Mets go to 6 man rotation

ensuring none of them will ever be a 300 game winner?



hankzona said:
ensuring none of them will ever be a 300 game winner?

It's just for a couple of months...


The offense has already ensured that they will not have any 300 game winners.


it wasn't a comment about the Mets Jim as much as about the direction of pitching rotations in general. I know better than to make a comment about the Mets on MOL. oh oh If one team experiments with such a rotation, others will, and with the age of specialization, pitch counts, and astronomical pitching salaries/investments, I cant foresee there being a 300 game winner anytime soon (not that that was likely with the five man rotation)...and Cy Young's records for wins and losses may be the safest records ever in baseball.

jimmurphy said:


hankzona said:
ensuring none of them will ever be a 300 game winner?
It's just for a couple of months...



Agreed on all counts. 300 wins definitely seems to be a thing of the past.

Not sure what's right, but in Japan they pitch once a week.. Same in college ball.

I think a difference between now and the past is today's ridiculous focus on pitchers' velocity. Unless you throw mid 90s, it's hard to get looked at. And if you do throw mid 90s or better, some added recovery is probably a good thing.

We're still hungover from the steroid era. Dunno if it will ever go back, sadly. Unless and until we see a team really go nuts and execute small ball well. If the homers decrease and the strikeouts decrease, maybe there will be less focus on velocity and more on "pitching".



hankzona said:
If one team experiments with such a rotation, others will

Forgot where I read it, but a sportswriter pointed out that it requires a deep staff, which is, and probably will continue to be, a rare luxury. Maybe teams begin deciding anyway that it's better to turn, say, a Sean O'Sullivan into a full-time starter in the hope of extending Cole Hamels's effectiveness over a season or a career, but would that really make sense?* (I mean, other than the benefit of taking away Cesar Hernandez's roster spot on the bench?)

*Pretend, for the sake of argument, you're not a typical Phillies executive.


The only reason the Mets are doing this is because they have a few pitchers on innings caps this season. If all of your starters can pitch 200+ innings, there's no reason to give 25 starts to your 6th best pitcher and take 4-5 starts from your top 5 guys.


Unless it let's those guys pitch an extra two years, or keeps them from getting injured. Its a long term decision, not a short term one.


Absolutely no one knows if it will extend careers. But we do know it means your best pitchers give up starts this year to a lesser pitcher.


I agree. It's an experiment. No one really knows. Does that mean no one should try something different? I'd love to see some creative general managers in baseball. Or at least on the mets.


I don't disagree with the Mets doing it this year. But I think it's a special case.



In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.

Sponsored Business

Find Business

Advertise here!