Four Man Rotations

[sansterre]

What is the downside to having a rotation of 4, and not 5? It doesn't seem like 5 gives your pitchers many more pitches per game, and even if it did, that's only persuasive if your starters are better than your bullpen. 4-man rotations seem obvious. What am I missing?

[TribeFanInNC]

In a modern OOTP setting, your pitchers will, in general, not be at 100% rested when they make their start. In general, this will both make them less effective overall and should also reduce their ability to last longer into the game.

Also I think in the long term, chronic abuse of pitchers (which can be defined as overuse) increases their susceptability to injury, and thusly usefulness.

Just my

[AshBats48]

Originally Posted by sansterre

What is the downside to having a rotation of 4, and not 5? It doesn't seem like 5 gives your pitchers many more pitches per game, and even if it did, that's only persuasive if your starters are better than your bullpen. 4-man rotations seem obvious. What am I missing?

Yes it seems oviobus, but it's not ever going to happen agian. I think in the years to come were going to see a shift to the 6 man roations. The baseball "pitching staff" is going in the wrong direction.

[timmermac]

Originally Posted by AshBats48

Yes it seems oviobus, but it's not ever going to happen agian. I think in the years to come were going to see a shift to the 6 man roations. The baseball "pitching staff" is going in the wrong direction.

Which is crazy. Pitchers take better care of themselves now than ever before. You'd think they'd be able to pitch more than their predecessors, not less.

[SandMan]

Originally Posted by timmermac

Which is crazy. Pitchers take better care of themselves now than ever before. You'd think they'd be able to pitch more than their predecessors, not less.

They could pitch more often but that would mean that 30 MLB pitchers would be out of a job. It is strictly for the $$$$, more roster spots means more money for the players....

I personally feel that a MLB roster can get by with 4 starters and 5 relievers, but you will never see this....

[Y0DA55]

Originally Posted by SandMan

They could pitch more often but that would mean that 30 MLB pitchers would be out of a job. It is strictly for the $$$$, more roster spots means more money for the players....

I personally feel that a MLB roster can get by with 4 starters and 5 relievers, but you will never see this....

I don't agree that it's for the money. You really think that teams are willing to give out more money just so that more ptichers can have roster spots?

Now if they made a plea to increase the roster spots on teams, I would agree with you, but I don't think this is the case.

[SandMan]

Originally Posted by Y0DA55

I don't agree that it's for the money. You really think that teams are willing to give out more money just so that more ptichers can have roster spots?

Now if they made a plea to increase the roster spots on teams, I would agree with you, but I don't think this is the case.

It is not the teams that determine the roster sizes. It is the Collective Bargaining Agreement. They will not reduce the number of spots. I think I remember the owners trying to get the roster size down to 24 a while back and it did not get approved.

[Cras]

Originally Posted by AshBats48

Yes it seems oviobus, but it's not ever going to happen agian. I think in the years to come were going to see a shift to the 6 man roations. The baseball "pitching staff" is going in the wrong direction.

That I don't see happening. I see an expanded active roster so teams can carry more relievers and have their starters going only 5-6 innings before they go and establish a sixth starter. Teams are having trouble now as it is finding a fifth guy for the rotation.

And teams that treat their young arms like they are made of glass (the Yankees and Jaba come to mind) really is just dumb by me. Who cares about a guys potential if you are too afraid to develop him?