This recent piece by Dave Krieger examining the current state of the Rockies front office got me thinking a bit more about the Rockies four man rotation experiment. Not so much the failure of the pitching staff this year but more in terms of a 30,000 foot view of the franchise, perhaps as a GM would look at it. This notion of no pitcher ever having sustained success at Coors and the elevation having a negative effect on health is downright scary; much scarier than the ball carrying further or pitches not breaking as much. Tom Glavine is quoted here saying that he was more sore after a start at Coors. The problem it that it is hard to draw lines between development issues and health issues and the plain fact that many MLB pitchers have spurts of success that are not sustained. But if there is a fundamental health hazard to a pitcher’s arm at altitude, that really is something that is worth instituting an unconventional change. As Doctor Glenn Fleisig says here a pitcher’s arm is constantly breaking down and repairing over the course of a season. Throw a baseball and your arm breaks down in some manner. Rest your arm and it repairs. Of course keeping a pitcher healthy is some sort of a balancing act of the repairing more or less keeping up with the breaking down. This is why there is some skepticism of the decision to hold back a healthy Stephen Strasburg at some point this year. If his arm is actually in good health there may be no greater chance of a big one time injury (UCL tear) on October 1st than on June 1st. If the Rockies have found or been advised that the Coors Field altitude does either accelerate the breakdown or decelerate the repair than all options should be on the table. In that case, it is possible that a four man rotation could be in the best interest of the Rockies while not making sense for the rest of baseball. The 2012 Rockies pitching has been a mess, beyond what a change to or from the 4 or 5 rotation can help. But it is work considering what benefits the four man rotation could have with a better, more consistent staff.
To begin, the effect of the 4 man rotation is not to change the workload of the 4 starters; it is to redistribute the workload. The top 100 starting pitchers in MLB over the last 5 years (according to fWAR) have averaged 6.24 innings pitched per start. I used this group because it seems to represent a cross section of “competent solid” pitchers. Of course it includes Halladay and Verlander, but also Daisuke Matsuzaka, Erik Bedard, and Randy Wolf- solid yet unspectacular guys. Over that time the average NL starter used 16.18 pitches per inning. In a conventional 5 man rotation (32 starts) that means the average top 100 pitcher would go 199.68 IP in a season, or 3,231 pitches thrown in season. For the 4 man rotation with solid competent pitchers (40 starts per year), the numbers compare like this:
If 75 pitch limit: 4.64 IP per start (= 185 IP for season, 2,993 pitches thrown in season)
If 80 pitch limit: 4.94 IP per start (= 197 IP for season, 3,187 pitches thrown in season)
If 85 pitch limit: 5.25 IP per start (= 210 IP for season, 3,398 pitches thrown in season)
So for the 4 starters in the rotation, the total season workload is going to be about the same, however the work will be distributed as less strenuous work more often. Or, going back to the medical view: less breakdown in the arm but also less repair time. If the Rockies find that for some reason this is preferable at Coors than it should merit strong consideration.
Beyond the health considerations, the four man rotation is interesting. The reasoning that a stacked team does not go to a 6 man rotation is that it would result in the team’s 6th best starter is talking innings away from the team’s other 5 superior pitchers. And it has also been generally accepted that pitching every 5 days is the acceptable balance point of a starter being utilized in the most frequent way that also preserves his health. So if a team can go through a whole season of a 4 man rotation remaining healthy it means that the innings that the 5th starter (inferior to the other 4) are not thrown into the mix for starting games. Of course those innings need to be reallocated, and that theoretically results in adding one or two long men to the bullpen. This is where I think a big benefit may lie. Instead of having a 5th starter trying to go 6 or so innings, he can pitch every 3-4 days for 2 innings, avoiding batters ever seeing him more than once in a game, which would give him an advantage. It may also decrease the walks of the long man given that they should be able to utilize their 2 or 3 best pitches and feel the need to depend on their 3rd or 4th best pitch less often, resulting in better command. So while many have focused on the “times-through-the-order effect” for the starters, I think it is even more beneficial to the man who would have been the 5th starter, his numbers should figure to be much better than if he were starting in a conventional rotation. The ultimate success of the 4 man rotation is probably most tethered to having two pitchers that perfectly fit the mold of the long man. Think for a moment about Alex White in this role. He would almost never see a batter twice in a game, and he would be able to utilize his sinker more and his lesser developing pitches would be less of a liability.
