Pitcher Opener

[mlhouse]

I'm sure glad this "opener" concept is working so well for the Twins at the major league level.  Its only putting us down a couple of runs in the first inning each time they have tried the reliever pitching the first inning.

 

It gives the team very little if any benefit and takes away from the tactical flexibility later in the game.  

 

The entire concept is to create a potential inning of platoon advantage, starting a reliever for an inning then bringing the "true starter" who throws opposite into the game.  But the fact is, very few teams platoon anymore so their lineups are going to be mostly fixed and the exact platoon advantage will exist later in the game.  Why use up one of your relievers to make a phony start to create a platoon advantage in the first inning when it might be used in a more critical situation.

 

This is just a gimmick and I hope to god the Twins do not continue to use it.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I'm going to give them a lot more than two games before calling the idea a bust.

 

In a lost season, this is exactly the kind of thing the front office should be experimenting with and trying.

 

And for the record, I don't like the idea of the opener from a spectator standpoint. I kinda hope it's a failure across baseball for that reason... but if it does work, I want my favorite team to use it.

[Vanimal46]

The Twins don't have relievers on roster to make this idea work. I guess they're going to have to find a starting reliever through trade or FA.

 

I think this idea is a gimmick and a joke that only bad teams should utilize. Good baseball teams develop starting pitching or acquire good starting pitching. Bad teams that can't develop or acquire good starting pitching will try masking it with this gimmick idea. Maybe they'll lose 85 games instead of 90 with this concept. Oh boy.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

The Twins don't have relievers on roster to make this idea work. I guess they're going to have to find a starting reliever through trade or FA.

I think this idea is a gimmick and a joke that only bad teams should utilize. Good baseball teams develop starting pitching or acquire good starting pitching. Bad teams that can't develop or acquire good starting pitching will try masking it with this gimmick idea. Maybe they'll lose 85 games instead of 90 with this concept. Oh boy.

I see the validity in the idea but think it's going to require a specialized roster to make it work to its fullest.

For example, Trevor May is a very good candidate to make this work. Maybe Magill is as well.

 

Guys like Berrios and Gibson start every game. That's a no-brainer.

 

But when you come to a guy like Odorizzi or Gonsalves/Stewart, you don't start the game with a one-inning reliever. You have 2-3 longer inning guys available to work in front of them. The goal should be two innings at a minimum for the opener, going to three innings depending on performance.

 

Properly executing that concept might allow a team to actually carry a smaller bullpen than the average team carries today. You get two innings from May and then five innings from Odorizzi. Boom, you're now in the eighth inning of the game and May is still available to go in 2-3 days again. Even a good team could use this strategy once or twice through every rotation turn.

 

But this kind of decision is pretty hard to implement mid-season using a roster built to carry standard bullpen usage. If anything, I wish the team would have started using this on August 1st to get through some of the growing pains. That way they might have a better idea how it works over a longer period of time instead of forcing a decision based on a ~10 game sample size.

[RaymondLuxuryYacht]

I am so successful because I never try anything new

[Vanimal46]

I see the validity in the idea but think it's going to require a specialized roster to make it work to its fullest.

 

For example, Trevor May is a very good candidate to make this work. Maybe Magill is as well.

 

Guys like Berrios and Gibson start every game. That's a no-brainer.

 

But when you come to a guy like Odorizzi or Gonsalves/Stewart, you don't start the game with a one-inning reliever. You have 2-3 longer inning guys available to work in front of them. The goal should be two innings at a minimum for the opener, going to three innings depending on performance.

 

Properly executing that concept might allow a team to actually carry a smaller bullpen than the average team carries today. You get two innings from May and then five innings from Odorizzi. Boom, you're now in the eighth inning of the game and May is still available to go in 2-3 days again. Even a good team could use this strategy once or twice through every rotation turn.

 

But this kind of decision is pretty hard to implement mid-season using a roster built to carry standard bullpen usage. If anything, I wish the team would have started using this on August 1st to get through some of the growing pains. That way they might have a better idea how it works over a longer period of time instead of forcing a decision based on a ~10 game sample size.

If May is pitching the first 2 innings who's pitching the 8th? What's a higher leverage, top of the 1st or top of the 8th? Because I want someone like May to come in at crucial points in the game.

