Pitcher Opener

[USAFChief]

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.

The idea isnt built as much around a platoon advantage as it is on getting 5 plus innings from the "starter" without him facing the top of the order a third time.

 

Theoretically, he faces the bottom of the order three times, the top only twice, but you still get ~18 outs from him.

[yarnivek1972]

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.

The Rays use it. They will probably win 85-90 games.

[jokin]

 

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.

 

Inevitable counter-ordinal lineup moves made by the opponent? (ie- some of the best hitters buried deep down-lineup to attack the weaker "RP" late in the 2nd inning or to greet  the "Primary" upon his entrance)

[yarnivek1972]

Inevitable counter-ordinal lineup moves made by the opponent? (ie- some of the best hitters buried deep down-lineup to attack the weaker "RP" late in the 2nd inning)

Maybe. Baseball logic still says you are best off getting your best hitters more at bats. You do that by putting them at the top of the lineup.

[Vanimal46]

The Rays use it. They will probably win 85-90 games.

The Miami Dolphins also won 11 games one year using the wildcat formation. That was a fun gimmick.

[mlhouse]

 

The idea isnt built as much around a platoon advantage as it is on getting 5 plus innings from the "starter" without him facing the top of the order a third time.

Theoretically, he faces the bottom of the order three times, the top only twice, but you still get more then 20 outs from him.

 

Again, starting a reliever for an inning doesn't change this fact.  You can remove the starter before the top of the order comes around for the third time without losing your tactical flexibility.  

[Mike Sixel]

 

Again, starting a reliever for an inning doesn't change this fact.  You can remove the starter before the top of the order comes around for the third time without losing your tactical flexibility.  

 

But then you don't see hitters 4-9 three times from the pitcher that pitches the most innings.....

 

Assuming your starter gives up 1 hit....your next pitcher can face the bottom 2/3 of the lineup three times, but the top third only 2 times......

 

[tarheeltwinsfan]

 

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.

The down side is that you may use your lights out 1 inning guy in the first inning in a situation where he is not needed...in the event of a rout by either team. You just can't predict  a rout in the 1st inning. Whereas if you use your lights out guy at the end of a game, you get to choose not to use him in a rout or save your best reliever for a close game tomorrow night.

[David HK]

 

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).

You Can't be talking about a team we know here, surely?

[jokin]

 

Maybe. Baseball logic still says you are best off getting your best hitters more at bats. You do that by putting them at the top of the lineup.

 

Baseball logic is being put on its head in this new strategy. If you put 3 of your best hitters at the bottom of the order, it defeats the strategy of getting the primary pitcher through 15 or 18 outs because he's going to inevitably have to face them three times in 5+ or 6 IP.

 

I would still have my best 2 hitters batting 1-2, but the 7-9 spots might arguably be your next 3 best bats- plus table setting for 1-2. So Mr. Primary Pitcher now is forced to face the best 5 hitters in a row as he enters the game, the stats suggest for the "mediocre SP majority", more often than not, he won't make it the third time around- likely at the 6th inning or +1/-1.

 

Seems like a recipe for more 4-5 "RP" appearances than occurs currently, not less.

[ashbury]

Baseball logic is being put on its head in this new strategy. If you put 3 of your best hitters at the bottom of the order, it defeats the strategy of getting the primary pitcher through 15 or 18 outs because he's going to inevitably have to face them three times in 5+ or 6 IP.

If I can gull the opposing manager into putting his best 3 hitters at 7-8-9. while my stud Opener carves through the weaker hitters at the top of his modified lineup in inning 1, thus also giving the most PA in the game to those guys as the game progresses, I consider that a strategic win.

 

Extra sweet will be the occasional game when my eventual pitchers in inning 8 and 9 gets exactly the first 6 batters in the lineup out, leaving #7 langushing in the on-deck circle at game's end. Because, you know, those 6 other guys soaked up the extra PA.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

Inevitable counter-ordinal lineup moves made by the opponent? (ie- some of the best hitters buried deep down-lineup to attack the weaker "RP" late in the 2nd inning or to greet the "Primary" upon his entrance)

isnt that the ultimate goal? To entice your opponent to reduce the number of plate appearances of their best hitters?

[Linus]

 

 

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.

So in other words if you have good bullpen arms this will work. If you don’t it doesn’t matter. That’s the boat the twins are in

[mngopherguy]

 

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

 

Yet so many people buy into moneyball.

[mngopherguy]

 

Again, starting a reliever for an inning doesn't change this fact.  You can remove the starter before the top of the order comes around for the third time without losing your tactical flexibility.  

