Messy situation at 1B

[Stradling]

I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Ohtani is the Sunday Starter.  He starts all Sunday games as the pitcher, and since most days off are Monday, he will be off on Mondays and Tuesdays, DHs on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday and rests on Saturday.  Or he will DH on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday and have Friday and Saturday off.  

[krAbs]

31 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

Do you want me to post a link to one of the hundreds of websites that show stats for mlb pitchers that shows mlb teams choose 5 man rotations?

I am not exactly sure what is wrong with you but it's not my problem.

Saying it is a fact that teams choose a five man rotation is a simple statement that needs no "proof" for some blowhard like you to accept.

And save your whining about someone bullying.  Wah.  I am just talking about baseball on a message board.  Quit being a puss.

It makes no difference to me if you are capable of grasping that saying teams use 5 man rotations is fact and not opinion. 

You cite size of roster as a factor.  No shit genius.  Maybe roster size is partly why teams don't carry 5 catchers?

Check out the big brain on blarg.

Now can you discuss pitching and five or six man rotations without being a whiney pain in the ass?

 

Aren't you using a fairly obvious straw man argument here by implying that Blarg was asking for proof that teams use a five man rotation rather than Blarg's actual point that there is no proof that a five man rotation is optimal?

Edit- for lulz:

 

[AngelsLakersFan]

7 minutes ago, Stradling said:

I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Ohtani is the Sunday Starter.  He starts all Sunday games as the pitcher, and since most days off are Monday, he will be off on Mondays and Tuesdays, DHs on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday and rests on Saturday.  Or he will DH on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday and have Friday and Saturday off.  

I would be really happy if they go with this. It would give Ohtani the least amount of disruption from his previous regimen and maximize his utility. I particularly like him being in the lineup three days in a row, which will hopefully give him a chance at finding a rhythm.

[Erstad Grit]

23 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

Do you want me to post a link to one of the hundreds of websites that show stats for mlb pitchers that shows mlb teams choose 5 man rotations?

I am not exactly sure what is wrong with you but it's not my problem.

Saying it is a fact that teams choose a five man rotation is a simple statement that needs no "proof" for some blowhard like you to accept.

And save your whining about someone bullying.  Wah.  I am just talking about baseball on a message board.  Quit being a puss.

It makes no difference to me if you are capable of grasping that saying teams use 5 man rotations is fact and not opinion. 

You cite size of roster as a factor.  No shit genius.  Maybe roster size is partly why teams don't carry 5 catchers?

Check out the big brain on blarg.

Now can you discuss pitching and five or six man rotations without being a whiney pain in the ass?

 

Chill bruh. Blarg made some valid points and you descended into a jr higher. 

[wopphil]

7 hours ago, Dave Saltzer said:

I'd say that this is a much lesser concern than adding another solid rotation piece and another bullpen arm that I'd let it ride as is until those holes are fixed. 

Agreed. I'd love to see the team sign Logan Morrison, but I think another starter and own arm are far more important. And there won't be money for all three.

[Dtwncbad]

18 minutes ago, Erstad Grit said:

Chill bruh. Blarg made some valid points and you descended into a jr higher. 

You may be right.  I work very very hard during the day and I click in and out of here recreationally, sometime chill and some times stressed out.

I get very frustrated with things sometimes.  A discussion about 5.or 6 man rotations is interesting. . .until somebody gets pissy about something like demanding proof of something or a study to back something up and then accusing me of mixing opinion and fact.

This seriously is not that complicated.  I am comfortable with my own common sense and I personally do not need to spend time scouring the internet for proof that a five man rotation is backed by medical studies when i type a sentence or two in a message board discussion.  There are hundreds of millions of dollars on the line so it is reasonable to assume if every mlb team is using a 5 man, then I doubt there is a pile of evidence that says a 6 man is better.

The examine these guys throughout the season to protect their health.

So wtf is the issue with someone citing general common sense logic based on simple facts?

I am not interested in a contest over links.

