Pitcher Opener

[Squirrel]

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.

And Oakland last won the WS when? And their last AL pennant?

[ashbury]

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.

If you hold your best reliever in reserve for the bases-loaded jam, then I agree the first inning may not prove to be the highest leverage. But if you're like most managers and bring in the guy to begin an inning, then again I refer to the chart in my earlier post to suggest that the first inning has the highest leverage on the game outcome.

[jkcarew]

 

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.

It's odd that the hitters are better...but they can't get hits or put the ball in play.  Yet, I agree with what you're saying...for a combination of reasons having to do with how both batting and hitting have evolved, pitchers all max-effort every pitch/batter...batters have high-def video to watch between at-bats, etc., etc....fewer pitchers can get deep into games without sacrificing results.

 

It will be interesting to see if the opener concept will results in fewer total runs scored (not just '3rd-time' runs).  It addresses what is stated above...the "3rd time through the lineup" issue.  But it flies in the face of another real, and known thing...that being the "1st-inning era" issue.  The first inning is the one inning where the opponent can guarantee that the batters facing your pitcher are the ones that will optimize/maximize run probability.  And if the opener is the 6th, 7th, 8th best pitcher on the staff (which he will be, more often than not)...your delta could easily be larger on the unfavorable side in the 1st/2nd innings than it is favorable on the 3rd-time side.  Obviously, the concept will only be used for the bottom of a rotation.  I think for it to be 'effective' in the long run, the concept relies on having a very weak bottom of the rotation.  Something I'm not sure I'd want my club to aspire to.

 

As I mentioned in another thread, I admit that I hope it fails.  It would amount to one more reason for managers to want to carry and use more pitchers.  No matter the theory, this will be an additional pitcher burned before the game gets to the middle stages...managers will still want the protection on the back-side for specific match ups and extra-innings.

[ashbury]

It's odd that the hitters are better...but they can't get hits or put the ball in play. 

The evolution has been to sacrifice some contact in exchange for better launch angle and a higher payoff as a result.

[mlhouse]

 

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

 

To try.   It can't hurt to try inspecting the innards of a goat for omens regarding which lineup to start either.

 

If you do the math, any "advantage" you gain from the platoon differentials you create in the first inning is cancelled out by the fact those platoon advantages exist in later innings when relievers are usually brought in.  So, the net gain you achieve is really zero, and it is all done at a cost of reducing your tactical flexibility later in the game when it might be much more important.

 

To see this as an example, lets say the opponents have 1-3 in their order a Lefty, Righty, Lefty.  So, the gimmick loving baseball people say, lets start a Lefty and get that platoon advantage right from the start.  Then in the 2nd your "starter" comes int he game.  

 

But, this move burns one of the left handed options in the bullpen.  Maybe in a critical point of the game, lets say with a tied game with runners on base, the left handed lead off hitter comes to the plate.  THis is probably a time when you bring in a left handed reliever.  But the next batter is right handed. You already burned one of your lefthanded options, so unless you can end the inning, you might be forced to pitch to a platoon disadvantage.

 

The problem with these pitching schemes is that they take away options, within this game and over the short term for little value gained.

 

 

[mlhouse]

 

If you hold your best reliever in reserve for the bases-loaded jam, then I agree the first inning may not prove to be the highest leverage. But if you're like most managers and bring in the guy to begin an inning, then again I refer to the chart in my earlier post to suggest that the first inning has the highest leverage on the game outcome.

 

And that just demonstrates that hte first inning has the highest quality hitters hitting.

[Vanimal46]

And Oakland last won the WS when? And their last AL pennant?

Alright let's go down this rabbit hole. Houston had 5 good starters all last year. So many good starters that McCullers pitched out of the bullpen in the playoffs! All of them were acquired in a variety of ways.

 

Chicago Cubs in 2016 had 5 good starters. All acquired in a variety of ways. Both teams in this particular world series had a great starting pitching staff.

 

Did I miss a recent WS winner that opened up a game with Ken Giles? Did Aroldis Chapman start game 3 of the 2016 WS?

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

It's odd that the hitters are better...but they can't get hits or put the ball in play. 

