Mike Scioscia said Tuesday that he plans to employ a six-man rotation in 2018.

[Angel Oracle]

3 hours ago, Inside Pitch said:

This six man rotation thing is gaining steam.  The Dodgers kind of did it last year and were able to get a lot out of their gimpy rotation.  This year the Angels are talking about it, Seattle is talking about using it.  Texas is too.    If the Angels guys all stay healthy and you see people like Tyler Skaggs who has always had the stuff but never put it together for a full season finally DOES put it together..  my guess is you'll see even more teams consider doing it.    

As Doc has pointed out a great deal lately, there are a lot of guys out there that can deal the first two times through the lineup before wilting -- a 6 man rotation makes it more likely teams will see value in those types and pursue them.

Will that then lead to a return to employing relievers who specialize in multiple inning appearances, like back in the old days through the 1980s? 

[Angel Oracle]

41 minutes ago, VariousCrap said:

 

I realize at this point, it is all opinions, but I think with a six man rotation, if pitchers are pitching well, you'll see them go into the 7th inning more often.  With the extra day of rest, their arms should hold up better over the season.

I said it before in this thread, but if this rotation succeeds for the Angels this year, you will see more teams doing it in the future.  It can prolong careers.

In the future, maybe; but none of the projected 9 starters pitched over 150 innings in 2017.   They need a year to build the endurance back up.

[Hubs]

I agree with the pitch count concerns, I also see a roster crunch, and effectively a 6 man pen at times. Which may lead to starters pitching occasionally in relief. There are enough days off to make that work if needed. I don't see Ohtani or Richards or even Skaggs doing that, but the other guys may end up with a few relief appearances.

[Dtwncbad]

41 minutes ago, Troll Daddy said:

Then why not go to a 7-man rotation 

Yes 7 man and 140 pitches a start.

[Hubs]

162/6 = 27 starts. Average 6 IP per start = 162 innings. Average 7 IP and = 189 IP.

I'd be happy if all of our starting pitchers ended up somewhere between 162 and 189 IP.

[Inside Pitch]

1 hour ago, Dtwncbad said:

Youbare getting into the speculative weeds and not getting my main point.

Given my initial post wasn't in response to anything you've said,  the onus was on you to understand "my point" and not the other way around.    To that end... I said a successful 6 man rotation likely makes 5 inning types more valuable to teams -- that's it.  The entire statement was speculative as we have yet to see it happen beyond how the Dodgers used 6 SPs last year.

1 hour ago, Dtwncbad said:

Also (and if I am reading your point wrong then just correct me), but a team running six different pitchers through 5 rotation spots, to me anyway, is not a 6 man rotation.

No, you are reading me correctly.   Whether or not 6 guys filling 5 spots is a 6 man rotation or not is up isn't worth arguing over IMO.  I'm not saying that to be combative, I just don't want to argue semantics.  Whatever people end up calling the situation it would still require 6 roster spots.

What we do know is that the team I pointed to as having used 6 pitchers in their rotation last year saw no ill effects to it's bullpen and didn't negatively impact the rotation.  The Dodgers had 6 rotation spots with 24 or more starts -- https://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/LAD/2017.shtml  Hill, Maeda, Ryu, were all 5 inning pitchers and the 5 SPs not named Kershaw averaged 137 innings on the season.   FWIW -- I was pretty shocked at those IP totals myself.

1 hour ago, Dtwncbad said:

 

My best guess, still, is that whatever they do it will be more like a five man rotation with some swingman picking up some spot starts, or a couple different guys rotating in and put of the 5th spot. . . And not the whole rotation rotatingvthrpugh six spots.

But we will see and I may be wrong.

I'm genuinely curious to see what they do.   I don't have an opinion as to whether or not a 6 man is good or bad, I think it's something new, the closest we have seen to a 6 man rotation is what the Dodgers did last year, but I do believe teams are looking at their success and looking for ways to mimic it on some level. 