Mlb teams use 5 man.  They have doctors.  Those are facts.  I dont need much more to be OK assuming the doctors are not ignoring a consensus that 6 man is better.

Is it reasonable to consider that some starters and agents may not like it?  Of course it is.  I dont need an affidavit to make that statement.

It's just a discussion on a subject.

I do react sometimes, and that's on me.  But for God's sake all I have really said is I will believe the 6 man rotation when I actually see it because (fill in the multiple points I have made, some fact and some opinion).

What on earth is the interest in picking a fight over this?

[Ace-Of-Diamonds]

40 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

Do you want me to post a link to one of the hundreds of websites that show stats for mlb pitchers that shows mlb teams choose 5 man rotations?

I am not exactly sure what is wrong with you but it's not my problem.

Saying it is a fact that teams choose a five man rotation is a simple statement that needs no "proof" for some blowhard like you to accept.

And save your whining about someone bullying.  Wah.  I am just talking about baseball on a message board.  Quit being a puss.

It makes no difference to me if you are capable of grasping that saying teams use 5 man rotations is fact and not opinion. 

You cite size of roster as a factor.  No shit genius.  Maybe roster size is partly why teams don't carry 5 catchers?

Check out the big brain on blarg.

Now can you discuss pitching and five or six man rotations without being a whiney pain in the ass?

 

In the 1960 and before all the teams chose a 4 man rotation, pitchers threw complete games regularly,  they racked 350 innings a year. No one knew what a closer was, forget about a setup man or a 7th inning specialist. Things change all the time. Like getting a moron elected to the White House (we got a boob in the Oval Office even though Hillary lost).

[Dtwncbad]

30 minutes ago, krAbs said:

Aren't you using a fairly obvious straw man argument here by implying that Blarg was asking for proof that teams use a five man rotation rather than Blarg's actual point that there is no proof that a five man rotation is optimal?

Edit- for lulz:

 

This is so stupid I dont even know what to say.  Really?  Someone cannot say I doubt they actually go to a six man rotation unless they have a hermetically sealed, notarized study signed by scientists that shows proof a five man rotation is best?

You can't have a discussion that maybe actual pitch count is the more important thing to manage without having a link to a study?

Do I need to be an orthopedic surgeon to speculate that if you throw all sliders your elbow is more at risk?

If I say that do I need links and proof, or are we just having a discussion?

[Ace-Of-Diamonds]

20 minutes ago, Dtwncbad said:

Mlb teams use 5 man.  They have doctors.  Those are facts.  I dont need much more to be OK assuming the doctors are not ignoring a consensus that 6 man is better.

There hasn't been a 6 man rotation as far as I know and if there has been there aren't many. So it's impossible to say with any degree of certainty if it would be beneficial or not. In Japan they use a 6 man rotation but also do not play on Mondays so they in effect have 1 day on and 6 days off. I suppose you could check how well their pitchers hold up.

[krAbs]

1 minute ago, Dtwncbad said:

This is so stupid I dont even know what to say.  Really?  Someone cannot say I doubt they actually go to a six man rotation unless they have a hermetically sealed, notarized study signed by scientists that shows proof a five man rotation is best?

You can't have a discussion that maybe actual pitch count is the more important thing to manage with having a study?

Do I need to be an orthopedic surgeon to speculate that if you throw all sliders your elbow is more at risk?

If I say that do I need links and proof, or are we just having a discussion?

You seem confused...haha

'MLB teams use a five man rotation because it is optimal for health and effectiveness.'

'There is no actual proof that a five man rotation is actually optimal, and not just tradition.'

'Of COURSE there is proof that MLB teams use a five man rotation!!'

I mean...it's a cute trick or whatever, but it make you look kinda...you know...careless, to be generous?

[krAbs]

5 minutes ago, Ace-Of-Diamonds said:

There hasn't been a 6 man rotation as as I know and if there has been there aren't many. So it's impossible to say with any degree of certainty if it would be beneficial or not. In Japan they use a 6 man rotation but also do not play on Mondays so they in effect have 1 day on and 6 days off. I suppose you could check how well their pitchers hold up.