 

IMO if they feel a lesser SP needs an opener before they come into the game, he's not a SP. Jake Odorizzi for example is a long reliever disguised for years as a SP. Instead of creating an opener strategy for someone like him, why don't they put him in the bullpen and try someone else who can pitch 6 innings?

[ashbury]

The idea of an opener makes sense to me, if it's a really good short man in the role.

 

Did you know that historically more runs have been scored in the first inning than any other?

 

source

 

It's not surprising. The first inning is the only one that managers can set their batting order the way they want. One of the complaints of the now-traditional Closer role is that your excellent short man might be facing the bottom of the lineup, or else may not even get into the game at all for several days at a stretch.

 

The thinking, then, is to put your shut-down guy in the highest leverage situation possible, and deal with the ninth when it comes. Based on the above chart it would be an especially appealing strategy for the visitors.

 

It's an era where complete games are virtually non-existent. Relievers will be appearing in your game. As manager, you have the option when to deploy them, not whether.

 

A secondary decision is whether to go through the lineup completely before bringing the more-durable starter into the game. My feeling is that it's OK for your erstwhile starter to face the lower portion of the lineup 3 times, so bring him in for the start of the second inning to face batter #4 or lower, and then decide what to do when the top of the lineup comes up against him for the third time, based on how he's going. Plus maybe that lets you use your Opener more often during a season.

 

Anyway, it needs to be a shut-down guy, or else the strategy is no good. I'm not sure we have that guy at present. May is a reasonable candidate, but it sure didn't work out that way. If what you have is Moya, Hildenberger or Rogers, I wouldn't expect great results, because I don't see any of those as candidates to be Closer either - on a seriously contending team these are all middle-innings guys. I know Hildy has had some success as closer lately, but I'd expect him to be badly exposed as an Opener, more quickly than as Closer.

 

 

[slash129]

Sample size of two

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

If May is pitching the first 2 innings who's pitching the 8th? What's a higher leverage, top of the 1st or top of the 8th? Because I want someone like May to come in at crucial points in the game.

IMO if they feel a lesser SP needs an opener before they come into the game, he's not a SP. Jake Odorizzi for example is a long reliever disguised for years as a SP. Instead of creating an opener strategy for someone like him, why don't they put him in the bullpen and try someone else who can pitch 6 innings?

I think this is the problem with your thinking. Why do pitchers need to be binary? They're either a starter or reliever, case closed.

 

What about the two guys mentioned in your post, May and Odorizzi? Both are more than short-appearance or mop-up long relievers but pretty questionable as starters. So why not throw out the current binary approach to pitchers and use those two guys to their fullest potential? Get 2-5 innings from each of them because they're capable of maintaining a pretty high level of performance in those situations but struggle beyond that point.

 

And I'm not worried about May pitching the eighth if he gives 2-3 innings of good performance at the beginning of the game. Every out counts the same when all is said and done.

 

Never mind that it's easier to keep hitters off-balance if you're tossing May (RHP, four pitches, high velocity) for two innings and then following with Gonsalves (LHP, decent stuff, unimpressive velocity).

 

The idea has its merits. Whether those merits will be on display in real-world situations is the question.

[chaderic20]

I put something similar in the game recap thread, but I'll put it here too. While ideally your opener would do well (as noted above it should be a shut-down type guy), I don't think the opener's performance is the focus of this experiment. The best experiments test one thing at a time, and I'm sure the variable they are testing right now is the effect an opener has on the primary pitcher, especially in their last one or two innings. Does it improve their numbers in those innings? If so, then the strategy might have some merit, and you just need to find the right guys to be the openers.

[ND-Fan]

This is not thing for the Twins to be doing this month it should be used on getting players ready to play at the major league level. Also they want to teach them basics of how to win in the big leagues this group of players need to learn how to win at the major league level. The Twins don't have luxury of experimenting on this type of play now were 11 games under 500 and dropping. If this is what this front office is about were in trouble because we need to be concentrating on getting young players better for next season. I look and see that Sox are starting to win and could be getting ready to compete for next year and were still floundering around in this rebuild where this front office has not committed to winning with this group but keep trying to figure what they are going to do.  I also think this is one the problems with this group of players the attitude at the top works it way down and when a Front Office is not committed to winning with a group of players the players don't buy into they can win and the players that were committed to winning were traded away. Baseball is mental game and takes hard mentality to be winner in this league and needs to be taught to the younger players and now we just don't have this on this team.