Because they've been trained to accept that swinging really hard and missing the ball is better than mediocre contact the majority of the time.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I guess I draw the line on tossing starter and reliever roles out the window.

Except that's not happening. What is happening is that the front office has decided there is a third kind of pitcher, one being underutilized in today's game: a guy who can go through a lineup once or more and get guys out, but is incapable of going through a lineup three times in a row.

[jkcarew]

 

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.

Gee...I hope the "more pitchers" part is not inevitable.  Simply limiting roster size will put a cap on that somewhere....and that would put a floor under how short starts can be, as well.  In my mind, for the foreseeable future, they need to hold firm on 25/40 (and no new loopholes).  Big mistake to bump that up in the next collective bargaining session, IMO.  But you know it will come up.

 

But I agree that, even under current roster rules, we have yet to see how far this can go.

[Vanimal46]

Except that's not happening. What is happening is that the front office has decided there is a third kind of pitcher, one being underutilized in today's game: a guy who can go through a lineup once or more and get guys out, but is incapable of going through a lineup three times in a row.

*Lays back on old rocking chair*

 

*Takes a long, drawn out hit from a tobacco pipe*

 

Sonny, back in my day those were called long relievers. They've always held a role in baseball.

 

Are we just rebranding the name to make the role more exciting and appealing?

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Alright let's go down this rabbit hole. Houston had 5 good starters all last year. So many good starters that McCullers pitched out of the bullpen in the playoffs! All of them were acquired in a variety of ways.

Chicago Cubs in 2016 had 5 good starters. All acquired in a variety of ways. Both teams in this particular world series had a great starting pitching staff.

Did I miss a recent WS winner that opened up a game with Ken Giles? Did Aroldis Chapman start game 3 of the 2016 WS?

The idea literally debuted in MLB this season. Not sure what you're really expecting here.

 

By this rationale, no idea can ever succeed.

[jkcarew]

 

The evolution has been to sacrifice some contact in exchange for better launch angle and a higher payoff as a result.

Agreed.  The hitters have sacrificed some skills for others.  The skills they are maximizing have more value (the data shows...so far) than those they sacrificed.  There will probably be a natural limit to that, as well.

[Vanimal46]

The idea literally debuted in MLB this season. Not sure what you're really expecting here.

 

By this rationale, no idea can ever succeed.

Hence why I used Oakland this year as an example and Carole replied back "When have they won a WS? An AL pennant?"

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

*Lays back on old rocking chair*

*Takes a long, drawn out hit from a tobacco pipe*

Sonny, back in my day those were called long relievers. They've always held a role in baseball.

Are we just rebranding the name to make the role more exciting and appealing?

For the past 30+ years, the long reliever has been synonymous with mop-up (and limited) duty, usually filled by one of the team's worst overall relievers.

 

So, no, this isn't the same thing, especially given its reverse order.

[jkcarew]

 

Because they've been trained to accept that swinging really hard and missing the ball is better than mediocre contact the majority of the time.

Yep.  At some point...league batting average of 'X'...K% of 'Y'...the data will show that the pendulum needs to swing the other way....at least a little.  For the sake of the entertainment value of the game, I hope those numbers are not too low...or too far off.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Yep.  At some point...league batting average of 'X'...K% of 'Y'...the data will show that the pendulum needs to swing the other way....at least a little.  For the sake of the entertainment value of the game, I hope those numbers are not too low...or too far off.

Ditto. Watching guy after guy miss the ball makes for a bad spectator experience.

[Linus]

I think the takeaway here is that if your pitching sucks the order doesn’t matter. Let’s worry about getting better pitchers

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I think the takeaway here is that if your pitching sucks the order doesn’t matter. Let’s worry about getting better pitchers

Getting better pitchers is the solution to literally every pitching problem.

 

A smart team trying to work within the margins of the game, no matter the quality of their roster, is a separate issue.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Alright let's go down this rabbit hole. Houston had 5 good starters all last year. So many good starters that McCullers pitched out of the bullpen in the playoffs! All of them were acquired in a variety of ways.

