What do you think of use of multi inning opener?

[4twinsJA]

Last year Twins starters rarely got past the 6th inning. Should they start using a multi inning opener more often. Bullpen used 3 innings most games, why not have an opener pitch the first 2-3 innings, then put in the "starter" for 5-6 innings. 

[ashbury]

(Longtime readers will have seen me make this same basic argument before.)

 

I think the best purpose of the Opener strategy is to use an above-average bullpen to cover for a weaker starter whose best quality is stamina, not stuff, and who is especially vulnerable against the top of the order. If your bullpen is mediocre, don't bother. It's not just the one guy you tap as Opener, it's the whole group, and the whole game plan.

 

Use the Opener to face the top of the order. So you want someone with top-notch stuff, but not the stamina to go long (otherwise he'd be your ace starter). Then turn it over to the nominal starter and let him go through the bottom of the order one more time than the top, and then eventually turn it over to the setup and closer guys for the 8th and 9th inning to close out the win, if all goes well. Obviously an over-simplification that ignores the characteristics of the opponent.

 

This is instead of hoping the starter can go through 6, and then deploying those same 3 guys for the 7th, 8th and 9th as is the current orthodoxy. The innings still add up the same, but you're increasing the chance of the 6-inning guy to make it that long, due to a bigger ratio of bottom of the lineup bats faced, by asking him to face the top of the lineup only twice.

 

To address your question at last, the guy with a live arm, who also can go three innings and not just one, might pitch clean innings to begin the game, in which case you really want to ask him to go four, so as to not dump the top of the lineup on the nominal starter. That makes it slightly awkward, if he runs out of gas at the wrong moment, giving the top of the lineup a softer target to hit against, negating the strategy. It can work, but it's harder to plan.

 

I do think that sorting out the pitchers on your roster by this view, and not simply as starters, long-relievers, and one-inning specialists, is the way pitching staffs will come to be constructed, if it's not being done that way already by some managers. Some games, you'd have a 1-inning stud start it, another game, you have, oh let's call him Jake Odorizzi and ask him to go only 4, and other games you start with Jose Berrios and ask him for 6+ as always.

 

Every time the top of the lineup comes around, in this view, the manager makes the judgement whether the current pitcher is still bringing top-notch stuff, and makes a change if necessary to bring in a very good arm at that point. If the pitcher is tiring at the middle of the order or below, bring in a lesser arm. Lather rinse repeat. You don't want to burn out your best arms, of course, so each game comes with its individual battle plan along these lines - maybe your two best relievers are unavailable this game, but you still have a pecking order among who is available, so plan accordingly. And the 6+ inning stud starter? He remains very valuable, to let those other good arms rest.

 

Analytically oriented websites like FanGraphs and baseball-reference.com have a concept of "Leverage Index", which usually involves number of outs, the base runners, and the current score. I think leverage needs to include where in the batting order, as well - it's obvious that managers must consider it. Get your best arms into the highest-leverage game situations more often, and you've improved your chances.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

I’m a fan of the “out getter” concept ala Milwaukee. This has also been brought up here as your 5th spot in the rotation being two swing man types to pitch the whole game and save your high leverage pitchers for other situations.