Duncan on the Four-Man Rotation
TOWER GROVE — The theory behind a shift to a four-man rotation is not as screwy as some hardliners believe. The implementation might be. Asked about the plausibility of a four-man rotation in the modern game, Cardinals pitching coach Dave Duncan said earlier this week that the concept is better on paper than it is in practice.
While working on a story for this weekend’s Spring Training Preview — set to run in Sunday’s Post-Dispatch — the Bird Land entry I wrote last week discussing how a club could shift to a four-man rotation came up with Duncan. He said he read the article and that the argument had some traction.
It just probably wouldn’t work.
“It always sounds better than when you try to apply it,” Duncan said. “There is logic behind it. But something always happens to screw it up.”
As we all know four-man rotations used to be the norm. But the increased importance of pitch counts and other factors have led the five-man rotations being not just the norm but viewed as the industry standard. The four-man rotation is dead. Yet, so many teams truly only have four starters, at most, while many “No. 5 starters” would be better suited as middle relievers or cameo starters.
Looking at the makeup of the Cardinals’ current pitching staff it appeared that a four-man rotation would be reasonable: The schedule is friendly (read some about that Sunday) and the profiles are there. Four starters in Chris Carpenter, Kip Wells, Anthony Reyes and Adam Wainwright and three long-form relievers in Ryan Franklin, Brad Thompson and, in his next career evolution, Braden Looper.
This is all covered and explained — the four-man rotation and its “shadow rotation” — in the earlier blog entry.
What wasn’t explored there and was touched on by other comments from Duncan was how a four-man rotation would handle the innings a five-man rotation does. Last year, the Cardinals pitched 1,429 1/3 innings. A few years ago I figured it out that the average MLB team throws 1,441 innings (1,440 2/3 in the NL and 1,441 1/3 in the AL). The rained out Bruce Sutter/San Francisco Giants game — what would have been my little man’s first baseball game — accounts for some of the difference.
Could a four-man rotation account for those innings?
If you assume that the four-man rotation would spin through an entire season — and that was not the argument presented previously; just holding serve until Mark Mulder returns – then we can do the math. The front two starters would each make 41 starts and the second two would make 40. The shadow rotation would be expected to average 54 appearances and probably would see less than 50 each.
To protect the starters, I thought you’d have to expect less innings from them. If each starter averages 4 1/3 innings per start, that would equal about 177 2/3, 177 1/3, 173 1/3 and 173 for the four starters. That would equal:
701 1/3
Each member of the shadow rotation would then need to fill, on average, the remaining 2 1/3 to get to the eighth. That would mean the three pitchers would throw 125 2/3, 126, and 125 2/3, respectively. That would equal:
377 1/3
All that and the two rotations would generate a total of:
1078 2/3
From the average NL team, that leaves 362 innings for the rest of the pitching staff — the bullpen — to cover. Last summer, the Cardinals had the 10th fewest innings from their bullpen (488 innings). The White Sox used their bullpen the least (407 innings) and the Royals used theirs the most (577 2/3 innings). The average bullpen threw 499 innings. It appears the four-man rotation comes in well under that limit.
Or does it?
The tripwire of the above paragraph’s logic is that three members of the bullpen are now in the shadow rotation and therefore some of their innings need to be counted in the bullpen total because those are lost innings for the rest of the relievers.
Still looks like the needed innings will be covered.
And that’s where Duncan’s next comment comes in.
“If you go with a four-man rotation, you have to have four guys who are capable of doing it, of being effective and staying healthy,” he said. “Today it is hard to put four guys together like that, who can handle that kind of demand. You would have to get four guys who physically could handle being max’d out like that.”
Duncan said a four-man rotation would only work if the four starters are expected to handle the same expectations they would in a five-man rotation. As discussed in the previous entry, the number of short-rest starts would be minimal for Carpenter in a four-man rotation because of how the Cardinals’ schedule unfurls in April and May. But for a whole season a four-man rotation would clearly be taxed under five-man expectations.
Consider the innings haul again.
If the four starters averaged just five innings an appearance, all four would be counted on to throw at least 200 innings. The shadow rotation’s responsibility would shift to 108 innings each — or, realistically, less. The real heavy lifting would be on the four starters, who could climb to 220 innings, 230 innings even 240 innings with five-man expectations. There aren’t many innings left of the needed 1,441.
I look at that and see how the bullpen — including the shadow rotation — could play a larger role in handling those innings. Sharing the load of 1,441 innings in agreeable portions appears possible with a four-man rotation.
It just might dilute the impact of the team’s best pitcher(s).
“If you are using a four-man rotation, you don’t want to change what the starters have to do from what you need from them in a five-man rotation,” Duncan said. “You don’t baby him just because he’s in a four-man rotation.”
***
One of the non-roster pitchers coming to camp this spring training is righthanded pitcher Mike Smith. Not to be confused with this Mike Smith, this Mike Smith, this Mike Smith, this Mike Smith or this Mike Smith or even this Mike Smith. He’s this Mike Smith.
