ORG Weekly Discussion #2 - The Starting Rotation

Welcome to the second Old Red Guard weekly discussion thread! This is a themed discussion topic for this forum to help promote discussion and recognize high-quality contributions.

Discussion will be expected to remain on the topic posted in the initial post of the thread. Readers are encouraged to like posts that they feel are quality contributions to the discussion at hand. After one week, the RedsZone member who has the post with the most likes will be recognized in the thread, and the user will have a trophy posted in their user signature with a link to the post that was identified as the best contribution to the weekly discussion.

Congratulations to last week's top contributor, Patrick Bateman. Click on the hat in his profile to see a link to his post.

For our second discussion, the topic will be the state of the starting rotation. Discussion might contain analysis of current and future contributors, rotation trends from this season or previous seasons, proposed solutions to improve the current starting rotation, or any related information.

Starters this season so far:

• Luis Castillo
• Sal Romano
• Tyler Mahle
• Homer Bailey
• Matt Harvey
• Brandon Finnegan
• Anthony DeScalfani
• Cody Reed

Starters last season:

• Scott Feldman
• Tim Adleman
• Homer Bailey
• Sal Romano
• Luis Castillo
• Bronson Arroyo
• Amir Garrett
• Robert Stephenson
• Asher Wojehowski
• Rookie Davis
• Lisalverto Bonilla
• Jackson Stephens
• Tyler Mahle
• Brandon Finnegan
• Deck McGuire
• Cody Reed

Looking forward to seeing the contributions to this topic. Please PM me with any suggestions for future discussion topics.

Did the 2017 rotation set the record for most starts by rookie pitchers? If so, I wonder if the 2018 version is in contention for most starts by second year pitchers.

I imagine we'll see only a couple more starters this year - most starts will come from the guys who've already made starts plus possibly Stephenson, Garrett and/or Reed. DeSclafani, Mahle, Castillo, Romano and Harvey likely carry most of the starts until the deadline at least. I imagine we get to see Bailey try again, too. Maybe there will be a new addition at the deadline, and a couple guys might get starts in September on a cup of coffee basis (Stephens, Nicolino, possibly a first look at Lopez). Nothing like last years anyone and everyone mess. This season is a more concentrated mess - the same results only with just 7 or 8 guys....

Reds should replace Sal Romano with Michael Lorenzen in the rotation, assuming no medical objection.

1. Lorenzen is already stretched out, having pitched four innings on June 1. He could immediately pitch four and likely build up to six innings soon.

2. Lorenzen is an experienced, effective major league pitcher. He won't need all the break in time of the rookies.

3. Starting Lorenzen gives Reds much more opportunity to use his bat. He will hit when he starts. He can pinch hit more because Reds won't be counting on him to relieve in those games.

4. While Lorenzen's valuable in the bullpen, getting 5-6 good innings from starters is paramount right now.

The biggest disappointment in the rotation is we are not seeing forward progress from the starters year to year. I still think Tyler Mahle is going to be a solid starter for this team and I also like Castillo but very inconsistent this year. A couple of weeks ago it looked he was turning it around but has struggled the last two starts.

But outside those two there is currently there is no one in this rotation I would count on to be a contributor to the future. Romano who I thought was at least an average starter has been pretty awful this year and really should be back in Louisville. Bailey I pretty much have lost all hope in. At least I was on board with trying the bullpen but this whole DL and now lets put him back in the rotation just shows the organization has no real plan. Stephenson shows flashes where you think he is finally ready to contribute but then he slides back. Harvey I know is here to be basically flipped at the deadline but the way he is pitching you are not going to get much of anything out of him. DeSclafini it is going to be a struggle to get him back to consistency he has been out so long. He can be solid but you wonder if his health will ever hold up for him to be counted on.

I still think they are wasting a good potential starter in Garrett in the bullpen. The only way it makes sense for him to be in the bullpen would be if he maybe a future closer if Iglesias is traded at the deadline. Outside that I agree with KC that Lorenzen is another that should be given a chance to start. The thing is this far into a rebuild we should be seeing some progress in building a rotation and this rotation is still a mess with not much hope for improvement in the near future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joeyjection19

Did the 2017 rotation set the record for most starts by rookie pitchers? If so, I wonder if the 2018 version is in contention for most starts by second year pitchers.

