6-man rotation

The problems with using a 6-man rotation include:

1. The best pitchers pitch fewer starts, in exchange for starts by a pitcher who isn't as good as the other pitchers in the rotation.
2. A 6-man rotation knocks pitchers off their throwing routine/schedule. Off days could cause weeklong waits between starts, or even more days between starts for some pitchers to keep other pitchers on normal days rest.
   
3. A 6-man rotation causes more wear and tear on the bullpen because there's one less reliever to pitch innings. This means that in addition to reducing starts from your best starter, you're forcing some of the worst pitchers on the team (the middle relievers) to pitch more innings. If instead you carry the same amount of relievers, a 6-man rotation causes less depth on the bench because of one less position player. Note: this issue of depth doesn't make as much of a difference during the regular season after September 1st when major-league rosters expand to 40.
   
4. A 6-man rotation causes an artificial demand for a starter. Starting pitching is one of the toughest areas to acquire depth on your team. If a starter gets injured or if there's a doubleheader because of a rainout earlier in the season, you need more depth on the team to have a 7th man make a spot start to keep the others on schedule than to have a 6th man make a spot start in a 5-man rotation. If your counter to that is to go to a 5-man rotation when a starter of a 6-man rotation gets injured, you're causing another example of the first sentence of reason #2.
5. Starting pitchers would likely be less willing to sign incentive-laden clauses if they know they're going to a team with a 6-man rotation because they would know it would be tougher to hit incentives such as innings pitched or games played. Signing players with incentive-laden clauses allows more payroll flexibility when players get hurt.

Even if you put one starter on a normal rotation and the others on an extra day of rest by using a hybrid rotation of 1234516234156231..., most of the reasons I have listed will still be factors.

Yes, I understand the potential benefits of an extra day of rest. Yes, I know Dice-K pitched on 6-man rotations in Japan. Most pitchers aren't used to a 6-man rotation. The cons still outweigh the pros.

Posting on SoSH about Shaughnessy's articles

There's no reason for Red Sox fans to take articles by Dan Shaughnessy, a.k.a. CHB, and post about them on SoSH. There's no reason to even read his articles. Too many Red Sox fans not only read his articles, but post about them on SoSH to complain about something he writes.

Here's a little secret if you're a Red Sox fan. Getting angry after reading his article is exactly what he wants. He's a heel writer whose job is to bait you, push your buttons, get under the skin of Red Sox fans, get people to talk about him and give his material publicity. He does this in different ways:

• Makes intentionally unreasonable statements. Example: When Pedro was still with the Sox and wasn't getting a lot of run support and/or had his bullpen blow his leads, CHB once said, "You want to win a game for the Red Sox? Pitch a complete game shutout". If you don't know that CHB was well aware Pedro wasn't going to pitch a complete game shutout every time Pedro pitched, you simply took CHB's bait.

• Writes something that could give the impression his article is going to do something harmful for the Red Sox. Example: When the Red Sox used him to bash Theo when it looked like Theo was going to leave the Red Sox in 2005. This intentionally pissed off many Sox fans into thinking the article would destroy any chances of Theo Epstein re-signing. It also kept CHB in good terms with the Red Sox ownership by playing bad cop for them. Just when you thought that last part was only Lucchino's job. [/insert your own emoticon]

You'll notice I'm giving old examples. This is because it's been a long time since I've read his articles. Reading his articles won't keep you any more informed than not reading them. "But the Globe puts his articles to the forefront", you might say. The Globe has plenty of other information about the Red Sox without CHB's articles. So does SoSH, rotoworld and other sports sites, whether or not you like the Herald. Usually a Globe article online shows CHB's name before you click on the link. Occasionally it doesn't. If you click on one of his links accidentally, you're much better off hitting the "<-" button on your browser than reading another word.

Let's say temptation gets the best of you and you continue to read his articles, even though every click on his articles is another hit for the site for which he could take credit. If you know he's baiting you and using any means to generate publicity, why would you talk on SoSH about his articles and give him more publicity? You're only doing him a favor.

Same thing if you write to him. The Globe wants people writing to CHB. Heck, CHB wants people writing to him. If it's angry, all the better for him. That's his job.

If you continue to read his articles because you don't believe me that it's better to ignore his articles, try for a week or two to review each CHB article when you're done reading it and conclude: 1) what you're better off knowing for reading that article and 2) what either pissed you off or what was intentionally written to piss you off in some way, shape or form. Chances are #2 will consistently outnumber #1.

I know writing this blog entry is ironically generating publicity for him. If giving him a little publicity this way costs him more publicity in the long run, I'd say it's well worth it.