Chicago Cubs in 2016 had 5 good starters. All acquired in a variety of ways. Both teams in this particular world series had a great starting pitching staff.

Did I miss a recent WS winner that opened up a game with Ken Giles? Did Aroldis Chapman start game 3 of the 2016 WS?

 

Great, we agree, a team that can acquire 5 great starters is better off. But a team that can't? Should they just pitch Hughes and Slegers and Mejia and and and? 

 

Where do you expect the Twins to get 5 good/great starters next year?

[Vanimal46]

Great, we agree, a team that can acquire 5 great starters is better off. But a team that can't? Should they just pitch Hughes and Slegers and Mejia and and and?

 

Where do you expect the Twins to get 5 good/great starters next year?

A variety of avenues, just like the other teams that now have 5 good starters. Houston traded precious prospects to acquire Verlander, and Cole. Free agency for Morton, and the draft for McCullers and Keuchel.

 

The Twins have 2 pitchers without options left in 2019. I'd try to keep it that way to ensure maximum flexibility. Rotate SP prospects until you find 1-2 that can consistently pitch 6 innings.

 

I feel pretty good about Romero's ability to pitch 6 innings consistently next year. Same with Berrios and Gibson. If Pineda continues where he left off in New York, there's 4 pitchers with the ability to pitch 6 innings. Now we're down to 1 left, which can be filled via trade, FA, or another internal pitcher.

[ashbury]

And that just demonstrates that hte first inning has the highest quality hitters hitting.

Good, then we're in agreement as to why you want one of your best arms in there.

[Tomj14]

 

Getting better pitchers is the solution to literally every pitching problem.

 

A smart team trying to work within the margins of the game, no matter the quality of their roster, is a separate issue.

Then why stop at the opener Idea?

How about Berrios, Gibson, Romero, Odorizzi, Pineda, Mejia  pitch 3 innings 50 times.

That leaves between 500 and 600 innings for other relievers.

Then you have Thorpe and Graterol and maybe somebody else to open. Really how much minor league time do you need to pitch one inning?

Now you are down to filling 400 innings, Seems simple.

On top of it all you never have to worry about injury because they should have really low pitch counts.

 

[bobs]

Remarkable to me what a hot button topic this is.  I'm a "purist".  I think baseball played the right way is like poetry.  Is there anything better than a perfectly executed hit and run?  A guy legging out a triple?  In this new era of BB/K or HR, that is being taken out of the game and it's unfortunate.  Today, a guy like Tony Gwynn would be told to change his launch angle and swing for the fences. 

I get that analytics MAY find a way to theoretically win one or two more games a year, but the game I love is getting really hard to watch. 

As for the "opener", I understand that a pitcher's effectiveness declines when facing a lineup for the 3rd time.  But what's the difference if you use an "opener" to face the top of the lineup the first time through or the third?  What's the difference between starting Jake Odorizzi and taking him out before he sees a lineup a 3rd time and putting him in after the heart of the order has batted once?  Seems like 6 of one and half dozen of the other.  Also think this movement speaks to teams' ability to develop quality starting pitching....aka the Twins, Rays, etc.  I agree with the comment on how Houston doesn't need to use an opener....ironically,  with some of the guys who are now in their bullpen, they may be the team MOST qualified to do it.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Remarkable to me what a hot button topic this is.  I'm a "purist".  I think baseball played the right way is like poetry.  Is there anything better than a perfectly executed hit and run?  A guy legging out a triple?  In this new era of BB/K or HR, that is being taken out of the game and it's unfortunate.  Today, a guy like Tony Gwynn would be told to change his launch angle and swing for the fences. 

I get that analytics MAY find a way to theoretically win one or two more games a year, but the game I love is getting really hard to watch. 

As for the "opener", I understand that a pitcher's effectiveness declines when facing a lineup for the 3rd time.  But what's the difference if you use an "opener" to face the top of the lineup the first time through or the third?  What's the difference between starting Jake Odorizzi and taking him out before he sees a lineup a 3rd time and putting him in after the heart of the order has batted once?  Seems like 6 of one and half dozen of the other.  Also think this movement speaks to teams' ability to develop quality starting pitching....aka the Twins, Rays, etc.  I agree with the comment on how Houston doesn't need to use an opener....ironically,  with some of the guys who are now in their bullpen, they may be the team MOST qualified to do it.

