Starting rotation.

[fredtoast]

I don't think it will make much difference with the Reds, but I read that team who have two dominate starters should not have them #1 and #2 in the rotation. It said that since good starters go longer and use less bullpen they should be split up in the rotation to better balance the workload for the relievers.

If #1 starters always went against the other teams #1 I can see a reason to keep the top 2 pitchers #1 and #2, but #1 does not always face the other #1. So instead of having the bullpen over worked with three days in a row of lower level starters (#3-#5) it would be better to split up the two best starters so that the Bullpen can get a rest between bad pitchers.

Thoughts?

[kevin]

My thoughts are Reds don't have any dominate starters, so it is not a factor. The Reds made some moves as 1999 when they got Neagle and Harnish. The Indians have dominate pitchers. Hopefully the Reds have some guys to eat innings so the bullpen isn't worn out by June 1st. There is nothing dominate about Castillo, Disco, Roark, Wood or Gray. Pitch them any way they want, because none are Dominate.

[*psychdoctor*]

Roark has performed better than expected this spring and I think Gray will be the #1 starter when it is said and done. Mahle has looked good and should be in rotation until Wood is healthy. Disco has enough stuff for #3. But I agree, there is no dominant #1 pitcher on the Reds at this point.

I think it is a HUGE mistake to start Castillo first game of season. I don't like it. Gosh I hope Wood performs well.

[Hoofhearted]

I'm wondering if they'll toy with an opener like the Rays did? Bell seems like he's kinda against that tho. I think they'll stay with 1-5 as is, while juggling them some depending on rest and team. Also since we have four righties and a lefty, curious how they handle that. Probably slot wood at #3 so there's not a series vs all righties?