Ken Davidoff's baseball insider

Ken

Please - I still have my hardcover copy of "The Politics of Glory", where James taught me about the commissioner who shall go unnamed ignoring theft of HOF items donated to the Comm Off. l

Since I live in a co-op and don't have a fireplace, I will forward the book to Joe Morgan unless it is claimed

To rescue the book, the person who accurately guesses how many times the word "luck" appears in "Moneyball" will receive it.

LOL. Fair enough, Bob.

Can we email if we're not a fan of Bill James?

I offer one copy of Ken Davidoff's future book co-authored with Don Zimmer "Inside Zim's Head: How Phrenology Led to the Yankee Dynasty" to anyone who can help me get my $ 200 million out of Nigeria.

I would also recommend "The Mind of Bill James" by Scott Gray. Good book.

Hey Bob. I'm sure you have read the book, "The Catcher Was A Spy" about Moe Berg. What did you think of it? I found it quite fascinating.

It was Ok, except it was written by Ken's distant cousin Nick Dawidoff.

It must have been his Polish cousin with that spelling.

I am waiting for books on other interesting people like John Montgomery Ward And I never read "Pitching in a Pinch" by Christy Mathewson

Anonymous, I am waiting for Ken to offer up a signed first edition of Babe Ruth's Own Book of Baseball by George Herman Ruth, originally published, New York, G.P. Putman's Sons, 1928. With his sources and connections, not to mention his warm relationship with Czar Allan Huber I, I am sure he could pull this off.

Ken, take a look into the Davidoff crystal ball and tell us where Willie Randolph will be next year. Managing? Coaching? Scouting? Out of baseball?

Take another look and tell us if the Steinbrenner brothers will maintain the current arrangement for the pair on a longterm basis.

Too bad about Tom Gordon having a setback in his rehab and possibly needing TJ surgery. He's a real good guy. I hope it works out for him.

How different werre Bill James' theorires and his ten commandments of baseball from the way Earl Weaver managed?

-------------------------------------------------

Here are Bill James' Ten Commandments of Sabermetrics:

1) Thou Shalt not Bunt.

2) Thou Shalt Have no Low On Base Percentages Before the Cleanup Hitter

3) Honor the three-run homer and the leadoff walk.

4) Thou shalt not steal at anything less than a 70% success rate.

5) Thou shalt make no idol of the light-hitting middle infielder.

6) Thou shalt not count to the credit of the pitcher that which is done by his fielders or by his hitters, nor charge him with their failings.

7) Thou shalt not abuse thy starting pitchers.

8) Thou shalt make no effort to ride the hot hand, for the hot hand is but a shape in the wind.

9) Place thy faith not in veterans, when youth be available to ye.

10) Thou shalt not pass freely thy opponent’s number eight hitter, nor his cleanup hitter, nor his left-handed pinch hitter, nor any hitter that is thy opponent’s.

--

Weaver only appeared to violate #5 by playing Mark Belanger at SS.

Bob, I'm sure the Red Sox used some of Bill James theory's since he is a employee of the Red Sox. And with 2 World Series in 4 years, Bill James is looking good right now since he started working for the Red Sox.

Didn't realize you were such a big Bill James guy, Bob.

Where do you think Billy Martin would be on Bill James? Sparky Anderson? Casey Stengel?

I'm not a Jamesian or Beaniebaby. I'm closer to the Mark Twain "lies, damned lies and stattistics" crowd. I kept box scores at games as a kid thta I treasure, but I enjoy the poetry of the game and treasure the built in anticpation of what I would do in a situation on the mound.

But chacun à son goût.

I don't think Anderson and Stengel would be high on James (non-player, nerd, tells me my eyes are wrong, Joe Morgan (huge cough ).. I don't think managers loosened up from the one run at a time theory until the Dodger teams of the 60's faded away.

Jim, good question on Willie. I think he'll get another chance to manage, but it might behoove him to sit out a year, maybe even do some broadcast work for YES or the new MLB Channel. He's got some major $ coming to him from the Mets, anyway.

