From the DDN:

Biggest thing to come out of this article is a quote from Tim Naehring:

“We haven’t hired a new general manager yet,” Naehring cautioned, “but we’ll go back to a more traditional way of playing the game.”

That means a five-man rotation and higher pitch counts, but the Reds still intend to limit the number of pitches, especially for the younger prospects.

The few players (and one player’s mom) that I talked to were unanimous in their dislike for the piggy-back starting concept. One player even told me that it leads to doing MORE throwing, not less and you were throwing too much.

I can’t say that I’m a fan or critic of the piggy-back idea. It definitely hurt the lower minor teams in terms of being competitive, but if it kept pitchers healthy, is that a bad thing? And, did it keep pitchers healthy? Was it given enough of a chance to determine if it was a good system or not?

One Response

  1. al

    I thought the idea seemed reasonable too, but it would only work if the team kept more starters on the roster. Does anyone know if that was the case?

    If you are going to hold pitch counts down, someone is going to have to make up the difference. You don’t want that to be your bull pen guys, making 80 appearances in the minors. So you throw another starter out there. But then if you don’t up the amount of starters that you’re carrying, each starter ends up going out more often, which is what it sounds like the players are complaining about.

    I’m all for the piggy back system, but only because i’m all for holding pitch counts down at lower levels. But then, i also don’t think we need to be grooming middle relievers, so pretty much everyone at that level whose not some hotshot closer should be a starter anyway.