---

Starts by Reds rookie pitchers (best as I can figure it):

2017 - 85
2016 - 54
2015 - 110

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by M2

Starts by Reds rookie pitchers (best as I can figure it):

2017 - 85
2016 - 54
2015 - 110

---

Shouldn't all those freshmen in 2015 be seniors now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kc61

Reds should replace Sal Romano with Michael Lorenzen in the rotation, assuming no medical objection.

1. Lorenzen is already stretched out, having pitched four innings on June 1. He could immediately pitch four and likely build up to six innings soon.

2. Lorenzen is an experienced, effective major league pitcher. He won't need all the break in time of the rookies.

3. Starting Lorenzen gives Reds much more opportunity to use his bat. He will hit when he starts. He can pinch hit more because Reds won't be counting on him to relieve in those games.

4. While Lorenzen's valuable in the bullpen, getting 5-6 good innings from starters is paramount right now.

---

I'm for this. I don't really like Lorenzen as a starter, but I still think Romano has a chance and with every negative start, the damage being done to him reduces those chances. He needs to go down, re-establish his place in line and work on his change-up, Until he can use it more, he's going to struggle. A move like this would be more about Romano than Lorenzen.

Since World War II, only the 1987-1989 Baltimore Orioles, the 2007-2009 Washington Nationals, the 2007-2010 Baltimore Orioles, and the 2015-2017 Cincinnati Reds recorded three straight seasons of at least 50 starts by rookie pitchers.

Reds Rookie Starters in 2017
Starts - Player
16 - Sal Romano
15 - Luis Castillo
14 - Amir Garett
11 - Robert Stephenson
8 - Asher Wojciechowski
6 - Rookie Davis
4 - Tyler Mahle
4 - Jackson Stephens
4 - Lisalverto Bonilla
2 - Deck McGuire
84 - TOTAL

Reds Rookie Starters in 2016
Starts - Player
14 - John Lamb
13 - Tim Adleman
10 - Cody Reed
8 - Robert Stephenson
5 - Jon Moscot
5 - Daniel Wright
2 - Josh Smith
2 - Tim Melville
56 - TOTAL

Reds Rookie Starters in 2015
Starts - Player
31 - Anthony DeSclafani
21 - Michael Lorenzen
16 - Raisel Iglesias
12 - Keyvius Sampson
10 - John Lamb
7 - Josh Smith
6 - David Holmberg
4 - Brandon Finnegan
3 - Jon Moscot
110 - TOTAL

---The 2015 Cincinnati Reds finished the season by starting rookie pitchers in 110 games, third most in history behind the 1998 Florida Marlins and the 2009 Oakland Athletics.

- - - Updated - - -

The Reds don't have a lot to show for that!

Disco is the only rookie from 2015 currently in the rotation. None of the 2016 rookies are there. The story of the teens Reds has become an inability to get pitchers to stick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joeyjection19

Did the 2017 rotation set the record for most starts by rookie pitchers? If so, I wonder if the 2018 version is in contention for most starts by second year pitchers.

---

Fangraphs has been tracking this with the Reds for the past couple of seasons:
https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/cong...done-it-again/

Quote:

---

In 2015, the Reds finally commenced their transition from contender to rebuilder. During that season, the club began handing playing time to a number of young players, with rookie pitchers accounting for more than two-thirds of the team’s starts. Last season, they followed up that effort with another round of rookie pitchers — a group which, in this case, accounted for one-third of Cincinnati’s starts. As I noted at the beginning of the season, the Reds became just one of a handful of clubs in history to allocate at least half of their starts to rookies in one year and then to follow up that effort by starting rookies in another 50 games the next season.

It’s my duty to inform you that the Reds are at it again — and this time, they’ve left all the other franchises in the dust.

https://cdn.fangraphs.com/blogs/wp-c...0.50.30-AM.png


https://cdn.fangraphs.com/blogs/wp-c...1.18.35-AM.png

---

Quote:

---

I looked at three-year periods, first going back to 1974, to see if any team had ever done what the Reds are doing right now. In the context of recent history, the answer is no.

---

Quote:

---

I only went back to 1974 initially, because that’s the first year for which we have split numbers for innings and WAR for rookies and starters. We can go back 100 years, though, and not see as many rookie starters over a three-year period as the Reds have given us this year.