[Vanimal46]

Sample size of two

2 is enough. Though the hot taeks are going to be fun to read when it works one time.

 

"SEE! I knew it would work. Great job Falvine!"

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

2 is enough. Though the hot taeks are going to be fun to read when it works one time.

"SEE! I knew it would work. Great job Falvine!"

In baseball, two of anything is never enough to make an informed decision.

 

Also, it's quite the take to claim it's a failure after two attempts but then pre-emptivly "hot take" the opposition if they have the audacity to claim it's a success after one attempt.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

The idea of an opener makes sense to me, if it's a really good short man in the role.

 

Did you know that historically more runs have been scored in the first inning than any other?

 

runs_scored.jpg

source

 

It's not surprising. The first inning is the only one that managers can set their batting order the way they want. One of the complaints of the now-traditional Closer role is that your excellent short man might be facing the bottom of the lineup, or else may not even get into the game at all for several days at a stretch.

 

The thinking, then, is to put your shut-down guy in the highest leverage situation possible, and deal with the ninth when it comes. Based on the above chart it would be an especially appealing strategy for the visitors.

 

It's an era where complete games are virtually non-existent. Short men will be appearing in your game. As manager, you have the option when to deploy them, not whether.

 

A secondary decision is whether to go through the lineup completely before bringing the more-durable starter into the game. My feeling is that it's OK for your erstwhile starter to face the lower portion of the lineup 3 times, so bring him in for the start of the second inning to face batter #4 or lower, and then decide what to do when the top of the lineup comes up against him for the third time, based on how he's going. Plus maybe that lets you use your Opener more often during a season.

 

Anyway, it needs to be a shut-down guy, or else the strategy is no good. I'm not sure we have that guy at present. May is a reasonable candidate, but it sure didn't work out that way. If what you have is Moya, Hildenberger or Rogers, I wouldn't expect great results, because I don't see any of those as candidates to be Closer either - on a seriously contending team these are all middle-innings guys. I know Hildy has had some success as closer lately, but I'd expect him to be badly exposed as an Opener, more quickly than as Closer.

Dunno. I think a lights-out one inning guy as opener has its merits but I also see the merit in using a guy like May to advantageously match the opposing lineup and have him go more than one inning.

 

By going through two innings, you're essentially getting through the lineup once (or close to it), eliminating the need for a sixth or seventh inning guy a couple of times through every rotation turn. The upside there is that you might be able to shift a former bullpen piece to an offensive platoon, helping you on the other side of the ball with better matchups and more flexibility.

[Mike Sixel]

Well, it is working VERY WELL in Tampa, so I don't think it is the theory that is the problem in MN.....

 

I've argued for years that teams that don't have 5-8 good starters should have 2-3 games a week that are bullpen games, with players rotating to and from AAA to fill out the roster......

 

This kind of thing is inevitable, imo. I don't get why people HATE it, frankly. 

[ashbury]

2 is enough. Though the hot taeks are going to be fun to read when it works one time.

Hot taeks from success. Now there is a concept I haven't heard in a long time.

 

[ashbury]

 

 

Dunno. I think a lights-out one inning guy as opener has its merits but I also see the merit in using a guy like May to advantageously match the opposing lineup and have him go more than one inning.

 

By going through two innings, you're essentially getting through the lineup once (or close to it), eliminating the need for a sixth or seventh inning guy a couple of times through every rotation turn. The upside there is that you might be able to shift a former bullpen piece to an offensive platoon, helping you on the other side of the ball with better matchups and more flexibility.

If the Opener's skills are such that he should keep going, I'd want him to face the top of the lineup twice. I think the whole idea is to keep the nominal starting pitcher from facing the toughest batters 3 times. So sure, if it's May, plan to let him go 3 innings even. Then turn it over to Mejia or Odorizzi or whomever, for some easy outs in the bottom of the lineup and go from there.

 

I'd also ask, if the Opener has a bad first inning, whether it would have been more acceptable to see it occur in the 7th inning instead. Bad outings will happen. Are we more concerned with PR than results?

[Vanimal46]

I think this is the problem with your thinking. Why do pitchers need to be binary? They're either a starter or reliever, case closed.

 

What about the two guys mentioned in your post, May and Odorizzi? Both are more than short-appearance or mop-up long relievers but pretty questionable as starters. So why not throw out the current binary approach to pitchers and use those two guys to their fullest potential? Get 2-5 innings from each of them because they're capable of maintaining a pretty high level of performance in those situations but struggle beyond that point.