[GrittyVeterans]

This is all related to injuries. Heaney, Richards, Skaggs haven't been fully healthy in years. Combine that with Ohtani being young and probably wanting to limit his innings a little, and this is what you get

The guys who really make out with this situation are Bridwell and Shoemaker

[Dtwncbad]

4 minutes ago, Hubs said:

162/6 = 27 starts. Average 6 IP per start = 162 innings. Average 7 IP and = 189 IP.

I'd be happy if all of our starting pitchers ended up somewhere between 162 and 189 IP.

I guess.  But if two of them have ERA of 4.50 and two have ERA of 3.50. . .

Then you had 11 games of a 4.50 ERA guy on the mound instead of 3.50?

You have to be careful with every arm, of course, but part of the management strategy should be to maximize the starts of the better pitchers to win more games.

[Dtwncbad]

5 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

Given my initial post wasn't in response to anything you've said,  the onus was on you to understand "my point" and not the other way around.    To that end... I said a successful 6 man rotation likely makes 5 inning types more valuable to teams -- that's it.  The entire statement was speculative as we have yet to see it happen beyond how the Dodgers used 6 SPs last year.

No, you are reading me correctly.   Whether or not 6 guys filling 5 spots is a 6 man rotation or not is up isn't worth arguing over IMO.  I'm not saying that to be combative, I just don't want to argue semantics.  Whatever people end up calling the situation it would still require 6 roster spots.

What we do know is that the team I pointed to as having used 6 pitchers in their rotation last year saw no ill effects to it's bullpen without negatively impacting the rotation.  The Dodgers had 6 rotation spots with 24 or more starts -- https://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/LAD/2017.shtml  Hill, Maeda, Ryu, were all 5 inning pitcher and the 5 SPs not named Kershaw averaged 137 innings on the season.   FWIW -- I was pretty shocked at those IP totals myself.

I'm genuinely curious to see what they do.   I don't have an opinion as to whether or not a 6 man is good or bad, I think it's something new, the closest we have seen to a 6 man rotation is what the Dodgers did last year, but I do believe teams are looking at their success and looking for ways to mimic it on some level. 

So you would call having 6 starters on your roster a six man rotation?  You would call 4 guys going every fifth day and two ther starters moving in and out of the fifth rotation spot a six man rotation?

That's fine just making sure I understand your definition.

I am not now, and never was, arguing that the Angels will only employ 5 starters this season.

Same point broken record. . .I will believe they use a six man rotation (six starters pitching every sixth game) when I see it.

[Troll Daddy]

If Ohtani is healthy and pitching up to his capabilities at the all-star break ... then he should be able go every 5th day after the break. The thought of coming up a game or two short of the playoffs again because we keep our two best pitchers from making extra starts would be tragic. 

Catch 22

btw I’m completely onboard with a 6-man rotation starting the season. 

[Dtwncbad]

Some basic math also says you give up fewer runs with better pitchers getting more starts even if they pitch just 5 innings vs fewer starts where a guy (like your sixth best starter) is logging 5 innings every sixth day.

A 3.50 ERA starter for 5 innings then a 4.00 bullpen for 4 gives up fewer runs in a game than a 4.25 ERA starter for 6 innings and a 4.00 bullpen for 3.

Obviously health must be managed but my point is winning games is the goal and if you have to choose between pitch count and starts as the way to ease the workload on an arm, there are logical mathematical reasons to favor managing pitch counts and maximize starts for your best pitchers and minimizing starts for the less talented starters.

Win games.  There is some injury risk for every player every time they take the field.

I don't see anyone saying rest Trout 25 games so he doesn't get hurt.

You dont pitch a guy with an arm problem.  Get them healthy.  And if somebody's arm is not durable enough for 32 or 33 starts, then put them on the DL and make a trade.

I just don't want Tropeano getting 27 starts taking starts away from Ohtani and Richards, etc.

Win.

[Inside Pitch]

32 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

So you would call having 6 starters on your roster a six man rotation?  You would call 4 guys going every fifth day and two ther starters moving in and out of the fifth rotation spot a six man rotation?

That's fine just making sure I understand your definition.