---

The rookie starter thing is essentially what happens when you trade all your starters (except one, who goes down with a severe injury), without having a plan for how you're going to keep from having to rely too much on rookies. Jason Marquis and Scott Feldman and Bronson Arroyo were nice, but they weren't plans. They were desperation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WrongVerb

The rookie starter thing is essentially what happens when you trade all your starters (except one, who goes down with a severe injury), without having a plan for how you're going to keep from having to rely too much on rookies. Jason Marquis and Scott Feldman and Bronson Arroyo were nice, but they weren't plans. They were desperation.

---

As M2 pointed out, it is more an issue with not being able to get any of the young starters to stick. When thrown against the wall, too many of the Reds young pitchers bounced. The Rockies led the league in starts by rookie pitchers in 2017, they are way down that list in 2018 and hovering around .500. The Reds rebuild has been a disaster especially from a pitching perspective, and it has less to do with not adding veteran pitchers than it has to do with not developing the arms they had. Perhaps adding veterans would have allowed them to be more patient with the young pitchers, but I'm not convinced that any amount of time would have been sufficient. I just think they don't have a clue how to develop a young starting pitcher.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mth123

I'm for this. I don't really like Lorenzen as a starter, but I still think Romano has a chance and with every negative start, the damage being done to him reduces those chances. He needs to go down, re-establish his place in line and work on his change-up, Until he can use it more, he's going to struggle. A move like this would be more about Romano than Lorenzen.

---

Is Lorenzen throwing 3 pitches? I haven't watched enough. Was hoping Finnegan or Stephenson would have been showing some consistency by now. Neither of them are ready. So I guess KC is right, Lorenzen would be the best option right now.

As of June 11 Reds starters have only 1 guy with an ERA below 5 (Mahle). And the leader in WHIP is Matt Harvey at 1.25! Everyone else is walking way too many. What a disappointing first half.
I still believe the 2nd half will be better as 2 or 3 of these guys improve (mainly Castillo, Mahle and Finnegan when he gets it back together)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by puca

As M2 pointed out, it is more an issue with not being able to get any of the young starters to stick. When thrown against the wall, too many of the Reds young pitchers bounced. The Rockies led the league in starts by rookie pitchers in 2017, they are way down that list in 2018 and hovering around .500. The Reds rebuild has been a disaster especially from a pitching perspective, and it has less to do with not adding veteran pitchers than it has to do with not developing the arms they had. Perhaps adding veterans would have allowed them to be more patient with the young pitchers, but I'm not convinced that any amount of time would have been sufficient. I just think they don't have a clue how to develop a young starting pitcher.

---

That's a fair point, given the evidence up to now. I still would like to have seen that approach, rather than the "see what sticks" method the Reds have employed to this point. I've been saying for 3 seasons now that the Reds needed two reliable starters, meaning guys who were established and who weren't coming off injuries, in part because they have such a tough time developing starters. The Reds, not having obtained pitchers like that, have gotten this team into a bad mess. The only solution at this point is scrap heap (Harvey is the latest) or trading players doing well like Gennett or prospects like Senzel and Trammell to obtain the starting pitching that can stabiliize this staff.

Of this list from the OP with last years starters only one you could make an argument for has improved from last year, That is Mahle and you could easily argue the other way too. All the others either aren't a part of this organization,have had an injury or have regressed. IMO that is pretty damning of this organization and its abilities to develop starting pitching.

Starters last season:

Scott Feldman
Tim Adleman
Homer Bailey
Sal Romano
Luis Castillo
Bronson Arroyo
Amir Garrett
Robert Stephenson
Asher Wojehowski
Rookie Davis
Lisalverto Bonilla
Jackson Stephens
Tyler Mahle
Brandon Finnegan
Deck McGuire
Cody Reed

Not sure why Romano still has a rotation spot. He should be in Louisville working on a third pitch or beginning his transition to the bullpen. Lorenzen or Stephenson should be taking his spot.

The sad part of this is Homer Bailey. I honestly believe that a guy throwing upwards of 96 and being so close to the plate is a valuable asset. It really does seem to be an inability or unwillingness to throw pitches that might stress his elbow in any way. I understand, at a rudimentary level, spin rates. While nothing is absolute, his changeup has one of the lowest spin rates in baseball, and his FB isn't much better relative to other pitchers.

Simply put, he throws hard but straight. The hitter has a bit better idea of what is coming.

Homer Bailey used to have a HAMMER curve. According to Statcast, he has not thrown a curveball this year. Now while that seems unlikely, his own statements bare that out which lends a little credence to my theory. He's still unsure.