They have surprisingly low rates of TJ surgery, but IDK beyond that. I don't know if anyone has actually extensively studied it beyond that.

[Dtwncbad]

12 minutes ago, krAbs said:

You seem confused...haha

'MLB teams use a five man rotation because it is optimal for health and effectiveness.'

'There is no actual proof that a five man rotation is actually optimal, and not just tradition.'

'Of COURSE there is proof that MLB teams use a five man rotation!!'

I mean...it's a cute trick or whatever, but it make you look kinda...you know...careless, to be generous?

You are spinning and I am bored now.

If you can't believe, without some proof in your face, that mlb teams are trying to manage a pitching staff for the optimal balance between wins and injury risk, then I suppose you have to die a fiery death touching the sun to accept that's where heat comes from.

[Erstad Grit]

1 hour ago, Dtwncbad said:

You may be right.  I work very very hard during the day and I click in and out of here recreationally, sometime chill and some times stressed out.

I get very frustrated with things sometimes.  A discussion about 5.or 6 man rotations is interesting. . .until somebody gets pissy about something like demanding proof of something or a study to back something up and then accusing me of mixing opinion and fact.

This seriously is not that complicated.  I am comfortable with my own common sense and I personally do not need to spend time scouring the internet for proof that a five man rotation is backed by medical studies when i type a sentence or two in a message board discussion.  There are hundreds of millions of dollars on the line so it is reasonable to assume if every mlb team is using a 5 man, then I doubt there is a pile of evidence that says a 6 man is better.

The examine these guys throughout the season to protect their health.

So wtf is the issue with someone citing general common sense logic based on simple facts?

I am not interested in a contest over links.

Mlb teams use 5 man.  They have doctors.  Those are facts.  I dont need much more to be OK assuming the doctors are not ignoring a consensus that 6 man is better.

Is it reasonable to consider that some starters and agents may not like it?  Of course it is.  I dont need an affidavit to make that statement.

It's just a discussion on a subject.

I do react sometimes, and that's on me.  But for God's sake all I have really said is I will believe the 6 man rotation when I actually see it because (fill in the multiple points I have made, some fact and some opinion).

What on earth is the interest in picking a fight over this?

You are totally correct.  Currently the norm is a 5 man rotation.  Perhaps  we are at the transition to where teams experiment with 6. Discussing the pros and cons of shifting to a 6 man rotation would make this thread more beneficial. 

I could see it keeping guys fresh and healthy,  but paying a #6 starter sounds like a waste of funds.  

[Blarg]

4 minutes ago, Erstad Grit said:

You are totally correct.  Currently the norm is a 5 man rotation.  Perhaps  we are at the transition to where teams experiment with 6. Discussing the pros and cons of shifting to a 6 man rotation would make this thread more beneficial. 

I could see it keeping guys fresh and healthy,  but paying a #6 starter sounds like a waste of funds.  

Heaney, Skaggs and Bridwell combined cost less than Cliff Pennington last year. A 6th starter is not going to make a dent in the 25 man roster payroll. 

[Tank]

7 hours ago, Dtwncbad said:

Man you talk about playing with fire.  It would be insane to stretch out pitchers to go longer in games as a result of a six man rotation.  Insane.

You are begging for players, agents, and fans to put the blame for an injury squarely on management when a guy gets hurt.

Nobody blames management for injuries in 5 man rotations where they don't let pitchers go past 105 pitches.

Seriously this is crazy talk.

 

6 hours ago, Dtwncbad said:

Yes I read that.

I am sticking my neck out predicting it just doesn't happen.  I am not arguing it isn't a vogue subject and being tossed around.

I am saying I will believe it when I see it.

There are some significant forces in play, including how players and agents will process the strategy.  They may embrace it and they may reject it.

It says right in that article the input from the other starters will matter.  And when the whole analysis is over we may discover that the Angels don't want to be a team that goes against what their starting pitchers want to do.  That hurts them in contract talks and attracting players.

We will see.  Nobody knows.