Not sure why you are asking me something I've already taken a pretty clear position on..  I don't a give a crap what it's formally called.  I have zero interest in defining the usage of 6 or 7 roster spots as a 5 or 6 or 7 man rotation.   They can call it whatever they want but, it's not like calling 6 guys filling 5 spots a "5 man rotation" will suddenly mean it will only take 5 roster spots..   

Wasn't your "main point" that a 6 man rotation means fewer spots elsewhere?   Please tell me how defining it as something else would change the reality that it's 6 roster spaces filling out 5 spots...  Or do you not have a point and simply want to argue?    

Nothing to see here...

 

[Dtwncbad]

Just now, Inside Pitch said:

Not sure why you are asking me something I've already taken a pretty clear position on..  I don't a give a crap what it's formally called.  I have zero interest in defining the usage of 6 or 7 roster spots as a 5 or 6 or 7 man rotation.   They can call it whatever they want but, it's not like calling 6 guys filling 5 spots a "5 man rotation" will suddenly mean it will only take 5 roster spots..   

Wasn't your "main point" that a 6 man rotation means fewer spots elsewhere?   Please tell me how defining it as something else would make 6 guys filling out 5 spots changes that reality...  Or do you not have a point and simply want to argue?    

Nothing to see here...

 

If your mood right now cannot handle an attempt to clarifying the gigantic difference between starting rotation spots on the field and roster spots for starters, maybe grab a beer.

The difference between those two things is highly relevant in the discussion of the subject isn't it?

[Dtwncbad]

With Valbuena and Cron and Pujols and Kinsler and Simmons and Cozart. . .

Lets talk about the Angels going with a 6 man infield.

 

[Inside Pitch]

2 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

If your mood right now cannot handle an attempt to clarifying the gigantic difference between starting rotation spots on the field and roster spots for starters, maybe grab a beer.

The difference between those two things is highly relevant in the discussion of the subject isn't it?

I don't know that I'm ever in a mood to argue stupidity.     Hope that answers your question and hopefully your mood improves to where you don't feel the need to argue pointlessly.

[Dtwncbad]

1 minute ago, Inside Pitch said:

I don't know that I'm ever in a mood to argue stupidity.     Hope that answers your question and hopefully your mood improves to where you don't feel the need to argue pointlessly.

Buddy I dont know where you are coming from.  This got silly fast.  To me, it is foundational to sharing ideas (not arguing) to understand what exactly people are saying.

6 "starters" on a roster, to me, is immensely different from literally rotating six guys so that they get 27 starts each.

How on earth me attempting navigate through those differences for clarity is annoying to you or "arguing stupidly" is a mystery to me.

[AngelsLakersFan]

1 hour ago, Troll Daddy said:

If Ohtani is healthy and pitching up to his capabilities at the all-star break ... then he should be able go every 5th day after the break. The thought of coming up a game or two short of the playoffs again because we keep our two best pitchers from making extra starts would be tragic. 

Catch 22

btw I’m completely onboard with a 6-man rotation starting the season. 

Of course if we get towards the end of the season and Ohtani is looking at throwing 200 innings the front office will be shitting bricks with injury concerns.

I was surprised Ramirez made it as far into the season as he did with his increased load last year. I don't think we can expect to be so lucky with Ohtani, Richards, Heaney and Skaggs.

[fan_since79]

3 hours ago, Troll Daddy said:

Actually there is other options ... imo Trout should be batting third followed by Upton. 

I meant those three names that Stradling offered were not options for the cleanup spot.

But regarding your post, yes, I agree. Kinsler, Calhoun, Trout, Upton, and THEN Albert for either the 5th or 6th spot.

 

[Hubs]

I actually think we see a hybrid 6 man rotation, where Ramirez bounces back and forth from the pen to the rotation (And Maybe Shoemaker too), where Bridwell and Tropeano come up when needed for spot starts.

This means someone on the team on the hitters side has to have option year so they can send him down when they have an extra pitcher, and someone else has to come up. Cron doesn't have an option year, and I'm not sure if Cowart does, though I think he probably does. He was added to the 40 man roster only in August of 2015. Cron was added in May of 2014. Cron was in the minors in 2017, so I'd say its safe to say Cowart has an option.