Here is how the starters will enjoy benefit from the “times-through-the-order effect”. It is certainly real. So far in 2012, MLB league wide shows significant splits between 1st, 2nd, and 3rd times through the order for starters:
1st time .251/.312/.402
2nd time .260/.321/.418
3rd time .272/.332/.443
The more times a batter sees a pitcher in a game he gets more hits, walks more, and hits for more power. The starters will no doubt benefit in some way from this fact. And the MLB wide 1st at bat against a reliever is even better than 1st time against a reliever, let alone a 3rd at bat against a starter. So far in 2012 MLB batters have batted .242/.318/.380 against a reliever the 1st time through the order. So the long man could really have a chance to succeed much more than if he were to be a 5th starter in a conventional rotation.
A few misconceptions have surfaced in regards to the 4 man rotation. One is that it would only work with 4 Nolan Ryans or other titans of durability and deep pitch counts. That is a fallacy. The point is not to rely further on the 4 starters; the point is to more efficiently redistribute their innings over the season. The Rockies don’t need 4 absolute studs to make the 4 man work, just 4 solid performers, which has been the whole problem.
The problem is that the Rockies may have done this at the worst possible time, trying to combat the rotation being miserable with this change has obviously not been effective. My point is that the four man rotation’s strength may be in the “5th starter that is not starting and the other longman, and the 2012 Rockies have had an absolute dearth of that this year. In fact, at no point during the 2012 season have the Rockies ever had 4 or 5 competent, performing starters. Therefore the possible benefits of the four man rotation cannot be realized. Consider this though: If the Rockies had a healthy JhoulysChacin, Jorge de la Rosa, and Juan Nicasio, this whole experiment would look a lot different. Consider my ideal 4 man rotation assignments with the Rockies current personnel:
Starters:
JhoulysChacin
Jorge de la Rosa
Juan Nicasio
Drew Pomeranz
Piggy back (long man):
Christian Friedrich
Alex White
Adam Ottavino
Josh Roenicke
Closer:
Rafael Betancourt
Setup men:
Rex Brothers
Matt Belisle
Matt Reynolds
In games where your starter can get you 6 innings, you would use your setup men and closer to finish the game depending on the score situation.
In games where starter goes between 4-6 innings and the team has the lead or is within a few runs, use White and Friedrich as the piggy back
In games where starter goes 3-5 innings and the games is out of reach use Ottavino or Roenicke as the piggy back. These two could also function as set up men or a long man with a lead depending on the staff wide usage patterns during that time.
I would absolutely like to see that experiment in 2013. That would actually be an experiment, whereas this mess in 2012 has just been an attempt to bandage a gaping wound. I can’t believe that I am saying it… but I would actually like to see the 4 man rotation return next season.
Loading ...
Loading tweets...
11 comments
1 ping
Dan
August 5, 2012 at 3:35 PM (UTC -6)
One thing you fail to take into account is that the pitchers hate it. The vast majority of their starts will either be no decisions or losses, which is demoralizing and frustrating to a pitcher.
JD
August 5, 2012 at 5:14 PM (UTC -6)
That’s true, though it’s because of a stupid, dated statistical rule that they must go five innings to get a win. The whole game would be better off if we stopped assigning wins and losses (and saves) to pitchers and started using other metrics.
That said, I’m not sold on the four-man. I completely agree that our talent is horrible. I don’t consider it a mere injury thing – O’Dowd’s an awful GM. But I’m not sure good talent saves this fiasco, either.
