McCovey Chronicles: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Around SBN: Headlines: BC Beats BU 4-3 in 58th Beanpot Championship

6-man rotation?

At this point, it looks like there is no room for Lincecum in the rotation.  Zito and Cain are not going anywhere, and it'd take multiple bad starts by Lowry, Morris, or Ortiz, who are all pitching well at this point, before Tim gets a chance to crack the rotation.

This article , however, implies that Tim will be up pretty soon, and Sabean says something along the lines of "bringing up Lincecum to bolster a sagging late-inning relief crew".  Now, this is just personal preference, but I don't want Tim to pitch in the bullpen, ever.  He's just too good, and you want your best pitchers pitching in the rotation.  The only solution I can think of is a 6-man rotation.

I'm not sure how feasible it is, and I haven't really looked into the last time a major league team had a 6-man rotation for an extended period of time, but is it worth a try?  It could help out the bullpen indirectly, because the rotation might be allowed to work deeper into games, because of the extra day of rest.  I'm thinking kind of like the Japanese League, where they have 6-man rotations and their pitchers seem to throw deeper into games.

The worst part about this idea is how it'll affect Cain, namely that he won't pitch as many games, and the way he's pitching, we want him out there as often as possible.  But, on the flip side, the fewer innings the bullpen pitches, the better.  Is this an idea worth looking at, or no?

This FanPost is reader-generated, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of McCovey Chronicles. If the author uses filler to achieve the minimum word requirement, a moderator may edit the FanPost for his or her own amusement.

0 recs  |  Comment 23 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Re: 6-man rotation?
Not really.  I don't mind Lincecum starting in the pen.  Earl Weaver used to ease young pitchers into the bigs that way, and once they had adjusted, they could move into the rotation.  The same thing happened with Johan Santana (although that was more because he was a Rule 5 pick).

Guys sometimes come out because of too many pitches, but often it is just because they have lost effectiveness.  I don't think that it is throwing every 5th day that causes arm strain so much as throwing too many high-leverage pitches during a start.

With his arm, Lincecum shouldn't have much trouble returning to starter form if he starts in the pen.  Plus, our pen needs so much help that he might as well go there.  Lincecum has exactly the kind of stuff that is effective out of the pen.  I don't know if we can say the same for Ortiz or Lowry.  Besides, they are doing fine for now.

When one of them starts failing, then Lincecum starts.

by North Side Chicago Expatriate Giants Fan on Apr 24, 2007 10:11 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Re: 6-man rotation?
If Lincecum pitches out of the pen, it had better be made pretty damn clear that this is a short-term thing and that he will be in the rotation before the end of the year.

Also, after his start last night, I think it might behoove the Giants to give him a few more starts in AAA.

Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.

by jponry on Apr 24, 2007 10:16 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Re: 6-man rotation?
I agree with that.  It wouldn't hurt to give him some more time down there, especially when the rotation is pitching well.

Walking 6 in 6.1 innings isn't so good, even if he didn't allow a hit.  It is probably just an aberration, but you still want to make sure that it won't happen with regularity.

Also, I don't know exactly what they are working on with him either.  The extra BB may have been because he was working on something in particular.  He is working on different pitches down there, and better it happen there than in the bigs.

by North Side Chicago Expatriate Giants Fan on Apr 24, 2007 10:25 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Re: 6-man rotation?
You're absolutely right. Pitching behind in the count and losing command in the PCL is one thing. Coming into a game with runners on in MLB in a pennant race is quite another. If it aint broke, don't fix it. And if its one thing that is not broke right now is the Giants pitching. Sadly many position players are hovering around with BA's in the Bingo, Interstate, and Mendoza Line range.
Save Matt Morris. Save The Pitchers. Save The World.

by E Ticket on Apr 25, 2007 8:36 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Re: 6-man rotation?
If Tim were used in long relief, it certainly would be short-term move -- one designed to allow him to help the parent club while buying Brian Sabean more time to trade one of his starters in order to open up a slot for his outstanding young prospect.