More spin, more movement. More success?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WrongVerb

That's a fair point, given the evidence up to now. I still would like to have seen that approach, rather than the "see what sticks" method the Reds have employed to this point. I've been saying for 3 seasons now that the Reds needed two reliable starters, meaning guys who were established and who weren't coming off injuries, in part because they have such a tough time developing starters. The Reds, not having obtained pitchers like that, have gotten this team into a bad mess. The only solution at this point is scrap heap (Harvey is the latest) or trading players doing well like Gennett or prospects like Senzel and Trammell to obtain the starting pitching that can stabiliize this staff.

---

I disagree. The failure to produce starting pitching in-house is what has put this team into the mess they are in and they will remain helpless until they figure out how to do that. The Reds will never have the resources to build a starting rotation through free-agency or trades. They could augment it, but the still need a majority of the starters and the necessary back-fill to come from their farm system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by puca

I disagree. The failure to produce starting pitching in-house is what has put this team into the mess they are in and they will remain helpless until they figure out how to do that. The Reds will never have the resources to build a starting rotation through free-agency or trades. They could augment it, but the still need a majority of the starters and the necessary back-fill to come from their farm system.

---

I agree the starting pitching development is the biggest problem and fixing it is really the only way back to respectability, but what's the theory behind the idea that a rotation for a small market team couldn't be built through trades?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TRF

Not sure why Romano still has a rotation spot. He should be in Louisville working on a third pitch or beginning his transition to the bullpen. Lorenzen or Stephenson should be taking his spot.

---

Romano should have never been promoted (as a starter) until he had a third pitch - frankly he should not have made it past AA. That is one of the problems I have with the Reds development process, it seems to be based on numbers and not readiness. Which is all kind of counter-productive in that pitchers will not work on secondary stuff until they start failing. Sort of like the peter principle where pitchers are promoted until they fail rather than preparing them to succeed at the next level before they are promoted.

Stephenson still has not show consistency in AAA. I don't really want him thrown back into the major league rotation until/unless he does. You think Romano is frustrating, think back to when Stephenson was in the rotation.

No reason to believe Lorenzen would hold up as a starter, but whatever, the Titanic is already submerged.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by puca

I disagree. The failure to produce starting pitching in-house is what has put this team into the mess they are in and they will remain helpless until they figure out how to do that. The Reds will never have the resources to build a starting rotation through free-agency or trades. They could augment it, but the still need a majority of the starters and the necessary back-fill to come from their farm system.

---

I would speculatively argue that part of the reason for so many failed starters is that the Reds relied on them too heavily to be productive major league pitchers at the time of promotion. The only one who's done that so far is Castillo. Mahle and Finnegan percolated for a short time before seeing some success (though Finny has regressed). If the Reds had a couple bona fide major league starters after the Cueto trade, the need to rely on rookies to be immediately productive would have been mitigated. Now, they did have DeSclafani and couldn't have predicted his 2016 went as it did. But they knew in 2017 that he was coming off injury and shouldn't be reasonably counted on to carry a significant load. Also, the team knew Bailey was going to be out for an extended period of time at the end of 2015, but didn't do anything in hopes that he could return to form by mid-2016.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by puca

Romano should have never been promoted (as a starter) until he had a third pitch - frankly he should not have made it past AA. That is one of the problems I have with the Reds development process, it seems to be based on numbers and not readiness. Which is all kind of counter-productive in that pitchers will not work on secondary stuff until they start failing. Sort of like the peter principle where pitchers are promoted until they fail rather than preparing them to succeed at the next level before they are promoted.

Stephenson still has not show consistency in AAA. I don't really want him thrown back into the major league rotation until/unless he does. You think Romano is frustrating, think back to when Stephenson was in the rotation.

No reason to believe Lorenzen would hold up as a starter, but whatever, the Titanic is already submerged.

---

I can agree with all this. I might still take a flyer on Lorenzen (and Garrett) in the rotation. But I'll point out that "taking a flyer" typically means "without a plan" or "deviating from the plan" which is part of, I believe, your overall complaint about the Reds: they don't seem to be operating with any development plan or philosophy for their pitching prospects. (IIRC, Hunter Greene's camp had these same reservations prior to the 2017 draft.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

I agree the starting pitching development is the biggest problem and fixing it is really the only way back to respectability, but what's the theory behind the idea that a rotation for a small market team couldn't be built through trades?