As for the Steinbrenner brothers, I see Hal still being the major family rep and Hank drifting further out to sea.

Bob, in the book you didn't win today, James writes something to the effect of, "I wondered, if Earl Weaver didn't bunt, how valuable a tool could it have been?" There's no doubt that Weaver was a visionary, and that James recognized that in his writing.

Ken:

Anyone who writes a book titled "It's What You Learn after You Think You Know It All That Counts" is a smart man.

Hey Ken, I was just looking at classmates.com because I really had to surf that site for my money's worth once in a blue moon and I noticed that your father went to the same HS I went to in Brooklyn, Erasmus Hall. He gave you some props in a message he posted a couple of years ago about Billy Cunningham's city championship basketball team which occured while he attended.

I just woke up and checked the scoreboard. Heilman pitched, gasp!, two perfect innings (and 21 pitches) this evening! Hooray to Manuel for not taking him out after the eighth just for the sake of it.

Well now Dennis, I have been anxiously awaitng your message all night about how you blew it in repeatedly urging the Yankees bring Kennedy back up. I recall writing many, many times that he wasn't ready, that the pros said his curve wasn't breaking sharply enough and that he needed it because he isn't a fastball pitcher. I wrote that if he came up and got bombed it was going to potentially be a disaster for him and the team.

As we know, Kennedy lasted 2 innings, giving up 9 hits and a walk and FIVE earned runs. He struck out only one batter.

Dennis, you were wrong, wrong, wrong. This isn't how you deal with a young pitcher. Especially one that has already been battered earlier this year. Terrible move to bring him up now and especially against the Angels in their ballpark. What were you thinking Dennis?

Jim, I just laughed out loud reading your last post. Jeez, I am disappointed that I did not join this wonderfully dysfunctional site a year go!

Was there anything good that you can point to in Kennedy's start? Or was he just downright putrid? Did Rasner not look good either, the line score notwithstanding?

By the way, Bob, Bill James made some news a few years back when he defended the use of the sacrifice bunt. You can find a good Dan Fox analysis here:
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/not-so-sweet-surrender/
If nothing else, you have to love the John Lowenstein quote!

Not to be too much of an agent provocateur, I-505, but right now the Yankees are 6 1/2 games behind the Rays in the standings -- and only four games ahead of the Jays and seven in front of the Os. Just saying! ;-)

Sandy, that is interesting about Erasmus. I will pass on word to my Dad. I wouldn't rule out him reading your comments, himself.

Jim, you called it 100% on Kennedy. LOL to JE on "wonderfully dysfunctional."

Now Dennis, let's keep it PG-13 here...

Ken, see what you're missing by not being in China?

http://ktla.trb.com/news/local/video/ktla-video-beijingpenis,0,4923681.htmlstory

Plaschke gets his just desserts!

By the way, Joe Posanski says that his blog is banned in China too! Now I am really pissed! ;-)

http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2008/08/05/banned/

JE

Yanks are 6 1/2 out (7 in the loss column) on August single digits?
Pshaw.....stranger things have happened. (Althought I don't have a lot of confidence in THIS Yankee team right now-but never say die).

Besides, our matchup is all about the Rays.

1-1 on the current 10 day road trip.

BTW, I'll be on the road (in the air? UGH) the next few days. WIll check in from time to time.
Stay safe

I-505, I will, if you will (stay safe, that is)!

Nice job, Sandy. Billy Cunningham was one heck of a player and watching Erasmus play Boys High was analagous, at the time, to the Yankees playing the Red Sox.

Jim, let me ask you a question. If you don't want Kennedy to start so badly last night, who do you think the Yanks should have pitch instead? Rasner stinks. Hughes is rehabing at the moment.
Bill James is the same guy that thought Pete Rose didn't bet on Baseball, and that John Dowd didn't have the proof of evidence to link Rose to gambling and betting on the Reds. Even when Rose admitted to betting on baseball 4 years ago, James still stands by what he said.