Brandon Cloud
August 7, 2012 at 8:26 AM (UTC -6)
I agree that this is an issue, despite the statistical argument against wins. Selling this in the clubhouse would be important, and the willingness or lack thereof of the pitchers should factor in to the ultimate decision of whether to continue the four man.
I think there is a chance to sell this. If you agree to go to the 85 pitch count per start then you are giving a guy 40 chances each year to get through 5 innings with the lead. With improved pitching there is a chance to still have good win totals. Given the average of about 16 pitches per inning for starters in the NL over the last year, good pitching should go 5 innings often.
But yes, certainly this factors in.
Kevin Kroh
August 6, 2012 at 4:35 AM (UTC -6)
As long as we’re willing to think experimentally, we should reconsider what type of starters would have the most success along these “development and health-related issues” lines at Coors Field. That is to say, acquiring and developing the type of pitchers who don’t need 5 days rest after every start, or who can go 80-90 pitches per start, and recover quicker than your run-of-the-mill power pitcher.
Knuckleballers like R.A. Dickey come to mind (although the Mets have a $5mill team option on him for next year).
Maybe even getting Phil Niekro or Tim Wakefield involved as mentors/coaches in our farm system would encourage more pitchers to embrace the knuckler – and to one day not be afraid of pitching at Coors.
Another idea would be to hire Dr. Mike Marshall as our new pitching coach. He argues convincingly that he’s got the properly scientific methodology to eradicate pitching arm injuries:
http://deadspin.com/5902416/how-a-career-ends-mike-marshall-phd-the-outcast-screwballer-turned-outcast-pitching-coach
Adam
August 6, 2012 at 10:00 AM (UTC -6)
Will the knuckle ball have the same impact at Altitude? Just as the sinker can have less bite, will the knuckle ball be as effective up here as it is at sea level?
Kevin Kroh
August 6, 2012 at 1:42 PM (UTC -6)
I remember reading that Niekro never noticed any significant difference in the way his knuckler danced at Altitude, but the physics of it suggests that the knuckler would be more effective in a high air density environment (like a dome), whereas the low density air of Denver might render it less effective.
But I don’t think we should tell that to our hypothetical crop of young knuckleball pitchers. It’ll just psych them out even more.
Brandon Cloud
August 7, 2012 at 8:28 AM (UTC -6)
I think it is worth considering. A pitcher like this could theoretically be worth more to the Rockies than another team. However, given the incredibly small number of decent knuckleballers over the last decade or so this would really be stepping out on a limb to intentionally pursue knucklers as an organization in my mind. But worth considering for sure.
Brian
August 6, 2012 at 11:04 AM (UTC -6)
The only problem I see with the 4-man rotation as you have suggested it is that it requires that the amount of breakdown a pitcher’s arm experiences will be reduced enough for the repair to take place in the smaller amount of time between starts. The evidence thus far has shown that the “less breakdown in the arm but also less repair time” has not been effective. There has been an increased amount of soreness for starters, and injuries to Friedrich and Sanchez. Every pitcher who has pitched for the Rockies and another team has said that the biggest difference of pitching at altitude is the amount of time it takes to recover. This includes bullpen guys who never pitch more than one inning per appearance, which leads me to believe that even though it is not statistically viable to use a 6-man rotation, it is the best option to preserve the health of the starting pitchers and bullpen alike.
Brandon Cloud
August 7, 2012 at 8:39 AM (UTC -6)
Absolutely. I mean to make clear that I do not know if the 4 man setup does or does not help arm health. Perhaps never getting to pitches 95-115 is beneficial at altitude and the never quite maxing out helps negate the “Coors soreness”, perhaps it does not and spacing out the workload differently does not help. I wish I knew, but I am sure the front office has studied it, so I hope they are operating off of a plan.