---

The Reds certainly could build a rotation through trades, but it takes prospects of decent quality and quantity to deal for an established major league starter. They come with a higher salary and typically fewer years of control. If the Reds were willing to trade their top prospects, they probably could build a major league average rotation for the next few years. Unfortunately they would still have a below average outfield and shortstop with fewer resources to address. That rotation would have approximately a 2 year shelf life and then the Reds would be back at square one. If injuries occur, they would still need to fill from within. If you are talking about trading for young non-established pitchers to build a rotation, then you would need to have faith that the Reds can identify pitchers that are ready to blossom. Considering that they haven't been able to do that with their own prospects, I have my doubts.

I have been very pessimistic about the rotation and the Reds development.

They have spent to much time over promoting pitchers to the majors and not having enough veterans to take the pressure of the starters.

I think I am seeing the Reds starting to do things some what differently which gives me hope.
1. They were willing to take Homer out of the rotation.
2. They are finally letting Finnegan pitch in AAA to get himself physically back to were he was (takes time to build the arm back up and stretch it out again) This will allow for the fine command to come back.
3. They are also letting Stephenson get comfortable with his delivery.
4. Disco will get the rest of the year to get back to what he was (see Finnegan)
5. Mahle is doing OK as a first year starter
6. Castillo has shown promise in the past. I believe with a little work he will be OK
7. Keeping Reed in AAA to prove himself first

If this team can get a couple of starters before next year a Chacin type ( we were predicted to sign) and maybe a Blake Snell type.
a couple of solid vets, Disco and Finnegan pitching back into who they were, Castillo/Mahle maturing/advancing as pitchers could be 6 guys fighting for 5 spots next year. Hopefully Reed or Stephenson finishes cooking in AAA. Romano can be the replacement level depth long reliever/temporary starter.

No more counting on injured pitchers or forcing guys to pitch in the majors before they are ready maybe a possibility next year

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by puca

I disagree. The failure to produce starting pitching in-house is what has put this team into the mess they are in and they will remain helpless until they figure out how to do that. The Reds will never have the resources to build a starting rotation through free-agency or trades. They could augment it, but the still need a majority of the starters and the necessary back-fill to come from their farm system.

---

The issue is both, in my opinion. A lack of quality options has led to the Reds having no tangible ability to improve the starting rotation at all - the guys who are being called up are either low-quality or lack development, and are simply replacing one another. This is how they ended up with Homer Bailey as the Opening Day starter - not because of money owed (although that's part of the equation), but because Bailey's career statistics made him less of a pressing issue to address as opposed to the back end of the rotation, which is a revolving door of dreck. Until the Reds decide to find out how to improve the rotation, which is probably only going to happen through trade or free agency at this point, they will be hard pressed to find ways to do much more than the current taxi squad type players who are shuttling between Louisville and Cincinnati.

No need for a starting rotation. Almost every current pitcher has proven that he is a demonstrably better pitcher in his first three or so innings than in later innings. Limit all staff to that many innings per game. Not forcing them to face hitters for a third time through the lineup:
1. Lowers their ERA.
2. Lowers their batting-average-against.
3. Allows some to succeed without needing a third pitch.
4. Permits some to throw at 100% effort, not trying to coast through a longer stint at 80% effort.
5. Frees up salary (with no high-paid designated TOR) to be spent on drafting, signing, keeping the best position players they can afford.
Currently, Eglesias, Lorenzen, Garrett, Hughes, Hernandez, and the younger guys in the pen are succeeding that way.
It’s already working!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Far East

No need for a starting rotation. Almost every current pitcher has proven that he is a demonstrably better pitcher in his first three or so innings than in later innings. Limit all staff to that many innings per game. Not forcing them to face hitters for a third time through the lineup:
1. Lowers their ERA.
2. Lowers their batting-average-against.
3. Allows some to succeed without needing a third pitch.
4. Permits some to throw at 100% effort, not trying to coast through a longer stint at 80% effort.
5. Frees up salary (with no high-paid designated TOR) to be spent on drafting, signing, keeping the best position players they can afford.
Currently, Eglesias, Lorenzen, Garrett, Hughes, Hernandez, and the younger guys in the pen are succeeding that way.
It’s already working!