Hey Dennis, I wouldn't have cared if they started Brian Cashman. Kennedy got off to a terrible start this spring. He seriously regressed. As we have seen with Kei Igawa, winning in AAA doesn't always translate to winning in the big leagues. If Kennedy was throwing well enough to come back to the Yankees he would have been promoted a week or two ago.

Kennedy can't blow people away with his fastball. He needs a sharp breaking curve. He had it late last season. He doesn't have it now. That's one of his problems and what he has been working on in the minors. You see the minor league line and drool and want him in the rotation now. HE'S NOT READY! You can't do this to a young kid. This is how young kids get ruined. If he had the options left, I would have even considered bringing up Igawa again. Most of us think he's a lost cause. We still have hope for Kennedy.

You merely wanted to fill a slot and didn't care about a young pitcher who is in real trouble. How low has his trade value fallen now? You are obsessed with the Yankees making the playoffs and wanted a young kid to pitch against the Angels in their ballpark after spending the last 2+ months in the minor leagues. Ridiculous. Last night's result is what should have been expected. It's not the end of the world if the Yankees don't make the playoffs. The Plan is more important than the playoffs.

If Kennedy was to return he should have pitched against a cream-puff team. This might have allowed him to mow down hitters and build up his confidence.

Would I have rather had Rasner start than Kennedy? YES! Rasner ended up pitching anyway.

Knee-jerk reaction, Dennis. Wrong move, Dennis. The Yanks need a pitcher so you started demanding Kennedy. Who do you want to rush back next? Hughes? After both are ruined you will writing that the Yankees HAVE TO sign Sabathia.

But, in the final analysis, you don't make decisions for the Yankees. Cashman does, and he really blew this one.

Jim, when you have a $200 million plus payroll like the Yanks do you are expect to compete and make the playoffs. You basically said that you don't care who pitch last night. If Rasner was starting last night and pitch like Kennedy did, you're be complaining about Rasner the same you are with Kennedy. By the way, not getting Santana is not looking good right now. The 2 guys that were metion in a possible deal, Hughes and Melky, are not having good years. Girardi is starting to play Damon more in center because Melky hads been awful at the plate. And Hughes is rehabing in the minors after not pitching well before he got hurt.

No I wouldn't Dennis because the career expectations are much lower for Rasner. We all know this. Do you really think a pitcher in this day and age should be given a 6 year contract? And Santana's is essentially a seven year contract since the 2014 option will vest if he reaches entirely attainable stats. Why would you want to tie up this money in a starting pitcher when Ken showed a few weeks ago how none of these deals paid off for clubs?

It is mind-boggling that you can't admit you were wrong in wanting Kennedy brought up to pitch against the Angels in CA. Probably everyone in the organization now realizes it was a mistake, but there you are Dennis still holding out!

Just because the Yankees have a $200 million payroll does not mean that they should be expected to make the playoffs. We know that many of these contracts are bad and many of these players won't be here next year. Most people in baseball knew the Yankees were in trouble this year, especially considering the rotation they started the season with. With the rise of the Rays, their outlook for making the post season darkened.

This win at any cost attitude is one of the causes behind the decimation of the Mets farm system. You would employ this with the Yankees, too, by shipping away young talent for veterans, getting bogged down in bad contracts, rushing kids to the MLB level and operating under the premise that if the team doesn't make the playoffs the world is going to end.

Look at the line in the boxscore Dennis - you were WRONG.

Hi all - If anyone is interested in being associated with former MLB players, either through personal contacts,autographs, gear, youth clinics for your kids or grandkids, etc., check out this link:

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/features/alumni/article.jsp?article=membership

Dennis, Hughes is still very well regarded in baseball. He is looking incredibly impressive in the minors. His fastball is reaching into the 90s. His location is good. His attitude is good. He cannot be compared to Kennedy at all. Hughes has tremendous potential. The Yankees were absolutely right in not trading Hughes.

You make decisions based upon what you know at the time. At the time Kennedy and Cabrera were coming off decent years. Cabrera's VORP has never been particularly good, but the Yankees liked how he played the OF. Kennedy had a strong Sept. They have regressed, but it's not over for them, unless Kennedy keeps getting put in situations he can't handle, loses confidence and becomes a basket case.