However I will say one massive issue here is that it would take a large sample size to know how it effected pitchers. For instance we have no idea if Friedrich’s injury is related to the 4 man, perhaps in a five man rotation he would have gotten injured a month ago, or never. The problem is we just don’t know for sure. It will be easy to always blame the 4 man at Coors and forget that Chacin wore down with the 5 man, Ubaldo lost 3 MPH with the 5 man, Francis, de le Rosa, etc. We will always jump to the conclusion that Coors is to blame when we dont know for sure… think about Dan Haren the last few years. Diminishing armspeed, velocity and effectiveness mixed in with a bit of a back problem. If he had spent the last 3 years at Coors instead of LA, we might just point the finger at Coors. So this is so hard because in any given situation we wont know if an injury was bound to happen or if there is any blame to share with another factor. I dont envy the front office which has to navigate all of this… not easy.
Perhaps a 6 man rotation is the answer, but obviously you need some really good back of the rotation pitchers given that you are taking innings away from your 1-2 starters.
Brian
August 7, 2012 at 11:22 AM (UTC -6)
If a 6 man rotation will help prevent injuries (and there is no evidence for or against that), then your back of the rotation guys would essentially be adding innings to your 1-2 starters by keeping them off the DL. As you said, it would take a large sample size to really be sure. I would say at least 3-5 years would be required to prove or disprove the effectiveness of either option.
Kevin
August 8, 2012 at 11:27 AM (UTC -6)
You make decent points, but you don’t address if any studies have been done to find the ideal pitch count. 75 is an arbitrary number Rockies’ management plucked from a hat. If the true issue is recovery time, a four day rotation is absolutely the wrong way to go, as you point out the similar workload in either case. A true experiment would be more of a hybrid of this silliness and a five man rotation. Find four quality starters and give them 100 pitch counts and piggyback the fifth start. This is the only way any starter will be willing to sign with the Rockies. The other component to making this work is to stop employing relievers whose job consists of 1 inning at most and fill the bullpen with guys who throw 2-3 innings, so you don’t have to waste roster spots (including the closer). There isn’t a single pitcher on the planet who likes the idea of pitching to 1-2 batters per game; they do it because they are told to.
Getting back to recovery time, are the Rockies medical staff doing anything to combat perceived extra deterioration? Hyperbaric chambers after starts and throwing sessions or just plain oxygen masks for prescribed times after, if this truly is a lack-of-oxygen at high altitude problem?
The Rockies could also benefit from throwing money at colleges in Colorado who have cut their baseball programs and try drafting pitchers who grew up in Colorado (Roy Halladay, Brad Lidge) whose bodies may be better adapted.
But maybe the real problem nobody wants to talk about is the complete failure by the pitching coach (Apodaca) and his staff, and the rest of Rockies coaching, to teach pitchers better mechanics and the value of throwing strikes to be successful (not a Denver-related problem). In the last two games, Pomeranz and White broke 80 pitches through 4 innings. Regardless of altitude, this is a formula for losing in the long run. And why doesn’t this altitude problem affect other parts of the body? Back and legs have just as much to do with pitching as the arm, yet we only hear about arm issues. Not to mention there doesn’t seem to be a pattern of the same arm injuries happening, just this general idea of fatigue and weardown. Has the organization really not been collecting data over the past ten years, outside of baseball statistics, to truly understand these supposed affects of altitude? Have the Nuggets, Avalanche, or Broncos collecting any data over the years? Wouldn’t the Avs or Nuggets notice worn-down players by the end of the season, due to the constant toll of 3 hours of sprinting at altitude? WHERE IS THE DATA?
Finally, as an earlier poster commented, injuries happen regardless. ESPN had a great article about the alarming rise in Tommy John surgeries, mostly due to bad mechanics and pitchers trying to throw too hard too often. Reason: players want money, and velocity (coupled with strikeouts) gets them there and coaches are only too happy to let them because it’s easy and safe.
The science behind the four man rotation - Blake Street Bulletin » Blake Street Bulletin
August 11, 2012 at 7:43 AM (UTC -6)
[...] writing about the four man rotation last week. I wondered about the medical side of the decision and how that may come into play. So I spoke to [...]