A 1-5 week against the Cardinals and Giants. The Rox currently stand at 38-68 (second half record at 5-16). Twenty games behind the Giants for the division lead in last place. Currently 21-37 at home and 17-31 on the road, the Rox have been outscored by its opponents 621-504 (expected wins is 43 versus historical wins at 50). On pace for 58 wins with 770 runs scored and 949 runs against. Playoff indicator (Runs Scored/Runs Against ratio) is 0.81 (1.16 indicates high playoff potential).
Where Do We Go From Here
Baseball is frustrating to say the least. For years, our Rox struggled to find a solution to what was termed "Nintendo Ball". For three years from 2007 - 2009 we seemingly tamed the beast. Baseball was fun, it was fun to be a fan, it was fun going to the ballpark knowing we weren't watching batting practice. The shocking part of this season is how quickly this all went away. To have tasted the fruit of success and to have it ripped away from you is the cruelty that baseball can bring.
I feel for the players and management. I can be harsh but it is frustration that comes out. Frustration that we seemingly came so far only to fall back to mediocry. So be it. In an interesting article at Yahoo Sports, Steve Henson makes some valid points. Not to say baseball can't learn new tricks but the game remains remarkably similar over the years. Everyone wants to find that "moneyball" moment but baseball caught on pretty quickly and that team really succeeded with that baseball standard, pitching. Rox seemingly are trying to find that moment and realistically it is really not trying something as it is just masking a young inexperienced squad.
I mean if Rox really want to go off the deep end how about they really mix it up and have home and away pitchers? I mean with squad of 13 pitchers. You could have 4 starters who only go pitch when the team travels leaving 9 pitchers to mop up on away games and some sort of rotating 3 to 4 inning rotation for home games. How about carrying more than just 13 pitchers? How about 8 non-pitcher's with a extra catcher, infielder/outfielder for 10 non-pitchers which would leave room for 15 pitchers? If pitchers complain that arm slot is an issue at Coors versus away then just get four starters that play only in away games. Heck don't even let them travel to Coors. Each of these starters would get about 20 starts, not for sure how long home stands would work but whatever. This would then leave 11 pitchers to tame Coors. With statistics showing that lineups tend to get better each time they see a pitcher it would suggest that limiting those times might make sense. With the specialization in the relief corp and death of the nine inning starter would it be a stretch to think of a time in the future when there is no such thing as a starter? With inning eaters a thing of the past, and the thought that more innings lead to injuries, is it a wonder that the traditional starter might go away? Team averages about 1400 innings a year so would it make sense to limit your pitchers to about 100 innings?