I never said that the Yanks should bring Kennedy up to started last night, Jim. All I said was the Yanks need a starter to pitch in place of Joba. I did not said that Kennedy should be bought up from the minors to pitch.
As for the payroll, the Yanks have 2 players that take up some of the payroll, Jeter and A-Rod, combing for $49.6 million in salaries this year. The Yanks could have gone with someone else at 3rd base, but they bought A-Rod back because A-Rod beg to come back.
Cabrera since earlier May has been terrible at the plate. Girardi will play Damon more in centerfield if Cabrera doesn't pickit up at the plate soon.

Yes you did. You definitely suggested Kennedy as one of the pitchers for starting that game and I immediately said it was a mistake to even think it. Kennedy is in denial about how poorly he performed. He never recorded a single out in the third inning, letting all 5 batters reach base.

A-Rod is an everyday player who is coming off a Ruthian season and is regarded as the best player in the game. I have nothing negative to say about his contract. I am referring to contracts involving Giambi, Abreu, Pavano, Farnsworth (now Pudge), Mussina, Pettitte, Hawkins.

The Yankees didn't bring A-Rod back because he begged. They did it because it made sense for the team. His production couldn't be replaced. As bad as their offense has been at times this year, can you imagine it without A-Rod's contributions?

The more Damon plays in CF the more risk he runs of breaking down and the more evident his defensive shortcomings will be. Damon isn't the answer in CF.

Well you got me on that one, Jim, While I suggest that Kennedy be consider, I did not said Kennedy should be the one starting.
Cashman flat out said that if A-Rod opt out of his contract, that the Yanks wouldn't negotiated with A-Rod and his agent Scott Boras. After A-Rod opted out, their was no dialogue between A-Rod and the Yanks. Then A-Rod went behind Boras back and talk to the Yanks himself and got a new deal done with the Yanks. I glad A-Rod stay. The Yanks need his production, but at the same time A-Rod needs to produced more in clutch situations with RISP.
Damon is more suited to play left field or DH at this stage of his career. But at the same time, Cabrera can't keep hitting like garbage to stay in the lineup. Cabrera will be on the bench if he doesn't pick it up at the plate.

Dennis, whenever a contract is involved the parties always make absolute statements about "last offers" and "lines in the sand." It's posturing. We really don't know exactly what A-Rod did regarding Boras. It is very murky to me. I doubt A-Rod negotiated a $275 million contract. We know that Boras was involved in contract language, etc. Both sides (or all three if you include Boras) want to save face so we will probably never know how the thing really came down.

Dennis: Here's what you said on Aug 3 at 3:52 p.m.: "Sandy is right, if Joba is done for the year, the Yanks would need to get pitchers to start now. By the time Garcia pitches for the Yanks, the Yanks might be out of it. I can definitely see Hughes, Kennedy or Pavano come up and pitch. Heck, Washburn is more ready to pitch now than Garcia."

Here's what you said the same day at 5:38 p.m.: "Jim, I'm only saying that the Yanks need starters to pitch right now. I would like to see Kennedy at least compete in the game, which he didn't do earlier this year."

Kennedy (0-4) allowed nine hits in his short stint, five in a row to start the third inning. But the 23-year-old right-hander didn't think he pitched poorly.
"I felt like I made some good pitches," he said. "I'm not too upset about it. ... What was it, a bunch of singles and three doubles? I'm just not real upset about it. I'm just going to move on and I've already done that."

Joe Girardi didn't share that opinion. In his world, nine hits over two-plus innings is something to be upset about.

"That's not what you want," the manager said. "You've got to get better the next start. He's got some work to do, and we'll get him ready."

---

Time for Kennedy to move on - unload this body before he actually stays with the team and poisons it with his "me" attitude. The Yanks are clinging by their fingernails to stay in the playoff hunt and he isn't too upset by his outing? His self-confidence is great, except it isn't a result of the facts on the mound.

His next outing should be elsewhere - and not for the Yanks or AAA. Trade his sorry act a.s.a.p.!

