Ever hear of a staff that went to a SIX man rotation?

[Ray D]

I don't think there is anything magic about the number 5, it's just the number that's been in vogue for about the past (what?) 20 years.  For many years the magic number was 4, and there's no reason to assume that number won't be 6, or even 4 again, 10 years from now.   But I can see a case where six starters makes sense.  Suppose you have six good starters, and suppose number six  -- or even both five and six -- are not well-suited for the bullpen. (We've had those, John Laanan for example.)  And suppose further that the team is not in a current position to trade a starter, nor demote one to the minors.  A six-man rotation could be the solution.  (purely hypothetical of course.  I'm not suggesting that for the Nationals.)

[imref]

a six-man rotation means one less bullpen arm, or the potential risk of pitching one of your starters out of the pen on short rest if necessary. 

It's also a bad idea because the Braves did it in 2012 when Tommy Hanson came back from TJ.

[Baseball is Life]

I don't think you could do it without making it a system wide philosophy. You would need pitchers to get used to it in the minors. Pitchers are creatures of habit. They're used to throwing every 5th day, and taking a pen in between.

[Ray D]

I don't think you could do it without making it a system wide philosophy. You would need pitchers to get used to it in the minors. Pitchers are creatures of habit. They're used to throwing every 5th day, and taking a pen in between.

How did they go from four to five, then?

[Ray D]

a six-man rotation means one less bullpen arm,

Yes but in the old days a 10-man staff was standard.  That worked fine for  a hundred years.

[_sturt_]

I don't think you could do it without making it a system wide philosophy. You would need pitchers to get used to it in the minors. Pitchers are creatures of habit. They're used to throwing every 5th day, and taking a pen in between.

My opinion is that it's not that strict of a habit. Seems fairly routine that if you have a day off, your 5th pitcher as often as not still pitches his normal slot in the rotation.

I'm not the stat geek that I once was, nor that some of you are... is there a statistic listed somewhere that would give us ERA for all starting pitchers on x-number of days rest? No stat is necessarily authoritative, but that might be one particularly worth looking at.

[imref]

google six-man rotation, it has been tried lots of times, generally with little success.  The only time it seems to make any sense is if you go through a long period of games without off-days, the Tigers did it one time when they played on 20 straight days.

[blue911]

google six-man rotation, it has been tried lots of times, generally with little success.  The only time it seems to make any sense is if you go through a long period of games without off-days, the Tigers did it one time when they played on 20 straight days.

It's used in rookie league and short season A. But often as not it's because they have a glut of pitchers.

[rbw5t]

google six-man rotation, it has been tried lots of times, generally with little success.  The only time it seems to make any sense is if you go through a long period of games without off-days, the Tigers did it one time when they played on 20 straight days.

That's my reaction too.  I wouldn't plan on a formal 6 man rotation, but maybe you do it in spots where someone threw a lot of pitches the last time out, and so you'd prefer 5 days rest to 4 days rest, or you have a bunch of days in a row with no off days, and everyone goes through once on 4 days rest, but it would be nice to have 5 days rest the second time through.  For instance, this year, we only have one scheduled off day between Jul17th and Aug 17th.  If we need to play a make up game on July 27, we'd be playing 31 straight days, and for the second half of that a 6 man rotation would seem likely to be a welcome help.

[whytev]

If we play 11 in a row, I'm into Roark starting game 6 assuming the first five all pitch well and he isn't needed.

For double-headers, we call call up whoever has a fresh arm for relief then let Roark start the night game if he is fresh also.

Then there is injury.

But for the most part he's gonna be getting Stammen's old spots.

[welch]

In 1957, the Braves used a four man rotation. I think that was normal unless a team only trusted three starters and had to fill in with scrubs. In 1971, people thought it normal for Baltimore to have a four-man rotation (four 20-game winners, and one guy who started nine extra games). A five-man rotation was not conventional wisdom. Same with the 100-pitch start: Paul Richards was the first manager, first I remember, to set such a low pitch-count. He did it to protect his young pitchers. Late '50s.

If baseball can go from four starters, baseball might tolerate six...except that now a "quality start" is six innings, rather than nine, and a team hopes to get seven innings. With six starters going six or seven innings, a team will have one less relief pitcher.

One oddity about the current five-man-rotation and no back-to-back double-headers: the relief pitchers become so specialized that a long RP is expected to go only about three innings. When the extra games popped into the Nats' schedule, last year, they went to a minor-leaguer rather than a long RP / spot starter. It might be harder to use Roark for the odd start once he gets set as a three-inning (tops) guy. Consider Stammen and Detwiler last season: both former starters.