I just don't believe it is going to happen and if I am wrong I will admit I was wrong.  Big deal.  I am fine admitting when I am wrong.

Curious that you react differently in both of these posts.

i don't recall the discussion about it at the time, but I wonder if there were people who felt the same about going to a five man rotation the way you feel about about going to a six man rotation.

im not clamoring for it or seeing it as some incredible solution. It might work well, it might not. We'll see how it goes in spring training and move on from there. It'll present some unique challenges along the way.

[totdprods]

I like the idea of replacing Cron with a more versatile player, preferably someone who can cover 1B, LF, and RF. Finding someone who could cover CF *and* 1B would be ideal, but the number of players who can do that is pretty short. And, what players that exist that do fit that bill, most are defense/versatility-first role players like Romine, Coghlan, Descalso. With our starters being so strong defensively, I think I'd actually prefer someone more offense-oriented, like a Gyorko, Headley, Solarte, Dietrich type. May not get the CF coverage or late-inning speed or defense, but you'd get another bat as insurance for any Pujols, Cozart, Kinsler, Valbuena, Ohtani struggles. 

If you need someone who can really cover CF, just bring Hermosillo or AAA filler up for a couple games, sending down a reliever or the 6th starter. If you need a CF in a pinch, move Upton over.

Stock AAA with plenty of guys with options and mix and match each series. 

[Second Base]

3 hours ago, Dtwncbad said:

You may be right.  I work very very hard during the day and I click in and out of here recreationally, sometime chill and some times stressed out.

I get very frustrated with things sometimes.  A discussion about 5.or 6 man rotations is interesting. . .until somebody gets pissy about something like demanding proof of something or a study to back something up and then accusing me of mixing opinion and fact.

This seriously is not that complicated.  I am comfortable with my own common sense and I personally do not need to spend time scouring the internet for proof that a five man rotation is backed by medical studies when i type a sentence or two in a message board discussion.  There are hundreds of millions of dollars on the line so it is reasonable to assume if every mlb team is using a 5 man, then I doubt there is a pile of evidence that says a 6 man is better.

The examine these guys throughout the season to protect their health.

So wtf is the issue with someone citing general common sense logic based on simple facts?

I am not interested in a contest over links.

Mlb teams use 5 man.  They have doctors.  Those are facts.  I dont need much more to be OK assuming the doctors are not ignoring a consensus that 6 man is better.

Is it reasonable to consider that some starters and agents may not like it?  Of course it is.  I dont need an affidavit to make that statement.

It's just a discussion on a subject.

I do react sometimes, and that's on me.  But for God's sake all I have really said is I will believe the 6 man rotation when I actually see it because (fill in the multiple points I have made, some fact and some opinion).

What on earth is the interest in picking a fight over this?

Overreacting with long winded rants is my thing. Get your own!

[Second Base]

28 minutes ago, totdprods said:

I like the idea of replacing Cron with a more versatile player, preferably someone who can cover 1B, LF, and RF. Finding someone who could cover CF *and* 1B would be ideal, but the number of players who can do that is pretty short. And, what players that exist that do fit that bill, most are defense/versatility-first role players like Romine, Coghlan, Descalso. With our starters being so strong defensively, I think I'd actually prefer someone more offense-oriented, like a Gyorko, Headley, Solarte, Dietrich type. May not get the CF coverage or late-inning speed or defense, but you'd get another bat as insurance for any Pujols, Cozart, Kinsler, Valbuena, Ohtani struggles. 

If you need someone who can really cover CF, just bring Hermosillo or AAA filler up for a couple games, sending down a reliever or the 6th starter. If you need a CF in a pinch, move Upton over.

Stock AAA with plenty of guys with options and mix and match each series. 

I feel like that may be getting too creative for Scioscia's MO. 

Valbuena playing corner IF spots with consistent starts? Sure. Cozart playing 3B and subbing elsewhere? Yeah I can see that too. Relievers pitching multiple innings? Yeah that just makes his job easier. 

But correctly deploying an infielder and outfielder all over the place? 

