If anything, doesn't this show that pitchers can pitch on 3 days rest?

You couldn’t have selected a worse spokesperson to talk about pitching much better on 3 days rest.

Um, as Tripon suggests, wouldn't a pitcher who did worse on 3 days rest than 4 days rest be a much worse spokesperson?

If anything, doesn't this show that pitchers can pitch on 3 days rest?

Some pitchers, maybe. The questions are (1) how many, (2) can they do it consistently (as in nearly every time out) and (3) can they do it over a period of 10-12 years.

-- MWE

How many 10 and 12 year contracts get signed? If a team could use their ace 10-12 more times per season (edit) with equal effectiveness but that ace wouldn't pitch well in his mid to late 30s, isn't that a trade every team would make?

On the other hand, the training of Marichal and Palmer from age 10-MLB debut was much different than what kids today go through, so the stats of a star of the 60s and 70s probably aren't germane.


But, also, Marichal said "control". What do the numbers look like if you just include BB? Not that that ultimately matters.

While this doesn't show they pitched better on three days, it does show that it was in their teams' best interest to pitch that way. No loss of effectiveness, and that means 7-8 more starts of Palmer or Marichal instead of your 5th best starter.

It also does not show if he pitched on 3 days rest more often in his prime, or vice versa.

Some pitchers, maybe. The questions are (1) how many, (2) can they do it consistently (as in nearly every time out) and (3) can they do it over a period of 10-12 years.

Of course if you use your rotation properly:

1) not everyone has to, just your top 1-3 SPs
2) no one needs to do it every time out, b/c of off days
3) as said above, not particularly relevent to the team

I would think the 4 1/2 man rotation is probably ideal. Use your top 3 guys as much as possible, alternating 3 and 4 days rest as the schedule allows, and skipping the 5th spot as much as possible. Fill in the back of the rotation with 2-3 spot-starters/long-men who you start based on matchups, and relieve otherwise. If you have a solid 4th SP, just use the committee for the 5th spot.

Earl Weaver is smiling.

I've also read that 3-days rest is a more natural throwing pattern: pitch-rest-throw day-rest-pitch..., and the extra rest day messes up that rhythm.

Anyone with any knowledge of this?

#3 The basic problem is that right now you'd run into change is bad syndrome. Anything that goes wrong would be attributed to the change. You'd never get the staff to buy in.

I said more than a decade ago that it was clear to me that the 4 man rotation was effectively dead when Odell Jones went public with his complaints that the Expos were using a 4 man rotation in the minors. Guys like Jones generally keep a low profile. Nothing good can happen when a guy who's trying to make the tail end of a roster gets into a public dispute with a team.

I continue to be amazed at the widespread attitude on this site that a player's career after his arbitration years/current contract is over should be a complete lack of consideration for his team. That is a very untoward attitude.

Vaux, I wouldn't argue teams should (or should be allowed to) do anything that certainly endangers players. But, it's an interesting dynamic. Player sells a service. I don't know that it's written anywhere what can be required of them. Would it be untoward for a team to catch a guy 162 games a year? Play on artificial turf? I'd say there is better evidence those take a toll than 3 days rest vs. 4.

And that's just as an ethical argument. As a business arrangement, I think it's odd that a team would consider the player's effectiveness beyond the current contract. If the player wants the team to consider such things, he should commit to being with the team. Otherwise you're asking the team to assume all the burden.

Now, I think there is a very good argument against the classic 4 man rotation at the current time in that essentially no one arriving on a MLB roster has been prepared for such work. But if a team did that, I don't think the players would have a right to object. Players play when asked unless they're hurt.

#3 The basic problem is that right now you'd run into change is bad syndrome. Anything that goes wrong would be attributed to the change. You'd never get the staff to buy in.

I said more than a decade ago that it was clear to me that the 4 man rotation was effectively dead when Odell Jones went public with his complaints that the Expos were using a 4 man rotation in the minors. Guys like Jones generally keep a low profile. Nothing good can happen when a guy who's trying to make the tail end of a roster gets into a public dispute with a team.

Didn't the Royals try a four-man rotation a couple of years ago (I seem to remember Kevin Appier being a part of it). As I recall, they dumped it as soon as someone got injured, although it seemed to work okay up to that point.

Now, I think there is a very good argument against the classic 4 man rotation at the current time in that essentially no one arriving on a MLB roster has been prepared for such work. But if a team did that, I don't think the players would have a right to object. Players play when asked unless they're hurt.

I think Roy Halladay could survive in a four-man rotation, but I'm not sure how you find three other guys who can handle it. Maybe a bunch of crafty veterans like Carl Pavano and Livan Hernandez?

I've always heard that a pitcher's control would improve in a 4-man rotation - has anyone ever studied that?

14: I've seen studies backing that up, yeah (or, at least, lower W/9).

#13 That was the specific example I was thinking of (1995). Results were fine. Appier got hurt and therefore 3 days rest=bad.

EDIT: The Dodgers went to a 5 man rotation after losing SInger and Drysdale in fairly short order. They briefly went back to a 4 man rotation but switched back to a 5 man rotation after Downing got hurt. And never had a significant injury to a starter after that.

As a business arrangement, I think it's odd that a team would consider the player's effectiveness beyond the current contract. If the player wants the team to consider such things, he should commit to being with the team. Otherwise you're asking the team to assume all the burden.

Or ... the players have already made this commitment by giving their rights to a single team for their first 6+ years of MLB (plus up to, what, 6-7 years in the minors), agreeing to play their first 3 years of MLB for "free" and their next 3 years at (usually) below-market value in exchange for the chance at a huge payday after that. The players assume "all the burden" until they're about 30, it hardly seems fair that the team should get to "use them up" in that time as well.

Or ... why, now that teams seem to have finally noticed the obvious, the MLBPA might want to change its mindset.

Quotation marks to note that I realize we are talking about people making a ton of money on both sides and that many of us would happily sign away the first 10 years of our career for a $1 M signing bonus and annual pay in the $100,000s.

EDIT: Also, Juan Marichal and the 3-Day Rest would be a terrible band name.

The players assume "all the burden" until they're about 30, it hardly seems fair that the team should get to "use them up" in that time as well.

Sure. I don't think that teams should be able to do something that will definitely cause injury. They couldn't require, say, a catcher to catch without a cup.

But can anyone say for sure that a 4 man rotation led to more injuries than a 5 man? And, if so, where is the moral/ethical argument for having a 5 man when a 6 man must surely be more safe?

IOW, we're talking a significant gray area. I don't see how you can tell a team it is immoral to use a 4 man rather than a 5 man on the vague notion that it might, possibly, shorten the occasional career, but we're not really sure.

So, I was clumsy with my original statement. Yes, teams have a responsibility to look out for the health of their players.

Weird conversation IMO, since it was MLB organizations that gradually decided to move to strict five-man rotations, not MLB pitchers who demanded the change to protect their future FA paydays. Also because of the implicit assumption that the only possible problem with a four-man rotation is that it would somehow use guys up faster (hurting the player's future earning potential) as opposed to risking more and/or earlier acute injuries (hurting the team's short-term prospects).

The players assume "all the burden" until they're about 30, it hardly seems fair that the team should get to "use them up" in that time as well.

Sure. I don't think that teams should be able to do something that will definitely cause injury. They couldn't require, say, a catcher to catch without a cup.

Although it might make for a rather more alert backstop.

Although it might make for a rather more alert backstop.

More alert, and yet far less mobile. Me, I'd just turn sideways or something.