 

There is zero gain, there is a loss in flexability, and the opposing manager can plan around it ahead of time.  It's a gimmick, that will be exposed.  

[notoriousgod71]

https://sports.yahoo.com/bullpen-approach-reportedly-causing-problems-clubhouse-010206371.html

[Vanimal46]

https://sports.yahoo.com/bullpen-approach-reportedly-causing-problems-clubhouse-010206371.html

Good read. We're throwing out the human element of baseball because analytics tells us so.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Inevitable counter-ordinal lineup moves made by the opponent? (ie- some of the best hitters buried deep down-lineup to attack the weaker "RP" late in the 2nd inning or to greet  the "Primary" upon his entrance)

The defense still wins in that situation. You've spread your best hitters through the lineup instead of stacking them together and later in the game still allows for favorable matchups.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

So in other words if you have good bullpen arms this will work. If you don’t it doesn’t matter. That’s the boat the twins are in

If there was a special trick that allowed teams to hide bad pitchers, someone would have figured it out 80 years ago.

[diehardtwinsfan]

 

The down side is that you may use your lights out 1 inning guy in the first inning in a situation where he is not needed...in the event of a rout by either team. You just can't predict  a rout in the 1st inning. Whereas if you use your lights out guy at the end of a game, you get to choose not to use him in a rout or save your best reliever for a close game tomorrow night.

 

The real problem is having 1 lights out reliever. 

 

I have no problems with the opener concept personally... but I don't think it's going to work unless you have a really good pen. I like the idea behind it, especially if the opener is a different type of pitcher than the starter following. But we would need an early to mid 2000s pen to pull that off. We don't have that.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

You Can't be talking about a team we know here, surely?

No, that was actually a jab at the baseball "purists" who enjoyed watching .600 OPS players litter the bottom of most MLB lineups through the 70s and early 80s.

 

But damn, could those guys bunt.

[bobs]

 

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. 

100% agree.  I get the idea that a starter only faces best part of an order twice....I just don't see what the difference is between a) letting a Stewart/Little/Mejia start and face a lineup twice and then go to the 'pen and using an "opener".

One of the things that frustrates me about baseball today, is it seems like pitchers are being programmed to go 5 innings.  That makes it awfully tough on a bullpen, esp one that doesn't have the depth of say a Houston.

[bobs]

 

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

No, no.  I'm talking more the idea that such a high pct of at bats end in walk, K or HR.  I hate how baseball is removing so much strategy.  No bunting.  No stealing.  No hit and run.  It think it's a better game to watch with those things than without.  I have much less of an issue with the "opener" concept than I do with the radical change if offensive approach.

[bobs]

 

I think the concept is that if you take an average starter and let him start the second or third inning, said starter is likely to last because he won't have a long first facing the heart of the theother team's order. Theoretically,  having a Stewart start in the second inning makes it much more likely that he goes five or six innings than if you start him in the first inning and he blows 25 pitches just to get through the first three or four guys. I think this is kind of funky and don't really like it, but I do see the theoretical underpinnings and see how it could work if you had an "Opener" who could give you a solid first inning or ideally two quality innings at the start of the game.

Very true on the pitch count.  It's a good point.  Is that what proponents of the "opener" are using or is just the fact that you don't start by facing the top 4-5 hitters in a lineup?  I don't know.  I'm just asking.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Yet so many people buy into moneyball.

 

Including pretty much ever team in teh league.......every single one.

[Doomtints]

 

I'm new to all this so I invite others to correct me, but my understanding is that you start with a good reliever who is likely to go through the first 3-5 hitters in a lineup and not give up any runs. You then go to your "starter" or "primary pitcher" who then goes at least twice through the lineup and whose third time through the other team's lineup starts with the 4th through 6th hitter rather than the top 3. The idea is you get more length out of an average starter that way because they face lesser hitters as they tire and the other team understands how they're being attacked. In a perfect world, your opener is more likelly to give you a clean first inning and your primary pitcher is then much more likley to go at least 5 or 6 innings because he isn't facing the 1 through 3 hitters that third time where stats say average starters run into trouble. In essence your taking that 7th or 8th inning guy, moving him to the 1st inning, and then getting 5-6 from the primary pitcher. 

 

This all seeems like a way to hide the fact that a team might not have 5 guys that can reliably start. That's why Tampa Bay did it. I think every team would prefer to have 5 reliable starters but not many do.  The Twins don't now and might not next year so they're trying this out to see if it can be alternative way to get by with guys like Stewart and Littel in that 5th spot. The real problem with this approach may be that the Twins don't have enough strong relievers to start one and have 1 or 2 left for the 7th through 9th innings.  