[whytev]

In 1957, the Braves used a four man rotation. I think that was normal unless a team only trusted three starters and had to fill in with scrubs. In 1971, people thought it normal for Baltimore to have a four-man rotation (four 20-game winners, and one guy who started nine extra games). A five-man rotation was not conventional wisdom. Same with the 100-pitch start: Paul Richards was the first manager, first I remember, to set such a low pitch-count. He did it to protect his young pitchers. Late '50s.

If baseball can go from four starters, baseball might tolerate six...except that now a "quality start" is six innings, rather than nine, and a team hopes to get seven innings. With six starters going six or seven innings, a team will have one less relief pitcher.

One oddity about the current five-man-rotation and no back-to-back double-headers: the relief pitchers become so specialized that a long RP is expected to go only about three innings. When the extra games popped into the Nats' schedule, last year, they went to a minor-leaguer rather than a long RP / spot starter. It might be harder to use Roark for the odd start once he gets set as a three-inning (tops) guy. Consider Stammen and Detwiler last season: both former starters.

Isn't the 26th man for double headers a relatively new rule?

[Bloo]

I remember the Yankees did it for a bit back in '02. Can't remember if it worked.

[welch]

Isn't the 26th man for double headers a relatively new rule?

So new that Clark Griffith sometimes used 23 players or less as a way to save money. There was a recent stretch ('80s?) when the owners used 24 players to punish the union for having filed suit to get free agency. It was a gentlemen's agreement among the Lords of Baseball. Around the same time, the Lords agreed not to sign each others' out-of-contract players. Yes, a conspiracy. Collapsed in court. Might even have been evidence of the conspiracy.

For some history, see: http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Roster

[blue911]

The 23 man roster was common during the depression.

[whytev]

So new that Clark Griffith sometimes used 23 players or less as a way to save money. There was a recent stretch ('80s?) when the owners used 24 players to punish the union for having filed suit to get free agency. It was a gentlemen's agreement among the Lords of Baseball. Around the same time, the Lords agreed not to sign each others' out-of-contract players. Yes, a conspiracy. Collapsed in court. Might even have been evidence of the conspiracy.

For some history, see: http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Roster

The free agent collusion was definitely covered in Ken Burns.

As for roster size...interesting.

[welch]

I searched and found several articles about roster size. It seems that 25 was a maximum, but teams (way back) used to fiddle with who was on the roster, and sometimes had coaches pitch or hit in the last few games of a season. Check Nick Altrock's stats and you see that Griff had Altrock pitch an inning every few years. See http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/a/altroni01.shtml

(Altrock seems to have been a regular pitcher from 1898 - 1909. Then his numbers become...interesting. Pitched a couple of innings in 1924, when he was 47. His last "official" appearance was in 1933, when he was 56 years old and went to bat)

[whytev]

I searched and found several articles about roster size. It seems that 25 was a maximum, but teams (way back) used to fiddle with who was on the roster, and sometimes had coaches pitch or hit in the last few games of a season. Check Nick Altrock's stats and you see that Griff had Altrock pitch an inning every few years. See http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/a/altroni01.shtml

(Altrock seems to have been a regular pitcher from 1898 - 1909. Then his numbers become...interesting. Pitched a couple of innings in 1924, when he was 47. His last "official" appearance was in 1933, when he was 56 years old and went to bat)

I bet Tony Tarasco still takes decent cuts.

[welch]

I bet Tony Tarasco still takes decent cuts.

Although Tony might not have the gift for comedy that Altrock and Schacht had. Incidentally, it was widely agreed that the 1961 expansion Senators had better (ex) players managing and coaching than playing. Mickey Vernon, Sid Hudson, George Case all come to mind. Vernon: two-time Al batting champ (and my first baseball hero). Case: led the AL in stolen bases five or six consecutive seasons. Ah...if only!

[Ray D]

Incidentally, it was widely agreed that the 1961 expansion Senators had better (ex) players managing and coaching than playing. Mickey Vernon, Sid Hudson, George Case all come to mind.

Nellie Fox was in the mix at some point, maybe not '61 but sometime in the 60s.   And over the course of the 60s,  let's not forget Gil Hodges, Jim Lemon, and of course Ted Williams. (And even Eddie Yost, for one game.)   Put them all together, quite a team.

[_sturt_]

Dang. There's some quality baseball historians round here... hehe.