 

And I'm not worried about May pitching the eighth if he gives 2-3 innings of good performance at the beginning of the game. Every out counts the same when all is said and done.

 

Never mind that it's easier to keep hitters off-balance if you're tossing May (RHP, four pitches, high velocity) for two innings and then following with Gonsalves (LHP, decent stuff, unimpressive velocity).

 

The idea has its merits. Whether those merits will be on display in real-world situations is the question.

Good teams still use the binary approach and it seems to be working out very well for them. Houston has 5 good starters and a defined bullpen. Every team bound to make the playoffs still uses a binary approach for their pitching staff.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

If the Opener's skills are such that he should keep going, I'd want him to face the top of the lineup twice. I think the whole idea is to keep the nominal starting pitcher from facing the toughest batters 3 times. So sure, if it's May, plan to let him go 3 innings even. Then turn it over to Mejia or Odorizzi or whomever, for some easy outs in the bottom of the lineup and go from there.

That's my thinking as well. It would be an interesting experiment to aggressively pursue "tweeners" this offseason. Guys like May who could be very good one-inning relievers or, maybe more effectively, pretty good three-inning relievers twice a week.

 

Then match that tweener with another tweener like Odorizzi and you use two pitchers through 7-8 innings of baseball, all at a relatively low cost to payroll.

 

Except in that situation, May doesn't only need to pair up with Odorizzi. He could also pair with another pitcher later in the rotation. If done correctly, you could have two Mays match up with three Odorizzis in the rotation. That means you have seven pitchers who should be able to get you no fewer than six innings a game every game, hopefully as many as eight innings on a regular basis.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Good teams still use the binary approach and it seems to be working out very well for them. Houston has 5 good starters and a defined bullpen. Every team bound to make the playoffs still uses a binary approach for their pitching staff.

Oy, come on, vanimal. And teams used to scoff at people who drew walks regularly and considered it a non-skill, yet those teams still managed to make the postseason on a regular basis.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Good teams still use the binary approach and it seems to be working out very well for them. Houston has 5 good starters and a defined bullpen. Every team bound to make the playoffs still uses a binary approach for their pitching staff.

 

the Twins don't have 2 SPs we are sure are good, where do you propose they find the other 4? They are much more likely to get good performances out of RPs (though they've, alas, struggled at that also)....

 

Frankly, I'd consider converting Gonsalves, May, Odorizzi, and Stewart into this kind of 2-3 inning role, and see what happens. 

 

Unless they trade/sign 2 starters, they don't have the pitching to compete the traditional way, why NOT try something different?

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

the Twins don't have 2 SPs we are sure are good, where do you propose they find the other 4? They are much more likely to get good performances out of RPs (though they've, alas, struggled at that also)....

 

Frankly, I'd consider converting Gonsalves, May, Odorizzi, and Stewart into this kind of 2-3 inning role, and see what happens. 

 

Unless they trade/sign 2 starters, they don't have the pitching to compete the traditional way, why NOT try something different?

I think the real argument here is that baseball, especially hitting, has changed.

 

Today, there isn't a guy in MLB who can't drill a 94mph fastball with regularity. Pitchers keep ramping up velocity but it has side effects: you can't go as deep into a game if you need to ratchet your arm speed to 96mph for hitters 1-9. Doubly so because not only are hitters better but they're far more selective with their swings nowadays, running up pitch counts early.

 

Therefore, we've seen a decline in starting pitching IP. There simply aren't that many guys who can effectively get through a lineup three times because, unlike previous decades, they no longer get to phone in the bottom of every lineup (or, in some cases, half or more of every lineup).

 

So teams are figuring out new ways to get those outs. The opener idea has its merits for that reason.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

I'm sure glad this "opener" concept is working so well for the Twins at the major league level.  Its only putting us down a couple of runs in the first inning each time they have tried the reliever pitching the first inning.

 

It gives the team very little if any benefit and takes away from the tactical flexibility later in the game.  

 

The entire concept is to create a potential inning of platoon advantage, starting a reliever for an inning then bringing the "true starter" who throws opposite into the game.  But the fact is, very few teams platoon anymore so their lineups are going to be mostly fixed and the exact platoon advantage will exist later in the game.  Why use up one of your relievers to make a phony start to create a platoon advantage in the first inning when it might be used in a more critical situation.