Bob, you are speaking out of emotion. His comments really got to me, too. I think the Yankees are shocked at them, but Girardi said something similar about Rasner "pitching well." Meanwhile, he was just as bad.

Look, Kennedy has no trade value now and the Yankees invested lots of bucks into him. He got a $2.25 million signing bonus. He has to regain some value. He should have stayed in the minors and worked on his breaking pitch and his location. He had a shaky outing in the minors about 10 days ago where he hit one or two batters, threw a wild pitch, etc. He got out of the mess, but it made me wonder.

Yes, Kennedy's attitude is poison and his comments make me think he didn't learn his lesson from earlier in the year when the team was down about him.

Trade him now? No.

One positive note is that Hughes appears ahead of schedule.

You guys are going at it pretty good -- and over a Kennedy, no less! I know, I know, not just any Kennedy....

Here's something to shake you up a bit more:

http://www.firenedcollettinow.com/2008/08/joe-torre-wants-to-shake-up-lineup.html

Get this: apparently, Torre is flirting with batting Juan Pierre NINTH! Now, don't get me wrong: I always feared that Joe would find a way not to play Ramirez, Kemp, and Ethier every day, but I agree with the author: if Pierre has to be in the lineup, then this is the way to go....

Enjoy the rest of your Saturday!

Jim, Cashman did said that if A-Rod opted out of his contract, the Yanks wouldn't negotiated with A-Rod and Boras. That means then Cashman was told by someone in the Yankees organization to negotiated with A-Rod and Boras after A-Rod contacted the Yanks wanting to come back. I don't know how much Cashman was involve with the negotiations.
Torre is trying to take a page form La Russa. I'm sure Torre talk to La Russa about having his pitcher bat 8th when the Dodgers were in St. Louis this past week.

"Any bad outing is disappointing. It's the first bad outing I've had since the All-Star break, so I'm not going to look too much into it. I felt like I made some good pitches and I competed. I'm not too upset about it.

"It's disappointing, but I feel like I have better things to come. I was called up here (from Triple-A Scranton) for a reason."

--

First bad outing since the All-Star break? He's been in AAA, what planet is he from? Mannyland?

He's walked 26 in 40 innings and given up 50 hits. His team came back and got him the lead - then he gives up 5 straight hits. it is obvious from Girardi's quotes that all he hoped for was 5 innings of medicore pitching, and Kennedy failed miserably.

Dennis, there are no absolutes in bargaining until a contract is signed, and sometimes not even then. Both sides make statements for dramatic effect. Yes, Cashman said it and he might have even believed it, but it wasn't a strongly held position by the Yankees. They wanted A-Rod. He wanted to come back. Statements mean nothing. Some of meant for public consumption. Some are meant to convey a public message. Some are meant for public relations. Of course Cashman wanted A-Rod. Who wouldn't. Cashman is in on these decisions. He has complete control of the baseball side. When you read these statements you can't take them to the bank. You have to know how to interpret them. No knee-jerk reactions.

Well, Bob, Kennedy said he "competed" and a couple of days ago Dennis wrote that he hoped to see Kennedy "compete."

Girardi's post-game interview on YES had the statement about Rasner doing a pretty good job. I must have been watching a different game.

In getting back to the James' topic, perhaps the Yanks should go with a 4 man rotation to avoid the atrocious 5th starter slot?

Ken wanted a six man rotation at the start of the year. Soon it will be a one man rotation - 39 year old Mike Mussina. Incidentally, MM will be 40 on 12.8. Should the Yankees commit to a two-year contract for the same $23 million contract set to expire if he wants it? Comments please.

If I were the Yanks, I would offer both Pettitte and Moose,1-year contracts with an option for a 2nd year.

Pettitte's a lot younger than Mussina. He indicated at the time of his reporting to camp this year that he intends to keep playing. I'm not sure if he will take the 1 year deal now or not. Moose might because of his age, but since he will have a great record and he is full of pride (not to mention a big union guy) I wonder if he will go with the one year deal, too. Maybe a one year deal with a nice buyout or a player option.

