Six Man Rotation? Why Not?

It was almost a throwaway line from Curt Schilling during a lengthy interview on Sunday.

"We have a chance to have the best rotation in baseball," Schilling said. "We need to be healthy. That's every club. It's just a matter of getting out of Florida with the same five guys you started with. I think we have almost a six-man rotation, depending on how Jonny [Lester] comes along."

Six man rotation? Great idea. Why not?

Look, the job of a coach or manager is to maximize a team's strengths while minimizing its weaknesses. The Sox starting pitching is clearly its strength. The bullpen, despite its cast of thousands, is suspect at best, especially in the endgame. As Lester continues to show everyone he is ready to go and needs no special handling, management is beginning to realize he will not be bedridden until July. The young lefty is going to force their hand.

What are they going to do with him? Send him down to Pawtucket? Put him in long relief? There aren't many choices. The logical one, as predicted by yours truly last week, is to put Pap back in the closer's role where he belongs and slot Lester as the number five starter. But if they persist on this idiotic charade that Timlin or Tavarez or Calvin Schiraldi or Heathcliff Slocumb is going to burst out of a burning tomatoe plant in the bullpen and sieze the closer's job, then Schilling's idea has some merit.

First of all, let's understand that the five man rotation didn't come down from Sinai on stone tablets. Until the early seventies, all teams used a four man rotation. Period. The Dodgers were the first to go with five men because they had some health concerns with their their staff (sound familiar?) and they wanted to lessen the workload for them. Well if a five man rotation is easier on pitchers than a four man rotation, wouldn't a six man rotation be better than a five-man rotation? For years the Sox tried to give Pedro five days rest between starts as often as they could and he was only the best pitcher in baseball for about four years when they did it.

So let's look at the Sox starting rotation. You have two guys in their fourties, one coming off a serious injury last year (Wakefield) and the other (Schilling) only a year removed from a debilitating ankle injury. Do you think an extra day's rest between starts would keep them healthy all year? Another (Paplebon) is coming off a scary moment late last season when his arm basically came out of its socket and now managment is so concerned they won't let him close. So if they are that worried about his shoulder condition, how about giving him five days of rest between starts instead of four. As for Lester, they have stated they want "to bring him along slowly." How much slower could you bring him along than having him pitch once every six days? Then you have Matsusaka who has only ever known a six man rotation, so keeping him on that schedule should help him acclimate to the majors more than a masseuse or 10 trips back to Japan. That leaves Beckett, who would benefit from fewer starts by saving the strain on his neck as he would have to jerk around and follow fewer gopher throughout the season.

They could start with the six man rotation and if someone goes down, they would revert to a five if they have to. So what's wrong with being an innovator? Most teams wouldn't consider a six man rotation because they barely have enough pitchers for a five man rotation. Who would the Yankees tab as their sixth starter? Bernie Williams, perhaps? But thanks to the Sox' $160 million payroll, they have an embarassment of riches in their starters. They should exploit that reservoir of talent. Instead of having them each pitch six or seven innings every fifth day, let them throw seven or eight innings every sixth day. Talk about shortening the game. Then Tito could bring in new closer Dennis Eckersley and call it a day.