A Few Rotation Battles

[david_hume]

As I go through the pitching projections, a few teams seem to have too many IP for starters. I imagine many of these are on the staff list of things to iron out. Curious how people think these will shake out:

BOS: Wakefield gets 109 IP behind the obvious five. Do we see him as a long guy/spot starter or a threat to Buccholz?

MIL: Gallardo, Wolf, and Davis don't seem in doubt. After that we have Suppan (176 IP), Bush (156), Parra (142). My personal preference is for Parra and Bush, but Suppan has a big contract so perhaps they'll keep running him out there.

OAK: Six guys get 140+ IP here, plus Duchscherer at 103. Anderson, Braden, and Sheets (until he gets hurt) seem to have spots, as does Duchs when healthy. I am skeptical that Cahill (174), Gonzalez (157), and particularly Mazzaro (148) can achieve the IP they're forecast for here. There will likely be injuries, but I'll take under on all three of those numbers.

STL: I like how this one is projected in the set, but I am curious about people's ideas of who will emerge for the fifth spot. I hadn't read about McLellan switching to starting. Will it happen? Boggs and Garcia have the pedigree to be useful at the major league level and darkhorse Rich Hill still owns the skills from his very successful year and a half in Chicago.

TOR: As chronicled in Rob's Rotowire blog, what a mess. Good luck sorting this one out before Opening Day.

[Todd Zola]

We use starter innings as a guide, looking for 1000 per team. Obviously, swingmen cloud the numbers, so we also use a team total of about 1458.

Boston has too many but Dice-K is going to be cut and Wakefield is considered more of a swingman. More than likely, someone will get hurt with Wake picking up the slack and an unknown reliever getting the missing innings. Boof Bonser is looming.

Milwaukee has 1037 IP, but chances are one of the starters will be in the pen for a spell so we are okay there. Parra is the likely guy, but the durability of the others is such that he will start.

Oakland has 1060 but plenty of guys that can work out of the pen.

St. Louis has 1034 but that includes some swingmen.

Toronto has 947, but quite frankly, I am not sure how many guys can be counted on for 6+ IP a game.

I am not trying to end conversation, actually I would like to promote it as we are by no means above listening to reader input with respect to playing time. State your case!!!!

[david_hume]

Boof Bonser is looming.

in more ways than one.

Milwaukee has 1037 IP, but chances are one of the starters will be in the pen for a spell so we are okay there. Parra is the likely guy, but the durability of the others is such that he will start.

i've always liked parra, but that's as a fantasy owner who sees a young lefty who can strike guys out, not as a major league manager trying to win games. on the other hand, is anything that jeff suppan has done the past few years helping you win any games? i remember reading a quote from ken macha in december calling parra a "lock" for the rotation, though that was before the wolf signing.

Oakland has 1060 but plenty of guys that can work out of the pen.

if cahill/mazzaro/gonzalez aren't in the rotation, might the team prefer to have young guys like that pitching every fifth day in AAA? i think they are all seen as long-term starters.

[AllstonRockCity]

Oakland has 1060 but plenty of guys that can work out of the pen.

if cahill/mazzaro/gonzalez aren't in the rotation, might the team prefer to have young guys like that pitching every fifth day in AAA? i think they are all seen as long-term starters.

That is a very good point. But with so much SP depth and with so many of them so young with so much potential, it is also a very realistic possibility that OAK has no hesitation when it comes to putting an SP on the DL this year. Minor maladies that other teams might let their guys try and pitch through will probably result in 15 day DL stints. A "better to be safe than sorry approach", a la the Red Sox these past few years. And with the Duke and Sheets on the roster, there may be more than the minor malady.

So I can see all those guys reaching their projected IP and still spending significant chunks in AAA.

[JP Kastner]

This also falls into the category of projecting the player. We only report on facts. If we have six starters on a team and they all have the skill to pitch 180 innings, we will project six starters at 180 innings until we some facts to go by. In all these cases, by the end of the spring training, the facts will be in and we'll have good targets.