Which means he will definitely be in SLC at some point this year, and he and Fontana will likely go up and down. 

And I see that in the OF as well, while Valbuena can likely play a corner OF in a pinch. But Lirano and EY are on minor league contracts and Hermosillio is on the 40-man, so who knows how that will work out.

 

[Inside Pitch]

1 hour ago, Dtwncbad said:

Buddy I dont know where you are coming from.  This got silly fast.  To me, it is foundational to sharing ideas (not arguing) to understand what exactly people are saying.

6 "starters" on a roster, to me, is immensely different from literally rotating six guys so that they get 27 starts each.

How on earth me attempting navigate through those differences for clarity is annoying to you or "arguing stupidly" is a mystery to me.

Please don't try to play yourself off as being above petty discourse -- this exchange has been proof of the exact opposite...  

"Understanding what others are saying" would require making an actual attempt on your part to look beyond your narratives and actually pay attention to what others have already said.   Also, please familiarize yourself with the definition of the word argument..  because presenting one's reasons (sharing ideas), is called presenting an "argument", Buddy.   

From the start, I've said we don't know how they intend to employ their 6 man rotation so it's pointless to try to take a formal position on anything.   We currently have no idea if the Angels rolling with a 6 man rotation means something along the lines of what the Dodgers did or who knows what.   So, whether or not you'd call what the Dodgers did a 6 man rotation is pointless and to spend time trying to define it one way or another is effing stupid IMO.  Point blank, there is no denying they used 6 roster spaces on 5 rotation spots -- they were simply very creative with how they used the DL and off days.  IMO, obsessively asking how it's defined while glossing over it's implementation is again "stupid" and makes for a "stupid argument" -- the implementation is the only thing that's important.  SO AGAIN.  WE HAVE TO WAIT AND SEE what the Angels intend to do....

I have no idea how my position wasn't clear from hello but I'm also not coming into this with a set opinion that 6 man rotation is bad....  you are.  As such every argument you make (there's that word again), is designed to support that viewpoint.  The really comical part is that had you actually bothered to try to understand, you'd realize that I'm in agreement with what you claimed was your "main point" that a true 6 man rotation would mean less roster spots elsewhere.   

We good now, Pal?  or are you going to ask me if 6 means 6 or 5 again? 

 

[Dtwncbad]

I know sometimes I am edgy and not properly in sync with a great exchange and I always regret when that happens.

Today, it ain't me.

[Taylor]

2 hours ago, Hubs said:

162/6 = 27 starts. Average 6 IP per start = 162 innings. Average 7 IP and = 189 IP.

I'd be happy if all of our starting pitchers ended up somewhere between 162 and 189 IP.

Time to bring back some of our favorite "innings eaters."

 

 

[Docwaukee]

3 hours ago, Hubs said:

162/6 = 27 starts. Average 6 IP per start = 162 innings. Average 7 IP and = 189 IP.

I'd be happy if all of our starting pitchers ended up somewhere between 162 and 189 IP.

I wouldn't.  They'll never make it.  Plus, the 162/6 assumes you use 6 guys every time through which means that in some situations, guys are pitching every 7th or 8th day.  I don't think they do that.  I am hoping that it's 5 guys making close to 28-30 starts and then the other 12-22 starts coming from a couple other guys like Bridwell, Trop and Ramirez.  I also hope we stick to a limit per start for each of these guys in terms of times through the order.  

I think we'll see a max of 140 to 165 for the top 5 or a total of around 750ip.  Then the rest of the starters pitch another 100 innings.  With the pen pitching 550-600.   

[VariousCrap]

4 hours ago, Angel Oracle said:

In the future, maybe; but none of the projected 9 starters pitched over 150 innings in 2017.   They need a year to build the endurance back up.

 

With a six man rotation, they won't pitch much more than 150 in 2018.  I don't think the endurance aspect is going to be that big of a deal.

[VariousCrap]

4 hours ago, Dtwncbad said:

There are plenty of professionals that think pitch count on a particular day is of far more concern than one extra day of rest between starts.

 

And there are plenty who don't.