 

What's the difference in viewing if they do the opener, vs what you say? How is your way "pure"?

[Ben Noble]

 

But what's the difference if you use an "opener" to face the top of the lineup the first time through or the third?  What's the difference between starting Jake Odorizzi and taking him out before he sees a lineup a 3rd time and putting him in after the heart of the order has batted once?

 

In theory, there isn't a difference. In practice, both the 'opener' and 'starter' open clean innings in this scenario, and you're assured of your 'opener' facing the top of your opponent's lineup.

 

With Odorizzi specifically, I totally agree with you. He does so well the first two times through the order and is particularly awful the third time through, I think he and the staff might be best served by having a second 'starter' piggyback after he's gone through the order twice.

 

Some starters (Stewart? Littell? Mejia?) will be best served following an opener. Some starters (Odorizzi) profile as providing the most value when pitching in tandem with a second starter. Others (Gibson, Berrios) slot in at the top of the rotation in a traditional starter role.

 

For me, this is about recognizing the strengths and weaknesses of different starters and putting them in a position to succeed, rather than forcing them into a one-size-fits-all approach. 

[Mike Sixel]

 

In theory, there isn't a difference. In practice, both the 'opener' and 'starter' open clean innings in this scenario, and you're assured of your 'opener' facing the top of your opponent's lineup.

 

With Odorizzi specifically, I totally agree with you. He does so well the first two times through the order and is particularly awful the third time through, I think he and the staff might be best served by having a second 'starter' piggyback after he's gone through the order twice.

 

Some starters (Stewart? Littell? Mejia?) will be best served following an opener. Some starters (Odorizzi) profile as providing the most value when pitching in tandem with a second starter. Others (Gibson, Berrios) slot in at the top of the rotation in a traditional starter role.

 

For me, this is about recognizing the strengths and weaknesses of different starters and putting them in a position to succeed, rather than forcing them into a one-size-fits-all approach. 

 

that last paragraph is the key.....why force someone into a role, if they don't fit it, but can offer value in a new kind of role?

[wavedog]

For this revolutionary opener idea - aren't we just copying what Tampa Bay did?  A real revolutionary idea would be to look at the pitching talent you have in your system and design the best plan that works best for their skill set, health and temperament.   For example, you could have 3 starters if you have 3 good ones,  4 longer stretch pitchers that would go 4-5 innings each and split the next 2 starts and fill-in for off days, then have 6 "relief pitchers".   2 of the relief pitchers could be a designated opener and designated closer.   

 

Or another approach is to say what is the ulitimate best approach and develop/acquire talent to fit that approach.   If the first inning is most important with the toughest lineup order and setting the tone for the game  - then you would want your best pitchers opening the game.   Would you want Berrios starting off every other game and pitching an inning or two?  Some pitchers are better cut out for closing than others because they can handle the pressure of that situation - some better at pitching in the middle, starting a game, etc... 

 

In our openers so far, we have started Moya - who might be what our 11th or 12th best pitcher?    And then May - who is one of our better pitchers but who has been injured in the past switching between starting and relieving.   I realize starting a game is different than starting and pitching 5-6 innings but that is all I could think of last night - hope he doesn't get hurt from this trial and moving him in different roles.

 

If we are going to be creative let's be creative in a smart way that fits our talent.   

[Ben Noble]

 

that last paragraph is the key.....why force someone into a role, if they don't fit it, but can offer value in a new kind of role?

 

The short answer is the appeal to tradition fallacy. As the great American poet Too $hort so wisely said, "Get in where you fit in."

[mlhouse]

 

Good, then we're in agreement as to why you want one of your best arms in there.

 

And that is the starter.

 

But, what you miss is those same guys come up to bat later in the game in situations that could be more critical.  But, you burned your platoon advantage reliever in the first.

 

I will repeat, the "opener" gets you ZERO value because of that while taking away your tactical flexibility later in the game.

 

IT IS A DUMB IDEA WITHOUT MERIT.