 

Yes, those are the theories. I haven't seen any data to back up the theories. Whatever data exists may or may not be compelling. I suspect it isn't, because if it were you can bet more people would be throwing the data out there.

 

To me, this looks like nothing more than a way to pad the W stat for your "starters" by not having them actually start. Why? A "starter" would no longer need to go 5 innings to get the win, they could pitch for 1 inning and get the win. Managers can pull the starter at any moment and not feel the pressure to keep them in for 5 innings -- potentially padding other stats and not just the W stat. This increases the market value of your starters should you wish to trade them for better starters later on. This concept is a trick to raise the market value of your team, not to win more baseball games.

 

Using relief assets when you need them rather than to start a game is a solid approach and will ultimately continue to be the status quo. The starter concept tries to solve a problem on the baseball field that doesn't exist. Sorry, Twins, but you misunderstood why the Rays are doing this. Using a fresh arm when the starter runs out of gas is infinitely the approach more likely to win a baseball game, not trying to delay the inevitable by having the starter come in later.

[mlhouse]

 

But then you don't see hitters 4-9 three times from the pitcher that pitches the most innings.....

 

Assuming your starter gives up 1 hit....your next pitcher can face the bottom 2/3 of the lineup three times, but the top third only 2 times......

 

Assuming.....  and assuming that is what you want to do.

 

Although there are things major league managers do that are wrong, like batting their best hitter 3rd in the lineup (he should hit 4th), and perhaps in their use of "closers",  using a starting pitcher is not one of them.

 

I think a better pitching strategy is to use multiple pitchers, each throwing 2-3 innings but committing to these inflexible approaches is virtually impossible given the limited pitchers on a staff.  Two to three innings is too much, in most cases, to bring them back without at least a day or two of rest.  There aren't many Mike Marshalls out there, a guy who once threw over 200 innings in relief spanning 106 appearances, and even as a 36 year old with the Twins appeared in 90 games and more than 140 innings of relief.  

 

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

Including pretty much ever team in teh league.......every single one.

Yep, and every team implements it differently... because “moneyball” has no actual definition.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Yes, those are the theories. I haven't seen any data to back up the theories. Whatever data exists may or may not be compelling. I suspect it isn't, because if it were you can bet more people would be throwing the data out there.

 

To me, this looks like nothing more than a way to pad the W stat for your "starters" by not having them actually start. Why? A "starter" would no longer need to go 5 innings to get the win, they could pitch for 1 inning and get the win. Managers can pull the starter at any moment and not feel the pressure to keep them in for 5 innings -- potentially padding other stats and not just the W stat. This increases the market value of your starters should you wish to trade them for better starters later on. This concept is a trick to raise the market value of your team, not to win more baseball games.

 

Using relief assets when you need them rather than to start a game is a solid approach and will ultimately continue to be the status quo. The starter concept tries to solve a problem on the baseball field that doesn't exist. Sorry, Twins, but you misunderstood why the Rays are doing this. Using a fresh arm when the starter runs out of gas is infinitely the approach more likely to win a baseball game, not trying to delay the inevitable by having the starter come in later.

 

Pad the win stat? Does any team even believe in that stat?

 

I disagree.......

 

It makes a ton of sense to have your starter get an extra inning, hopefully, by facing a different set of batters a third time. Imagine how much more valuable Mejia is if he goes 6 innings instead of 5, for example. That's the theory.....which sounds to me like it makes sense. 

 

The third time thru the order penalty is not about "fresh" arm, by the way, it's about seeing the pitcher. The studies are out there on that.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Assuming.....  and assuming that is what you want to do.

 

Although there are things major league managers do that are wrong, like batting their best hitter 3rd in the lineup (he should hit 4th), and perhaps in their use of "closers",  using a starting pitcher is not one of them.

 

I think a better pitching strategy is to use multiple pitchers, each throwing 2-3 innings but committing to these inflexible approaches is virtually impossible given the limited pitchers on a staff.  Two to three innings is too much, in most cases, to bring them back without at least a day or two of rest.  There aren't many Mike Marshalls out there, a guy who once threw over 200 innings in relief spanning 106 appearances, and even as a 36 year old with the Twins appeared in 90 games and more than 140 innings of relief.  

 

Well, I argued the Twins should do what you propose several years ago.....see how mediocre AAAA pitchers do in 2-3 inning performances, mixed and matched, every 3 days or so.....send them to AAA after a month to pitch a bit less, rotate guys in and out of Rochester.....

 

Instead, they pitched bad starters, because that's what teams are supposed to do.....