Still, I can't really get behind the idea much.  Brian has said that Tim is comfortable throwing 135 or 140 pitches in a game.  Why would you place him in a role in which he might throw only about a third that many?

by sharksrog on Apr 25, 2007 6:53 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Role For Lincecum?
The Giants todate have not had a single game in which the starter failed to pitch at least 5 innings and they have had only three games in which the starter did not finish at least 6 innings.  The Giants have only had one game (Sanchez's 3 inning win in extra innings) in which they have needed any long relief at all.  It would be pointless to bring up Lincecum for this role.

The relief role I can see Lincecum filling is entering the game at the beginning of either the 6th, 7th, or 8th inning in a game the Giants are trailing and then finishing that game (getting a few come from behind wins along the way).  You can reasonablely predict that this will happen at a rate suficient to allow Lincecum to pitch twice a week as Sabean indictated would be the goal if he is brought up.  This would allow Lincecum to get his feet wet with MLB hitters while the rest of the bullpen pitches with the lead and with inherited runners already on base.  If the Giants give Lincecum this role he is going to chew up 5 innings a week in two appearances a week.  The Giants will only need a 6 man bullpen and therefore will have room to add Frandsen back on to our 25 Man Roster to provide middle infield depth.

The guestion is, which 2 relievers go?  I would think that Sanchez would go down to replace Lincecum in Fresno's rotation.  Who else would go?  Not Benitez, Hennessey, or Taschner as they are pitching too well in very important roles.  Kline is signed for two years and can't be traded until June so you know he isn't going anywhere.  Do Chulk or Correia have any options left?  If not, do you trade one of them?  

by giantsrainman on Apr 25, 2007 4:31 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Role For Lincecum?
Steve S answered the options question a few weeks ago. Summary: Chulk is out of options; Correia, due to the convoluted nature of the option rule, can be optioned to the minors but would have to clear waivers.

The only relievers with unrestricted options available are Taschner, Sanchez, and Hennessey.

I don't see the Giants going with a 6-man pen, though.

"Yep, I'm a Dodger hater" - Kevin Frandsen

by EliminateMe on Apr 25, 2007 4:44 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Role For Lincecum?
Thanks for answering my options question.  I do remember this now that you have reminded me.  You could be right on staying with seven in the pen.  But, it seems to me that there are just not enough bullpen innings for 7 relievers especially if Lincecum is up consuming 4 to 5 innings a week pitching twice a week.

by giantsrainman on Apr 25, 2007 4:57 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Role For Lincecum?
I think the Rainman makes sense.  With Lincecum needing innings (if and when he is called up) - seven releivers is such an unneccessary thing anyhow - it's only peer pressure and reversion to the sheep, which keeps the practice in such wide usage - a six-man relief rotation makes the most sense. I like Rainman's idea of Lincecum's potential usage in losing situations.

As for the Giants getting rid of two relievers,  Sanchez moving to the Fresno's rotation makes sense - except when will he realistically get a shot at becoming a Giant's starter?  His short term future, sans trades, is proabably as a reliever.  The other obvious move would be to trade Chulk.  Actually, Hennessey might acutally garner somthing decent at this point.

Longer term, Lowry has the potential to garner what the Giant's need - a hitting OFer.  The question is, when would that trade take place?

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." - Jimi Hendrix

by GiantJim on Apr 26, 2007 1:00 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Role For Lincecum?
When Kevin Frandsen is recalled, I suspect it will be at the expense of one of the first basemen.

by sharksrog on Apr 25, 2007 6:10 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Re: 6-man rotation?
DO NOT MESS WITH THE ROTATION RIGHT NOW. Its too damn good right now. Just leave it alone I don't care who is waiting in Fresno.
I live life like every week is shark week. Oh and ignore the spelling. I do.....

by someguynamedg on Apr 25, 2007 8:28 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Re: 6-man rotation?
This might be obvious, and likely has been posted before, but I really think that the reason our rotation has been so awesome so far is that each of the starters feels Lincecum coming up fast, and nobody wants to be the guy to give the front office the excuse.  It's probably a huge motivator for Lowry in particular, being the most trade-able.

by dangjackson on Apr 25, 2007 8:50 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Re: 6-man rotation?
I don't know if I buy that theory.  I get the impression that all of our starters are competitive and do their best to succeed, regardless of whether Tim Lincecum is peeking over their shoulder.

