-day
April 16 - Wellemeyer (@ LAD)
April 17 - Lincecum (@ LAD)
April 18 - Zito (@ LAD)
What if we scheduled our starters like this instead?
April 5 - Lincecum (@ HOU)
April 6 - Zito (@ HOU)
April 7 - Cain (@ HOU)
April 8 - Off-day
April 9 - Sanchez (vs ATL)
April 10 - Lincecum (vs ATL)
April 11 - Zito (vs ATL)
April 12 - Cain (vs PIT)
April 13 - Sanchez (vs PIT)
April 14 - Wellemeyer (vs PIT)
April 15 - Off-day
April 16 - Lincecum (@ LAD)
April 17 - Zito (@ LAD)
April 18 - Cain (@ LAD)
Obviously this is a short example since Wellemeyer only misses one start, but after some time this would add up pretty well. But basically, every pitcher except for Wellemeyer pitches every five days, and that off-day affects them none. The only one it would affect is Wellemeyer, who could get some relief duty in between those days of not being scheduled to pitch. That way he can work some long innings with possibly chances to practice his stuff and get better for those days that he actually does start, and your other starters get the opportunity to throw more and more.
It's not exactly a four-man rotation, but this is an amicable solution to the problem I'd say. Sorry for the long example, but I wanted to know what everyone else thought. As you can see, no starter except for Wellemeyer has taken a loss, and that's how it tends to be with this rotation as well as many others'. I'd rather take the loss less than I would more.
Comment