He did it with Erstad years ago, but that was in a starting role and it was really only two positions. A Brock Holt type? 

I dunno.

[Jay]

3 hours ago, Dtwncbad said:

You are spinning and I am bored now.

If you can't believe, without some proof in your face, that mlb teams are trying to manage a pitching staff for the optimal balance between wins and injury risk, then I suppose you have to die a fiery death touching the sun to accept that's where heat comes from.

haha.

The 6-man rotation is intriguing to me because I have very little confidence in the health of our starters. Every year it's the same thing: if Richards, et al. are healthy then... well they almost never are.

The last thing I'm worried about is Richards wanting to leave because he doesn't get enough innings in a 6-man rotation. I want to keep the starters healthy and win ballgames.

 

[Warfarin]

I think perhaps some people are taking the 6-man rotation a bit too literally.  I think it may ultimately work out to be something akin to a 6-man rotation, but I envision a situation in which various pitchers are called up/sent to AAA for spot starts, placed on DL for minor ailments, etc.  Also, keep in mind that there will be a few more off days built into the regular season this year, which also enables more rest.

Again, I think that the target IP for most of our starters will be around 150-160 IP, with Ohtani coming in less at around 120-130 IP.  The goal is to keep them as fresh as possible for a possible postseason run.  The Angels have a lot of pitching depth, which helps better position us to spread the work around.  

Winning games in the regular season is all about having depth and improving the margins of the roster.  Winning games in the postseason, however, relies more on your star power (top 3 or 4 SP, key relievers being using constantly, etc).  If we conserve our top pitchers (Richards, Ohtani) and rely on our depth to help us get through the season, it increases the likelihood that our top pitchers can perform at peak levels come the postseason.  

[Cosmo_Kramer]

I agree with Jeff. I think we'll mostly have a 5 man rotation, with a 6th spot occasionally. I think we'll see a lot of shuffling between AAA and MLB this year.

 

Here's my guess at the depth chart, with remaining options in parenthesis.

 

C

Maldonado (0)

Perez (0)

Graterol (2)

 

1B

Valbuena (0)

Pujols (0)

Cron (0)

 

2B

Kinsler (0)

Cozart (0)

Cowart (1)

 

3B

Cozart (0)

Valbuena (0)

Cowart (1)

 

SS

Simmons (0)

Cozart (0)

 

LF

Upton (0)

4th OF

 

CF

Trout (2)

4th OF

 

RF

Calhoun (1)

4th OF

 

DH

Pujols (0)

Ohtani (3)

 

SP

Richards (0)

Ohtani (3)

Heaney (1)

Shoemaker (2)

Skaggs (1)

Bridwell (1)

Tropeano (2)

JC (0)

Scribner (3)

 

RP

Parker (0)

Bedrosian (0)

Alvarez (0)

Johnson (0)

Middleton (2)

Wood (0)

Paredes (2)

Noe (0)

Bard (0)

 

To start the year, I think we'll see the following:

MLB position player starters:

C - Maldonado

1B - Valbuena

2B - Kinsler

3B - Cozart

SS - Simmons

LF - Upton

CF - Trout

RF - Calhoun

DH - Pujols

That's 9. Now, MLB starting pitchers:

Richards

Ohtani

Heaney

Shoemaker

Bridwell

That's 14. Now, MLB relief pitchers:

Parker

Bedrosian

Alvarez

Middleton

Wood

Johnson

Bard

JC (long relief)

That's 22. Now, MLB bench:

C - Perez

1B/DH - Cron

OF - ??

That's 25. That leaves the following players in AAA:

Graterol

Cowart

Skaggs

Tropeano

Scribner

Paredes

 

All of our staters have options remaining except JC and Richards. JC is well suited in long relief, but I could see him making spot starts. Tropeano is still working his way back from surgery, so no real rush with him. Skaggs and Scribner can make spot starts or relieve as needed.

 

As far as future moves.. We still need a 4th OF. I'd like another bullpen piece. I could also see Cron flipped for a pitcher with options, with Cowart then used as a utility infielder.