Lowry in particular strikes me as a bulldog who plays with a lot of pride and a chip on his shoulder.  I suspect his and Morris's' success has more to do with being healthy now than anything.

The force is strong in Ryan Klesko. We'll rule the galaxy as father and son. 296/345/407 as of 4/24/07

by Goofus on Apr 25, 2007 2:30 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Re: 6-man rotation?
To some extent, I think Molina deserves some credit.  Most of last season had them asking NotGardo what to do next.

by sfgfan on Apr 25, 2007 2:55 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Both BMolina and I thank you
The pitching staff has praised Molina for his game calling and attention. Once he feels more comfortable I would also expect the clutch hitting to resume.

by wilriv21 on Apr 25, 2007 3:53 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Re: Both BMolina and I thank you
It's worth noting that the pitching staff praised Alfonzo's game calling last year, too. It's pretty standard interview speak.

Now, when the pitchers actually say bad things about their catcher (no names named), that's more signficant...

"Yep, I'm a Dodger hater" - Kevin Frandsen

by EliminateMe on Apr 25, 2007 4:33 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Gospel
When I hear Kruk mentioning it a few times I take that as gospel. Great to hear the pitchers and Molina are working so well together so soon. SF will go as far as it's pitching allows.

by wilriv21 on Apr 25, 2007 4:47 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Re: 6-man rotation?
I'm not sure that I really care why they are doing so well just that THEY ARE. Ride the wave a little bit longer.
I live life like every week is shark week. Oh and ignore the spelling. I do.....

by someguynamedg on Apr 25, 2007 10:58 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Re: 6-man rotation?
It ain't broke.  Don't fix it.

by Skaldheim on Apr 25, 2007 11:41 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Re: 6-man rotation?
The voice of reason.
Strikeouts are boring. Besides that, they're fascist. Not boring: Emmanuel Burriss. Not fascist: SF Dugout

by BaronVonCurrentEvents on Apr 25, 2007 1:15 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Re: 6-man rotation?
Word.
Adopting Dave Roberts since 2007

by hometownboy on Apr 26, 2007 2:44 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Re: 6-man rotation?
to the mother bird
I live life like every week is shark week. Oh and ignore the spelling. I do.....

by someguynamedg on Apr 26, 2007 10:45 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about San Francisco Giants.
Start posting about the Giants »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Hidey-fern_small
OT: Classics Video Games
Small
Quote of the day

Recent FanPosts

Timbreakin_small
OT: Super Bowl Losers: Colts, Advertisements
Tempesque7189_small
Elitist East Coast McCC meet up.
Hb307-1_small
Angel Villalona Community List Poll
Lakfjla_small
OT: Super Bowl Predictions
Small
The In Context Case For The Franchise Getting $13M
Hatoyama-southpark_small
Your 2013 World Series Champions! (2k9)
Small
My National Pastime Can Beat Up Your National Pastime
39135485-59af19dbb26654095f910f34176af094_4ae8a81e-scaled_small
Predictions Group
Louseal_small
Fantasy League, or Baseball Pokemon

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

SPONSORS


Overlord

174246766_ea2fd78204_small Grant

Minions

Dog2_small kenshin1

Munnyme_small Natto

Fawlty_small WalrusMan

Goofus_small Goofus

Howtheyscoredcat_small howtheyscored

Det_7193_small jponry

Minor League Guru

Small steve S