 

This is just a gimmick and I hope to god the Twins do not continue to use it.

 

Cannot hurt to try... then again, we've had our fair share of starters that cannot get a clean 1st inning. 

[Vanimal46]

the Twins don't have 2 SPs we are sure are good, where do you propose they find the other 4? They are much more likely to get good performances out of RPs (though they've, alas, struggled at that also)....

 

Frankly, I'd consider converting Gonsalves, May, Odorizzi, and Stewart into this kind of 2-3 inning role, and see what happens.

 

Unless they trade/sign 2 starters, they don't have the pitching to compete the traditional way, why NOT try something different?

Rotating through what they have and seeing what sticks. Make trades, sign free agents. Oakland for example is shuffling through minor league options and waiver wire pickups. They're still keeping binary roles and winning games.

 

This idea to me feels like a cop out for teams with crappy pitching. Don't give up on a strategy that's proven to work in baseball for hundreds of years. Find real starting pitching that can give your team 6-7 innings each outing.

[Tomj14]

 

the Twins don't have 2 SPs we are sure are good, where do you propose they find the other 4? They are much more likely to get good performances out of RPs (though they've, alas, struggled at that also)....

 

Frankly, I'd consider converting Gonsalves, May, Odorizzi, and Stewart into this kind of 2-3 inning role, and see what happens. 

 

Unless they trade/sign 2 starters, they don't have the pitching to compete the traditional way, why NOT try something different?

Having bullpens pitching games is completely different than an opener.

I would think more would be more open to the idea of setting up a game with 3 guys pitching 3 innings and then having a relief pitcher ready if and when needed.

 

Currently the Twins are using "Opener" in the minors, which could have huge unintended consequences. For example how do you know if you have True starter if they are not given the chance. It could reduce how other teams view prospects, thus reducing return in trades. Also if you are a stud high school/college pitcher would you rather sign with a team that has an opener strategy or not?

 

[Tomj14]

 

 

Cannot hurt to try...

Is that really true?

[Mike Sixel]

 

Rotating through what they have and seeing what sticks. Make trades, sign free agents. Oakland for example is shuffling through minor league options and waiver wire pickups. They're still keeping binary roles and winning games.

This idea to me feels like a cop out for teams with crappy pitching. Don't give up on a strategy that's proven to work in baseball for hundreds of years. Find real starting pitching that can give your team 6-7 innings each outing.

 

So, don't shift? Don't walk? Keep sacrifice bunting? Keep guys that can move runners over in the two spot, even if they can't do anything else? 

 

The game changes, and evolves. this evolution of shorter starts and more pitchers is inevitable.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Having bullpens pitching games is completely different than an opener.

I would think more would be more open to the idea of setting up a game with 3 guys pitching 3 innings and then having a relief pitcher ready if and when needed.

 

Currently the Twins are using "Opener" in the minors, which could have huge unintended consequences. For example how do you know if you have True starter if they are not given the chance. It could reduce how other teams view prospects, thus reducing return in trades. Also if you are a stud high school/college pitcher would you rather sign with a team that has an opener strategy or not?

 

Fair, and I'm really pushing for the 2-3 man per start rotation thing here, but I'm not opposed to the opener idea

[SF Twins Fan]

My only question is if the Twins do go this route would the good FA pitchers they could potentially try to sign shy away from signing with the Twins because they don't want to go to a team that might use them out of the bullpen? I'm assuming the top couple of FA pitchers every year wouldn't be the type of pitcher used in this scenario but what about the next tier down? The second tier FA pitcher that might fit in this mold - would they be more or less likely to sign with a team like the Twins or a team that doesn't use the "Opener" role?

[Vanimal46]

So, don't shift? Don't walk? Keep sacrifice bunting? Keep guys that can move runners over in the two spot, even if they can't do anything else?

 

The game changes, and evolves. this evolution of shorter starts and more pitchers is inevitable.

I guess I draw the line on tossing starter and reliever roles out the window. I believe there's a different mentality and preparation between starting a game and coming in relief. Otherwise why haven't teams dismissed roles years ago?

 

Now because someone out there was experimenting with data this is now the latest and greatest idea.

 

Also, over the years I thought higher leverage situations happen at the end of games, not the beginning. But now teams are supposed to pitch their shut down reliever in the 1st, when historically it's not crucial to a game.