---

It makes me wonder if an approach similar to how bowlers are selected in Cricket could be a success in MLB. In Cricket, bowlers are selected based on specific matchups, and limits placed within the game don't allow any single bowler to bowl more than 20% of the innings in a match. This would be similar to pitchers going for 2 innings each in a MLB game. Cricket matches in league play occur 2-3 times per week, but the same bowlers are used each time, so that could be approximately equal to using pitchers every other day.

It would never happen at MLB due to team stubbornness to experiment at the highest level in the game and due to pre-defined roles being taught to players throughout their entire careers, but it could be an interesting experiment if a team ever decided to try it. It doesn't immediately strike me as being flawed, as opposed to other ideas like the Hamilton immediate pinch-runner idea thrown about early in the season or spring.

My overall frustration boils down to one over-arching problem:

Rotation spots are consistently being handed to players that have not demonstrated that there is a high likelihood that they will succeed.

This goes beyond the prospect element, but also, for veteran players. Pitchers are claiming rotation spots despite in most cases there being mounds of evidence that they will not succeed. I get that with many prospects there are no guarantees, and that patience is required when they are first stepping into the big leagues. But in the case of each of the following, these players either had poor results as a starters in the minors, or had a very short period of success in the upper minors:

-Finnegan (consistently ultra high walk rates as a starter throughout minors)
-Romano (K rate under 6 in AAA)
-Stepheneson (poor command issues)
-Garrett (pedestrian AAA numbers)
-Castillo (17 starts above A ball)
-Rookie Davis (pedestrian numbers at AAA)

These stories didn't feel like they had actually done enough to lay claim to a full time MLB rotation slot, and if anything only acts to start players' time clocks earlier during developmental seasons. As far as veteran players go, rotation spots have been saved and handed for each of Bailey, Finnegan, Desclafani, and Arroyo despite there being significant injuries and/or very poor prior year performances at play.

Overall - the method of handing these key roster spots to not just unknowns, but players that have actually demonstrated a high likelihood of failure has created the trainwreck that has been the Reds rotation the past few years. Not only that, but it has fostered an environment where the major league roster is simply an extension of the minor league system as a type of "training grounds" for prospects, and a rehabilitation community for recovering starting pitchers. Failure is not only an option, but seemingly an expectation in this scenario. I believe the Reds need to get to a point where there is a clear division between the minor leagues and the major league roster. These 5 rotation spots need to be coveted and earned with demonstrated performance where there is a reasonable likelihood and expectation of success. Failure results in loss of role, no debate about it. The bullpen can be used as a place for failed starters to earn back their roles, and work the kinks out when performance is not achieved (perhaps Bailey would have been more open to this if there was a track record of this option being pursued and created accountability and some level of success).

Now - that is easier said than done. There aren't always 5 magical starters that are out there that can be filled in these spots at a rate affordable to the Reds. But even if its stop gaps like Feldman, or educated investments such as Mikolas that are pursued, it could go a long way to at least stabilizing parts of the rotation, letting players develop at appropriate levels, poor performing players being pushed into less important roles, fostering increased competition where rotation spots actually need to be earned with strong performance, and eliminating the "next man up" mantra of the current MLB rotation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TRF

Not sure why Romano still has a rotation spot. He should be in Louisville working on a third pitch or beginning his transition to the bullpen. Lorenzen or Stephenson should be taking his spot.

The sad part of this is Homer Bailey. I honestly believe that a guy throwing upwards of 96 and being so close to the plate is a valuable asset. It really does seem to be an inability or unwillingness to throw pitches that might stress his elbow in any way. I understand, at a rudimentary level, spin rates. While nothing is absolute, his changeup has one of the lowest spin rates in baseball, and his FB isn't much better relative to other pitchers.

Simply put, he throws hard but straight. The hitter has a bit better idea of what is coming.

Homer Bailey used to have a HAMMER curve. According to Statcast, he has not thrown a curveball this year. Now while that seems unlikely, his own statements bare that out which lends a little credence to my theory. He's still unsure.

More spin, more movement. More success?

---

If that STATCAST figure is correct, that really would lend some credence to the idea that he is sinply hesitant to pitch the way he used to and makes this all the more frustrating.

I'll also mention that as much as I've enjoyed Garrett's impact on a greatly improved bullpen, I think it would be disastrous if he's not tried in the rotation again soon.