 

My target for 4th OF would be someone like Jarrod Dyson. Might be tough to convince him to take a bench role though. Perhaps a Peter Bourjos reunion instead.

[Docwaukee]

12 starts for a 6th man would leave the other 5 starters with 5 five days rest.  Depending on who's turn it is, we could easily go with a guy on 4 days rest once in awhile.  Probably half the time.  So we will probably need about 6 spots starts.  Shoe  can go every 5th day once in awhile.  Trop, Barria, Ramirez or Bridwell can make  8-10 starts between them.  That leaves our top 5 in Ohtani, Richards, Skaggs, Shoe and Heaney to each make 25 starts.  Let's say Shoe pitches every fifth day once in awhile so he makes 28.  While the other 4 make 25.  That leaves about 35 starts for those other 4 guys.  Or about 8-9 each.   We had one guy make more than 24 starts all of last year.

Any rotation needs ten guys.  If you get lucky, you need 6 or 7.  We're basically allocating more starts out of our top 5 up front.  Something that every team is going to do over the course of a season.  Adding one more known quantity to the rotation would help tremendously though. 

[beatlesrule]

1 hour ago, Cosmo_Kramer said:

I agree with Jeff. I think we'll mostly have a 5 man rotation, with a 6th spot occasionally. I think we'll see a lot of shuffling between AAA and MLB this year.

 

Here's my guess at the depth chart, with remaining options in parenthesis.

 

C

Maldonado (0)

Perez (0)

Graterol (2)

 

1B

Valbuena (0)

Pujols (0)

Cron (0)

 

2B

Kinsler (0)

Cozart (0)

Cowart (1)

 

3B

Cozart (0)

Valbuena (0)

Cowart (1)

 

SS

Simmons (0)

Cozart (0)

 

LF

Upton (0)

4th OF

 

CF

Trout (2)

4th OF

 

RF

Calhoun (1)

4th OF

 

DH

Pujols (0)

Ohtani (3)

 

SP

Richards (0)

Ohtani (3)

Heaney (1)

Shoemaker (2)

Skaggs (1)

Bridwell (1)

Tropeano (2)

JC (0)

Scribner (3)

 

RP

Parker (0)

Bedrosian (0)

Alvarez (0)

Johnson (0)

Middleton (2)

Wood (0)

Paredes (2)

Noe (0)

Bard (0)

 

To start the year, I think we'll see the following:

MLB position player starters:

C - Maldonado

1B - Valbuena

2B - Kinsler

3B - Cozart

SS - Simmons

LF - Upton

CF - Trout

RF - Calhoun

DH - Pujols

That's 9. Now, MLB starting pitchers:

Richards

Ohtani

Heaney

Shoemaker

Bridwell

That's 14. Now, MLB relief pitchers:

Parker

Bedrosian

Alvarez

Middleton

Wood

Johnson

Bard

JC (long relief)

That's 22. Now, MLB bench:

C - Perez

1B/DH - Cron

OF - ??

That's 25. That leaves the following players in AAA:

Graterol

Cowart

Skaggs

Tropeano

Scribner

Paredes

 

All of our staters have options remaining except JC and Richards. JC is well suited in long relief, but I could see him making spot starts. Tropeano is still working his way back from surgery, so no real rush with him. Skaggs and Scribner can make spot starts or relieve as needed.

 

As far as future moves.. We still need a 4th OF. I'd like another bullpen piece. I could also see Cron flipped for a pitcher with options, with Cowart then used as a utility infielder.

 

My target for 4th OF would be someone like Jarrod Dyson. Might be tough to convince him to take a bench role though. Perhaps a Peter Bourjos reunion instead.

[arch stanton]

Remember that even 5 man rotations weren’t originally 5 equally shared rotation spots. It was just to ensure that your top 4 all got 4 days rest. The 5th guy was a spot starter. Now we’re taking that to another level and hopefully also pulling starters a batter early instead of a batter late. It sucks seeing a game slip away because the starter can’t handle the third trip through the lineup 

[Stradling]

@Cosmo_Kramer great first post.