PDA

View Full Version : If Bronson follows Harang, why was Williams pitching today?



redsfan4445
04-15-2006, 05:23 PM
just curious as i would think Arroyo would have been after Harang..

westofyou
04-15-2006, 05:26 PM
Williams?

Probably because Arroyo and Harang are somewhat similar.

James B.
04-15-2006, 05:30 PM
just curious as i would think Arroyo would have been after Harang..

Because of the schedule the first time the reds needed a fifth starter was after Harang's second outing.

traderumor
04-15-2006, 06:46 PM
The day off. Arroyo just pitched Tuesday, so tomorrow is the fifth day.

redsfan4445
04-15-2006, 07:06 PM
oh ok.. thanks!

MattyHo4Life
04-15-2006, 07:26 PM
It is the same reason that Ponson pitched today. Mulder usually follows Carpenter.

TeamBoone
04-15-2006, 08:52 PM
Would it be a bad thing for the pitchers' health to go to a 4-man rotation?

2001MUgrad
04-15-2006, 09:09 PM
Would it be a bad thing for the pitchers' health to go to a 4-man rotation?

Worth a try.

Patrick Bateman
04-15-2006, 09:21 PM
Would it be a bad thing for the pitchers' health to go to a 4-man rotation?
I gotta think that if it was health neutral, everyone would do it....

Big Klu
04-15-2006, 09:21 PM
Would it be a bad thing for the pitchers' health to go to a 4-man rotation?

It depends on the pitchers. Most big-league starters have been developed in a five-man system, so there may be some physical side-effects (fatigue at the least, and possibly injury). However, if young pitchers in the low minors began pitching in a four-man system early on, then they would be used to it.

Another misconception about the four-man rotation is that clubs used only four starters. This is not true. Clubs often used a fifth starter in spot situations, especially during a long stretch with no off days.

Personally, I like the idea of a modified four-man rotation, but it isn't something that you can easily jump into.

big boy
04-15-2006, 11:38 PM
Would it be a bad thing for the pitchers' health to go to a 4-man rotation?

Ask Mario Soto.

KronoRed
04-16-2006, 12:38 AM
Most pitchers are worse on a 4 man schedule, do we want our guys to be worse? :help:

Big Klu
04-16-2006, 01:29 AM
Ask Mario Soto.

The four-man rotation did not damage Mario Soto. The slider is what damaged Mario Soto.

Big Klu
04-16-2006, 01:52 AM
Most pitchers are worse on a 4 man schedule, do we want our guys to be worse? :help:

That's a misconception. The only reason pitchers' performances suffer is because today's pitchers are groomed in a five-man system, and they are not used to the four-man.

Also, the only reason the five-man rotation exists is because the Dodgers had five legitimate starting pitchers in the early 70's. They had success with it, so everyone else thought they had to do it (even if they didn't have the extra horses). So what you get now is a #5 starter getting 30 starts a season, instead of 15-20. That means that a Dave Williams-type pitcher is taking 10-15 starts away from the rest of the rotation.

Now, don't misunderstand me. I have serious doubts as to whether our guys could switch to a four-man. They simply aren't trained for it. But the theory is sound--you just have to implement it at the lower levels first, and have the pitchers grow into it. However, I don't think that it would be too much to ask for one or two of our top four starters to occasionally go on "short time" (i.e., three days rest) for one start so that a scheduled off day coincides with the #5 starter's scheduled day to pitch, thereby giving the club the opportunity to skip him.

On a semi-related note, I think that starters who did not go too deep into the game (like Williams today) should be available to pitch an inning of relief on their scheduled "throwing day" between starts. Of course, they would have to be trained for that, too. But if you are somehow able to implement strategies like these, then it results in giving your better pitchers more innings, and your poorer pitchers fewer innings (or possibly in even divesting yourself of one of the poorer pitchers, and carrying fewer pitchers on the roster).

alexad
04-16-2006, 02:19 AM
If you go back to a four man rotation, you would then be able to eliminate a pitcher off the 12 man staffs that baseball now carries and add some bench help.

I say it is going to come soon that baseball goes to a 26 man roster just so teams can have 12 pitchers on the staff.

MLB went from 24 to 25 with the reasoning being that teams needed more pitching on the rosters. OF course the players wanted more players to have a big league salary.

It will be interesting to see what comes about with this.

I like the 4 man rotation.

GAC
04-16-2006, 06:15 AM
It depends on the pitchers. Most big-league starters have been developed in a five-man system, so there may be some physical side-effects (fatigue at the least, and possibly injury). However, if young pitchers in the low minors began pitching in a four-man system early on, then they would be used to it.

Another misconception about the four-man rotation is that clubs used only four starters. This is not true. Clubs often used a fifth starter in spot situations, especially during a long stretch with no off days.

Personally, I like the idea of a modified four-man rotation, but it isn't something that you can easily jump into.

Good post. I agree.

westofyou
04-16-2006, 11:55 AM
Ask Mario Soto.
The Reds went to the Five man in the mid 70's, right after the Dodgers started the trend.

KronoRed
04-16-2006, 05:02 PM
We should go to a 4 man just to say we're not copying the dodgers ;)