No, it’s not April First yet. We’re totally serious: The Cardinals might want to try moving reliever Russ Springer into the rotation. With the news that Matt Clement will not be ready for opening day, and Mark Mulder still a way off from returning, Springer as fifth starter makes at least as much sense as the other options, Todd Wellemeyer and Brad Thompson (we’re not going to revive our 10-man rotation idea just yet).

Despite meeting four-man-rotation aficionado Earl Weaver last weekend and while reports are that the Cardinals "believe they can get through April and all the way to Mark Mulder’s return by using a four-man rotation and a cameo fifth starter," we find it hard to believe that they’ll want to follow through on that. Here’s the number of games that the presumptive 2008 rotation started on three-days’ rest last year:

• Wainwright: 0
• Looper: 0
• Pineiro: 0
• Reyes: 0

Now, we’re not saying that these guys can’t pitch effectively on short rest, even for a month. But it’s probably not wise, particularly for Looper and Pineiro, and it’s not really even necessary. So, by our count, unless the Cardinals use a four-man for April, they will need a fifth starter for five games in the first month of the season:

Someone’s going to have to start those games. Granted, a couple things are working against the idea of it being Springer, not the least of which is that it may be too late for him to condition himself as a starter. And remember, Springer already tried being a starter in his career, with less than happy results: In 27 starts across his first five major-league seasons, spanning 137 1/3 innings, he had a 5.61 DIPS (his 7.34 ERA makes it look worse). The primary culprit was a proclivity to surrendering the long ball, which is still his Achilles heal. But that was 12 years ago (his last start was Aug. 6, 1996), and in the meantime — the last three years, particularly — he’s been healthy, improved his command and become an above-average reliever.

And although Springer is several years older (entering his age-39 season) than Looper was when he undertook the experiment (age 32), his peripherals last year in the bullpen were much better than Looper’s in 2006, his last season before he made the transition (courtesy of The Hardball Times):

If one conservatively figures that Springer could average five innings per start (last year, Looper averaged almost six) and toss 150 innings (Looper threw 175 in 2007), that’s 30 starts, as many as Looper had in his first season in the rotation. But what kind of quality would those innings be? After all, Jason Marquis, the "innings eater," threw 194 1/3 in 2006. But he also ate chances to win ballgames, with a 5.94 FIP ERA. What would Springer offer?

We used Dan Szymborski’s pitcher-conversion tool to get an idea. Taking Springer’s most bearish projection — PECOTA — here are his converted numbers as a would-be starter in 2008:

Well, well, well. The home-run total isn’t pretty, but that 4.26 ERA would put Springer second on the team behind Wainwright (not including Carpenter, who will be happy to pitch two months this season), whom PECOTA projects at 4.14. He’d be second, also behind Wainwright (114), in total strikeouts, too. Springer’s move to the rotation would theoretically leave a gap in the bullpen. But as we saw last season, it’s easier to find bullpen replacements (Troy Percival, anyone?) than rotation replacements; no one complained much after March that Looper’s move actually hurt the ‘pen.

If the Cardinals were willing to take a risk with Looper only a year ago, and with a very similar (if not worse) starter situation, why wouldn’t they want to attempt to repeat Looper’s success? In Springer, it would appear that they have as good, if not a better, candidate to convert. It’s odd that the Cardinals would stop at Looper — after all, the A’s are appropriating La Runcan’s idea as they move Justin Duchscherer to the rotation this year. The Cardinals may already have the answer to their starter dearth, and he may be one of their best pitchers this season. Rather than making the mistake of bringing back a retread like Jeff Weaver, they simply have to look under their nose.

This entry was posted by Pip on Wednesday, February 20th, 2008 at 11:33 pm and is filed under analysis. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.