Once the franchise fully committed to the rebuild following in July of 2015, a rather sound plan for assembling the rotation was in place: Iglesias, Bailey and DeSclafani manning 3/5 of the rotation with one of the above, likely Iglesias, manning the top spot, with, among others, the three pitchers acquired from KC in the Cueto deal fighting it out for the final two spots in the rotation.

Then, we all know what transpired after the '15 season with no discernible Plan "B" in place once Bailey never fully recovered (and that's the understatement of the year), Iglesias moved to the pen (understandable, given injury/durablility concerns), and DeSclafani sidelined for the duration of last season.

Most everyone has already expounded (no need to elaborate) upon the reasoning(s) as to why it's basically been a disaster assembling a viable rotation post-Cueto, et all, though Straily certainly worked out -- and was subsequently, wisely flipped for Castillo -- and Mahle has been a much-needed bright spot. Moving forward, though, I cannot envision a playoff-caliber rotation assembled in time to realistically compete before 2021 without the organization resorting to a mode of operation in which they've been hesitant to deploy.....The churning of their own prospects within the time confines of the rebuild.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneinthBrame

I have been very pessimistic about the rotation and the Reds development.

---

That's very hard to believe based on your "sunshine and lollypop" approach to date.

You may be confusing yourself with someone else perhaps?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Revering4Blue

Once the franchise fully committed to the rebuild following in July of 2015, a rather sound plan for assembling the rotation was in place: Iglesias, Bailey and DeSclafani manning 3/5 of the rotation with one of the above, likely Iglesias, manning the top spot, with, among others, the three pitchers acquired from KC in the Cueto deal fighting it out for the final two spots in the rotation.

Then, we all know what transpired after the '15 season with no discernible Plan "B" in place once Bailey never fully recovered (and that's the understatement of the year), Iglesias moved to the pen (understandable, given injury/durablility concerns), and DeSclafani sidelined for the duration of last season.

Most everyone has already expounded (no need to elaborate) upon the reasoning(s) as to why it's basically been a disaster assembling a viable rotation post-Cueto, et all, though Straily certainly worked out -- and was subsequently, wisely flipped for Castillo -- and Mahle has been a much-needed bright spot. Moving forward, though, I cannot envision a playoff-caliber rotation assembled in time to realistically compete before 2021 without the organization resorting to a mode of operation in which they've been hesitant to deploy.....The churning of their own prospects within the time confines of the rebuild.

---

Unfortunately there is never any guaranty that a rebuild will work, whether quickly or at all. Especially rebuilding a pitching staff.

Sometimes you have to just keep rebuilding until enough pieces are in place such that you safely perhaps supplement the rebuild with a few trades.

I don't think the Reds are anywhere close to trying to add a few costly pitchers and thinking they are in contention mode. You need to have a least 3 viable starters to do that IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PuffyPig

That's very hard to believe based on your "sunshine and lollypop" approach to date.

You may be confusing yourself with someone else perhaps?

---

sarcasm I like it

With one day remaining in the weekly discussion, this is a gentle plea to all readers to go through and "like" posts that you felt were quality contributions to this discussion.

Thank you!

PP

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Plus Plus

With one day remaining in the weekly discussion, this is a gentle plea to all readers to go through and "like" posts that you felt were quality contributions to this discussion.

Thank you!

PP

---

I'm frankly stunned I have only two likes.

Raisor won't be pleased when he returns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Plus Plus

With one day remaining in the weekly discussion, this is a gentle plea to all readers to go through and "like" posts that you felt were quality contributions to this discussion.

Thank you!

PP

---

I've liked on this post.

My take. They are still bad and still doing nothing about it.

The main issue with the rotation is that there is not a single guy that you can expect a consistent performance from. One start a guy might look great, and then his next, he is getting blown up. The goal has to be to bring in a guy who is at least consistently solid ERA in the 3s type of guy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Old school 1983

The main issue with the rotation is that there is not a single guy that you can expect a consistent performance from. One start a guy might look great, and then his next, he is getting blown up. The goal has to be to bring in a guy who is at least consistently solid ERA in the 3s type of guy.

---

The inconsistency is to be expected from young pitching. Which makes your point about bringing in a vet who can provide consistency that much more salient.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WrongVerb

The inconsistency is to be expected from young pitching. Which makes your point about bringing in a vet who can provide consistency that much more salient.

---

I really don't want a middle of the road vet either. A solid number 2....cue all the jokes...would be at least the goal.