Steve in South Amboy--just to interrupt this argument for a second or 3--I believe you know the Erasmus Hall we went to technically doesn't exist anymore. The building is there but it is 4 satellite schools all separate from each other--just as the neighborhood we remember is gone as well. And it's always good to know that the same school we went to produced Al Davis, Allie Sherman, the Reinsdorfs and my best friend in HS who just did a thing in LI called ArtHamptons last month and is a multi, multi multi multi millionaire today. :( Plus many, many, many other superstars!!

Look is it so bad that the Yankees do not make the playoffs this year? They don't have the horses to compete in them if they make it anyway and the sooner they get eliminated, the better it is for the fans who will have to shell out for playoff tickets any day now. Pavano pitched OK again Thursday night and I know we all don't want to see him, but if I were a betting man, I'd bet he's pitching on the Yankees within 2 weeks if they haven't completely dropped out of sight by then.
Pettitte may be younger than Moose but his arm is close to being shot, meanwhile Mussina has been healthy just about his entire career. I would only give him one more year, plus a team option (actually both of them) and hope Andy's arm has a full season of pitching left in it. Since he hasn't been bugged with all the Clemens crap there is no reason why he should be disillusioned with playing ball unless he feels he isn't healthy enough to play ball.

Fellow Dysfunctionals - looking forward to reading the book. I used to go to B Dalton's in Paramus to buy the Abstract every January when James would unveil his next edition.

I met Billy Cunningham's mom way back in 1981. She's probably passed on by now but she was a little bit of women with lots of energy. She worked as some type of supervisor for a NYC hospital, as I recall. Ironically enough I was going to school in Philly and Billy's Sixers practiced at my school (Saint Joe's).

Small world.

Ian Kennedy's post-game comments were eye-opening. Not much fire in that fellow. Where have you gone, Bob Gibson..?

Bob, you probably know that BP's "Baseball Between the Numbers" book from a few years ago had a chapter on the value of a four-man rotation. In a nutshell, it argued that the number of pitches hurled in a given year was not what wore out pitchers; it is the number of pitches per game that did the damage. (It was in this chapter that I first learned about "pitcher abuse points.") Breaking down the numbers, the author found that, while a four-man rotation will see its ERA increase by up to a half-run, this was more than offset by eliminating the more-often-than-not fifth starter.

The piece concluded that teams should feel free to go with a four-man rotation, but that it should follow a stricter pitch count with all but its most durable starters.

My bad: in that last sentence of the first paragraph, it should have read, "Breaking down the numbers, the author found that, while a four-man rotation will see its ERA increase by up to a half-run, this was more than offset by eliminating the more-often-than-not INEFFECTIVE fifth starter.

For a 4 man rotation to work, pitchers have to throw strikes in order to try to get 7 innings and around 100 pitches.

The O's great teams from 1959-71 were either 1st or 2nd (lowest) in waolks by their staff. And, they were either 1st or 2nd in BB's by hitters. Do you think the walk differential of 1 per game helped?
(More runs, and their batters wore down the other starters and got into the bullpen earlier)

I think the PAP stat kicks in after the 105th pitch, if I am not mistaken. Of course, it seems as though many teams today don't often allow their starters to go past that number anyway, so why not go with the four-man rotation. The would-be fifth starter then becomes the designated long-relief guy....

Probably the most realistic reason not to have a 4-man rotation anymore is there are very few off days, the way baseball is played now. If you are lucky and the schedulers follow the rules, teams play 27 games per month, if not they play 29.
Back in the day of 4-man rotations, besides pitchers throwing complete games there were usually (but not always) off days for most teams on Mondays and Thursdays, and you only needed a 5th starter when there were Sunday DH's (uh that is a doubleheader to those who have no idea what that is.)

http://www.baseball-analysis.com/article.php?articleid=2633

It kicks in at 100, and is not too different up to 105-110 pitches.

Ah the old days - few sliders and split fingers to hurt the arm, a strike zone that was letters to knees, teams that bunted and moved runners over....fastballs and 12 to 6 curves...

