Quote:
Originally Posted by conception
From a starting pitcher's point of view, if he starts 32 games instead of 40, that's 8 less realistic chances a year that they could get hurt. I'm sure some of them see things this way and thus oppose the 4 man.
|
It's also 8 more chances a year to win games, pump up those stats, and cash in on their next contract!
Could be wrong, but wasn't Billy Martin the last manager to use a 4-man rotation when he was in Oakland? Seem to recall that they got through the season ok, but that every one of his starters developed arm trouble not long afterward. If my memory is accurate (and that's a big if ......
), that may have served as a cautionary tale against using the smaller rotation in today's game.
Off the top of my head, my guess is that there are a couple of other factors that may argue against the 4-man rotation. For example, more night games than there were in the old days, meaning cooler temperatures and more chance of injury to fatigued arms. Also, simply enough, young pitchers coming up are groomed to work every fifth day. They gear their routines to that rhythm and possibly would need a certain type of retraining to strengthen their arms enough to pitch effectively without the extra day of rest. I suspect that modern pitchers would be as capable of working in a 4-man rotation as they ever were, assuming they were physically and mentally ready for same, but that managers don't want to risk blowing out a good arm and taking the fall for being unconventional. Surely with the pressure to win today, if a major-league manager felt comfortable giving his best pitcher(s) 40 starts, they'd do it?
