They were discussing the very unique position that the Rangers are in. We've got an abundance of high-ceiling pitchers who also need to have their innings limited when possible to preserve their arms. Nefty, Ogando, and Darvish all need to be handled delicately for a bit while they get used to the grind (Darvish pitched every 6-7th day in Japan and wwe all saw how Ogando struggled in the second half). And considering that old-man Cobra has pitched into the world series the past two years, it would be nice to knock some innings off his total this year as well. Most teams dont have a 6th pitcher that could be a starter in just about every other rotation in the bigs (Harrison), so the Rangers could be the first team in a long time (ever?) to move to a 6-man rotation.

It was an interesting discussion. I have no idea if it would ever work.

There are quite a few teams that have this capability they just tend to designate them to reliever roles.

I do agree it would be interesting to see a 6 man rotation. I think the Rangers have a favorable and unique situation where they don't have that #1 ace who would complain for more starts. While other teams might have complaining pitchers, this could work out for y'all. As long as the new guys to the rotation pan out as starters.

[This message has been edited by dcrewint (edited 12/23/2011 10:18a).]

i dont think very many teams truly have the capability. by the time you get to the back end of their rotation, they cant wait to get back to the top b/c the discrepency between the #5 and the #1 is so big.

The thing with Ogando is... he never lost velocity, just command. He went through 3-4 games where he basically had nothing. He went from hitting his spots with precision and repetition, to having nothing. If we recall, it was so sudden and extreme, that there was some serious doubt in the papers.

He fought through and as you see in the playoffs, finished strong. He went 182 IP. I think he'll have a bit of a hangover to start the season... but will be fine going a similar number of pitches.

I think there have been 2-3 teams who have gone to a 6-Man rotation for brief periods. I think it is a likely possibility for a month or two into the season. I've stated I expect the Rangers to get off to a slow start. Ogando, Holland and Harrison will have a slow start. Yu and Feliz will be equally challenged, although I think their struggles will begin after 1-2 months into the season... when the other 3 will likely be coming around. A 6-Man would take pressure off all of them.

Boyd The issue is normally not a matter of #1 v #5/6... it is a matter of #2 or #3 and 4/5/6.

I think it has been used, as it would with Texas... to showcase a SP for trade.

I mentioned it a few times here (6 man rotation) and I got shot down pretty quickly, but the oldest starter is Lewis.

We have 5 young SPs. 2 of which are transitioning (1 from another league where he pitched every 6 days and 1 from the closing role).

I disagree with the argument over match ups in pitching in a 6 man rotation when everyone is in a 5 man. By June, all rotations are messed up with injuries and schedules. #1 vs #1 rarely happens after that.

If the weather like we had last year continues next year, having an extra SP gives these guys less times to pitch out in this ridiculous heat.

Was there a big deal made in the 1970s when baseball went from a 4 man to a 5 man rotation?

I say if you have the talent and you can't demote one over another or trade them, start out with a 6 man rotation. If one gets injured or is terrible, remove them to the bullpen and go back to a 5 man rotation.

I just don't think it's as far fetched as everyone thinks it is.


edit: Yankees used a 6 man rotation for a while last year. Anyone notice?

[This message has been edited by luggagecombo12345 (edited 12/23/2011 10:53a).]

The main point here is that the Rangers have good, young pitching talent, and lots of it.

I'm glad we are in this position!

There is not a chance the Rangers go with a 6-man rotation. None.

hayden knows who the owner of the team is.

which is why i doubt it happens, as well.

luggage

I don't think the point was about matchups... #1 v #1. It was a matter of giving your #6SP starts that would otherwise go to a #1. Why would you give a #1 27 Starts, along with a #6 getting 27 Starts, when you would otherwise get 33 GS from your Ace.

That is 6 GS that you have diluted. Teams toy with the idea, but it usually comes down to bumping people to keep the Ace on track.

quote:

---

Was there a big deal made in the 1970s when baseball went from a 4 man to a 5 man rotation?

---

Yes, actually. It was quite controversial. I believe the Dodgers began it. They were one of the few teams who had enough depth to get a 5th SP.

mhayden

quote:

---

There is not a chance the Rangers go with a 6-man rotation. None.

---

There you go with bold prediction, but wiggle room everywhere to cover if you are wrong.

Boyd
So what you are saying is... we're going with a 4-Man?! Adding Greg Maddux helps soften up going deep into games. Nolan had 222 CGs, but GMaddux only had 109. Nolan has almost as many CGs as the entire Rangers roster has combined GSs (252: 98-CL, 63-DH, 62-MH, 29-AO, 0-NF, 0-YD)

BTW... Nolan had 773 Career GS. Maddux had 740.

Dallas,

I totally understand the point of less starts for an ace, but I don't think the Rangers have one. If the Mariners did it, thus lowering the number of starts for King Felix, it would be a really dumb decision.

For the Rangers, I think it's a good idea to test a 6 man out here.

Was listening to Norm this morning, and he doesn't think their done with the pen. They'll either look to get someone else, Bailey for example, or make some adjustments in house.

Adams wasn't as lights out as maybe they hoped, and they'd really like to have someone they can trust highly to close if something happens to Nathan.

To that end, 6 man rotation doesn't seem likely, and really, it's not like you can't control workloads other ways.

With Darvish, IMO, it will be more about his sidework and helping him adjust to the weather.

quote:

---

I dont think we have a true 6 man rotation, however I think we could very possibly see healthy scratches employed with Harrison or ogando as the spot starter to give guys rest. For all intents and purposes, its a 5 man rotation, but youre using the 6th man to spell them each individually here and there

---

This is what I said yesterday in a different thread. Still think this is the most likely scenario.

quote:

---

There you go with bold prediction, but wiggle room everywhere to cover if you are wrong.

---

What wiggle room? There will be no 6-man rotation. There's a reason other teams in the league don't do it, and its not just due to "not having enough good pitchers".

Either Norm doesnt know what he's talking about, or he's throwing something out there to just stir up conversation.

Pretty sure he was joking there, mhayden.

Well then there is not a chance I picked up on that. None.

Not remotely practical and barely feasible. You just wouldn't have enough relievers. Washington would want a setup guy, closer, and lefty specialist. That means you have spot for just one other guy.

The mop up man would end up being the rotation guy furthest from his start, which defeats the point of six man rotation.



Exception to the rule - late in the season when guys are getting tired and there aren't any days off. You could go to 6 man rotation for 3 or 4 starts each.

ROFL@mhayden.

birdman
I liked what the Rangers did. They took their #6 guy for the Start, but still pitched the normal guy for a 1-2 IP. Which would be typical mid-rotation work.

You keep their routine, and really give them almost 9 days +/- with any offdays.

having a 6th starter in the pen is not new. The Sox have used a 6th starter in the pen very often (generally Wakefield and now Aceves). They can be pulled into a starter role when needed but aren't considered a true starter unless someone else goes down.

Yes, the Rangers have quite a luxury going into 2012 by having 6 real starters in the fold.