Most 4 man rotations will probably need a supplemental starter. The O's had 20 starts per year outside of the Palmer, McNally, Cuellar and Phoebus staff during their heyday. Jim Hardin took up the slack.

Thanks for locating the online summary of the larger piece, Bob. It still seems like a doable proposition.

If you are using a 4-man rotation today you are 1) asking 3 of your starters to start 40 games. If they start 40 games and you expect 6 innings at least--that's 240 innings. If they start 40 games instead of 33-35 thats at least 700 more pitches per season on average. 2) You are asking them to pitch mostly on 3 days rest. Even back in the day for the most part a pitcher who pitched on Sunday pitched on Friday--now you would be asking him to pitch on Thursday usually. Even then pitching on 3-days rest wasn't the usual and only aces did it or strong #2's like Don Drysdale. Idiots like Gene Mauch pitched Jim Bunning and Chris Short on 2-days rest to try an win pennants.
The game isn't set up the way it would be necessary to be for a four-man rotation.

Sandy, Jazayerli specifically pointed out in the chapter that there is nothing wrong with throwing 280-300 innings per season (and the corresponding pitch counts), as long as the pitch count PER GAME was rigorously controlled.

JE I'll go back to something I already said, there were more off days in the old days and pitchers DID NOT normally pitch on 3 days rest as this guy states. Very few pitchers pitched 280 innings, mainly only the ace who was never allowed to miss his turn in the rotation.
Even in Bob Tufts post up above he said even a 4-man rotation would need a supplemental starter to pitch 20 games. The season is 26 weeks long. That's about once per week or week and a half. Right now the 5th starter pitches every week, not much of a difference. Honestly these pitchers are babied, they would break down if they ever pitched 280 innings a season.

Bob was referring to the Os, Sandy, but made no mention other teams' rotations. I would like to see how other clubs managed their rotations before assuming that they all did it the same way.

As you know, I did not suggest that all four starters would throw 280+ innings.

I understand your point, Sandy, but getting an additional 70-80 innings out of my no. 1 starter and maybe half that from my nos. 2 and 3 sound like something I would want my team to consider.

JE: typically this is how the teams did their rotations back then and remember they usually had an off day within each week, usually a Monday or a Thursday (travel days) and many more doubleheaders. The main four starters pitched with usually 4 days rest, (that is someone who pitched on a Sunday would pitch on a Friday), unless they were in pennant races near the end of the season and the rotation got shortened to 3 days reast. The spot starter (who is today's 5th starter) usually pitched the second games of the Sunday doubleheaders and games in which they were needed due to a lack of the off day (like a team had an off-day one week on the Monday and their next offday was the Thursday of the next week, and hopefully there wasn't a DH during that time). The spot starter also long relieved when he wasn't scheduled to start and basically had to back up the 3rd and 4th starters (who even back then weren't all that good for some teams). Then most starters were expected to pitch 7 innings at the very least and the closer would come in and pitch the rest. There really weren't middle relief specialists (at that time most of those guys were starters who were no good anyway). Now because there were 4 days between starts, pitchers were quite capable of coming back after pitching 7 innings at least and do it again the next time.
The 5-man rotation was created due to the way scheduling was set up--doubleheaders were eliminated, therefore most off-days were also and to keep the starting pitchers on their regular regime of pitching every fifth day they needed to make the spot starter a full-time starter and needed a new long reliever (one of the starters who was deemed to stink). The set-up guy came much later and he became a specialist not a guy not good enough to start regularly.

Up until 1961, there were 16 teams. Let's assume that each team used 6 starters during the season (96 pitchers).

In the 60's, there were 20 teams (120 starters).
In the 70's, 24 teams and 144 starters)
Now there are 30 teams and 180 starters.

We almost doubled the demand for starting pitchers in the past 50 years, which waters dwon the quality of the starters. I think it's better to evaluate how to use what we now have - inferior pitchers as long relievers and a 4 man rotation. It's like NFL teams using a 3-4 because it's easier to find a supply of LB talent than DL size and talent.