[david_hume]

If we have six starters on a team and they all have the skill to pitch 180 innings, we will project six starters at 180 innings

this seems a little odd to me. do you really mean that? there's at least some consideration for how you think things will ACTUALLY play out, even in the first january projections, right?

if tim wakefield (or phil hughes or joba) were on the nationals, indians, or padres, you would project him for more than 109 IP, but you know he's not going to start every fifth day because of the other guys on the staff (not his skill). if jason marquis (or jeff suppan, or zach duke, or jeremy guthrie) were on the yankees or red sox, you would project him for fewer than 203 IP. right?

[Todd Zola]

If we have six starters on a team and they all have the skill to pitch 180 innings, we will project six starters at 180 innings

this seems a little odd to me. do you really mean that? there's at least some consideration for how you think things will ACTUALLY play out, even in the first january projections, right?

if tim wakefield (or phil hughes or joba) were on the nationals, indians, or padres, you would project him for more than 109 IP, but you know he's not going to start every fifth day because of the other guys on the staff (not his skill). if jason marquis (or jeff suppan, or zach duke, or jeremy guthrie) were on the yankees or red sox, you would project him for fewer than 203 IP. right?

There may be some mis-communication here. What we will NOT do is take 6 guys we honestly feel will throw 900 innings and inflate that to 1000.

JP's example was an extreme which may be confusing the issue. For that to be the case, a team would have already had 5 180 IP guys and acquired a 6th. Realistically, this will never happen. Practically speaking, if it did, we would know what they planned on doing and reflected that.

What he is saying is if we think a guy will throw 180, we put down 180 even if it leaves the team total short.

There are some staff with swingmen on them (like Oakland) so it appears the SP innings are high. But I can see Gio or Mazzaro in the pen, so if we are +80, I can justify leaving it that way.

A somewhat analogous scenario on the hitting side is with Boston and Mike Lowell. I have no expectations he is going to be on the Red Sox this season. So I put FAA next to his name, as the team designation is used to add up things like teams run scored, which impact pitcher's W-L record. I justify Boston's w/o Lowell. But I need to project him and he is not a free agent, so when I c/p the numbers to the CVRC, I change FAA to BOS. If you add up Boston's PA, you will see an extra 300, but these were not used in the runs calculation, so the W-L records are not inflated.

[brian]

Regarding the Cardinals, the battle seems to be shaping up between Hill and McClellan. If Hill can demonstrate control, he will get the job as McClellan has already proven his value as a reliever. The team may consider that as best of both worlds, but it all depends on Hill. Very early word is that his velo is already higher this spring than all last season but it is too early to know about consistency or lack of it. McClellan will start on the 7th, followed by Hill in a tandem arrangement until one emerges.

In my opinion, Garcia is the top talent among the group, but the Cardinals are being very careful with a pitcher whose TJ surgery was in August of 2008. If they are concerned about his workload, I don't see the value in starting him in Triple-A, so he might end up as a long reliever-spot starter.

The club really likes Boggs as a reliever. They are looking for a back-up for Franklin and that means potential for a few saves. Watch how Boggs is used and how he does early in camp.

[JP Kastner]

Yes, I should clarify this a bit more.

There are some cases -- rare cases indeed -- where we may project on a per-player basis instead of a per-team basis. Let's pretend that Mike Lowell is completely healthy and is good for 580 at-bats. The Red Sox sign Adrian Beltre and he is good for 580 at-bats. We know the team is trying to trade Lowell and when he does, he'll get 580 at-bats. We also know that Beltre is the starter in Boston. How many at-bats do we give Lowell?

Early on, I would give both Lowell and Beltre 580 at-bats each and make a note in the comments that we are assuming Lowell will get traded. The reason we would do that (or I would argue internally to do that) is that if we want to get Lowell's playing time correct. We are doing it on a per-person basis.

As we get closer to opening day, we then make adjustments. If Lowell is traded, we put him on a new team and adjust his projections for the new stadium effects and playing time.

If he doesn't get traded, because his salary is too high for example, then we have to start making adjustments. When do you start to do that? Once you have enough information to make a conclusion.

Early on, get the player right. You draft players. Later on, you get the player right when you get the team right.

In most cases, this doesn't happen.