***
The final pre-spring training Hot Stove League Roundtable will be held tonight on KMOX/1120 AM from 6:30 p.m. to 8 p.m. I’ll join Kevin Wheeler, Ron Jacober and former major leaguer Matt Whiteside, and we’ll preview some of the things and names to watch for in the first few weeks of Jupiter.
***
Already mentioned Sunday’s paper.
***
Let’s see … what else is there to plug? Ah, yes. Tomorrow (Friday) at Baseball America’s Web site — www.baseballamerica.com — I’ll be part of a chat on the Cardinals’ minor league system and the Top 30 Prospects discussed in here and on your bookstore’s shelves. The chat will begin at 11 a.m. St. Louis time.
-30-
Derrick Goold said he was going to Mizzou for capital-J journalism, but after growing up in the Time Zone Baseball Forgot he was really drawn to MU sitting between two major-league cities. Goold joined the Post-Dispatch in 2001 after working for The Times-Picayune and Rocky Mountain News, covering sports from LSU to NHL and every level of baseball in between. 
I understand the reasons teams shifted to the five-man rotation. But my biggest question is, with guys bigger and stronger now than they were 25 years ago. Why is there so much fear that a guy will get hurt?
I know, the investment in pitching is much more significant today than it was in 1982. But you’d think that same reasoning would be a reason for a team to give the four man rotation another shot.
I think at some point in the near future, some team will give it a shot. Especially if the cost for decent pitching continues to escalate.
Jim Kaat will tell you that his career was revived by pitching coach Johnny Sain when he joined the White Sox in the mid-70’s. Those Sox had a four man rotation, because Sain believed that a pitching arm was made of muscle, and exercise did it good. At age 35, Kaat won 21 times in 39 starts for the ‘74 Sox, then pitched over 300 innings the following year, finishing 20-14 with a 3.11 ERA. He was hardly used up by the two-year stint under Sain, as he pitched another eight big league seasons for the Phillies, Yankees and Cardinals.
Perhaps the all-time rubber arm belonged to Robin Roberts. From 1950 through 1955, Roberts never pitched fewer than 300 innnings — or won fewer than 20 games. In 1950 he was just 23 — imagine a prodigious talent being subjected to 300 innings at that age today. But his arm wasn’t spent in that six-year stretch, because he started 30 or more games in 7 of the next 9 seasons.
And there’s this: what financial incentive does a major league team have for “protecting” the arms of its young starters? Why nurse along a pitcher at 200 innings per year, until he hits his prime and can sell himself to the highest bidder? Wouldn’t the economical move be to miximize use of a pitcher before he is arbitration-eligible, or free-agency eligible? 40 starts times 6.5 innings per start = 260 innings. If Adam Wainwright has the capability of pitching 260 innings a year, why save those innings for the next team that owns his contract? The real investment isn’t made in youngsters, it’s made in veterans. If Gil Meche can command $7 milllion a year, why not go with a four man rotation and pitch those strong young arms for 6 or 7 innings per start?
Exploitation? Maybe. But after seeing the contracts that pitchers signed this winter, I’d say it’s the veteran pitchers doing the exploiting, the owners who are being exploited. Case in point: Roger Clemens. When he came out of college in 1983, the Red Sox were worried that he’d been burned out by coach Cliff Gustafson at Texas, where he pitched 166 innings in a four month season. Clemens only gave the Red Sox 35 starts and 231 innings his first two seasons. Then he turned into the Rocket. 20 years later, he has owners salivating at the chance to pay him $1 million per start for half a season.
So economically speaking, would you rather pay a 43 year old $18 million to take half the season off, then rest four days out of five, giving you 6 innings on a good day? Or would you rather pay $400,000 for 260 innings, and only have to employ four starting pitchers? Starters are overpriced, middle relievers are a relative bargain.
Wow, Will makes a powerful argument. He should write a book and call it “Moneymound.”
Actually, I don’t know why you couldn’t make a four-man rotation simpler than what Derrick had suggested. Fifth starters often go 7-10 days between starts, right? Just line up four starters, and pencil in question marks (???) for the fifth starter. You’ll have a few guys in the bullpen (Ryan Franklin, Brad Thompson, Braden Looper, Chris Narveson) who can start occasionally, and just assign the one you want given matchups, etc., on an ad hoc basis. They could know five days ahead to be able to prepare like a starter.
Then, there’s no need to ask the other starters to go on short rest, quit after four innings, etc. I agree with a comment in the original four-man rotation blog that Carpenter, given both his injury history and the big, long-running contract he’s received, is an asset that shouldn’t be tinkered with.
You could get vertigo looking off the cliff of pitching heading into spring training. Even to get three starters after Carpenter, you have some big, big question marks. IF Wells returns to form, IF Reyes can hold up to a full season, IF Wainright isn’t needed in the bullpen… I’m cautiously optimistic about Wells and Reyes. I remain to be convinced about Isringhausen coming back effectively, in April or at all (Bo Jackson, anyone?), which puts Wainright at risk in the rotation. And we’ll be lucky if Mulder is effective at all in 2007.
I like your thinking Will. I would use the heck out of those guys - especially when you look at the amount of money these guys are being paid to play every five days.
I think that some time in the near future some team will go back to the four man rotation, and they will revolutionize the game. You’ve got to get your money out of these guys.