Should the Twins Start Utilizing the Opener Strategy Again?

[Vanimal46]

The opener has been a forgotten strategy in recent years. Last time it was truly utilized was 2018, when we were trying to ease in Kohl Stewart, Stephen Gonsalves, and Aaron Slegers. 

The strategy seemed to help Gonsalves at the time (12.1 IP, 2 ER in 3 games after an opener vs. 11.68 ERA as starter), Stewart (20.1 IP 1.33 ERA after an opener vs. 6.33 ERA as starter), and Slegers (6.1 IP 2.84 ERA after an opener vs. 7.1 IP 7.36 ERA as starter). 

Perhaps we should start looking into this strategy again to ease Sands into MLB action, get Bundy to eat more efficient innings, and if Balazovic gets on track in AAA, easing him into the majors as well. 

Thoughts?

[wsnydes]

Interesting thought.  Kind of a pick your poison given the dearth of bullpen options, but the starter options aren't exactly ample either.  Definitely not the worst idea, and in some situations, might be the best.  

This would be easier if the pitching options got healthy too.

I'm also at a point where thinking outside the box a little like this makes a ton of sense.

End "verbal" thought process...

[Muppet]

Is that the strategy where a pitcher starts, gives up 6 or 7 runs in the first inning or two, then gives way to a tired AAA bullpen? I think they should stop that strategy. 

[jjswol]

Based on their starters performances I would say that the Twins have been using an opener in most of their games this season.

[Riverbrian]

John Lennon once said

Whatever gets you through the night... It's all right... It's all right. 

 

[TwinsDr2021]

1 hour ago, Vanimal46 said:

The opener has been a forgotten strategy in recent years. Last time it was truly utilized was 2018, when we were trying to ease in Kohl Stewart, Stephen Gonsalves, and Aaron Slegers. 

The strategy seemed to help Gonsalves at the time (12.1 IP, 2 ER in 3 games after an opener vs. 11.68 ERA as starter), Stewart (20.1 IP 1.33 ERA after an opener vs. 6.33 ERA as starter), and Slegers (6.1 IP 2.84 ERA after an opener vs. 7.1 IP 7.36 ERA as starter). 

Perhaps we should start looking into this strategy again to ease Sands into MLB action, get Bundy to eat more efficient innings, and if Balazovic gets on track in AAA, easing him into the majors as well. 

Thoughts?

I personally hate the strategy and don't want to watch it, but with that said I can't watch them on TV anyway, so if they do it occasionally for a few pitchers I am not against it.

[Craig Arko]

Maybe. I’d certainly prefer having Gray, Ryan, Ober, and Winder back as regular starters. 

[Linus]

It doesn’t matter if a crappy reliever pitches the first inning or the 6th they are still crappy. 

[KirbyDome89]

1 hour ago, wsnydes said:

Kind of a pick your poison given the dearth of bullpen options

The bullpen is hemorrhaging as it is, I'm not sure feeding them more innings is the answer. I think it's just cross our fingers for health and hope some of these guys find effectiveness. That's kinda the way this staff was built, changing course on the fly seems incredibly difficult. 

[jorgenswest]

41 minutes ago, Linus said:

It doesn’t matter if a crappy reliever pitches the first inning or the 6th they are still crappy. 

It might. They are guaranteed to face the best hitters in the first inning. In the 6th inning they might get the bottom half of the line up.

[ashbury]

49 minutes ago, Linus said:

It doesn’t matter if a crappy reliever pitches the first inning or the 6th they are still crappy. 

I think the Opener strategy involves using a non-crappy reliever.  Seems of limited applicability with this roster.

[wsnydes]

19 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

The bullpen is hemorrhaging as it is, I'm not sure feeding them more innings is the answer. I think it's just cross our fingers for health and hope some of these guys find effectiveness. That's kinda the way this staff was built, changing course on the fly seems incredibly difficult. 

A short start isn't much different from an opener situation though.  the order is just reversed.

I agree that they're not really set up for it right now with all of the injuries, but that's why I mentioned the health of the staff.  They lack a true long man, which makes it difficult carrying both Archer and Bundy, but if the starters get healthy, one or both could be used as a long man in an opener situation.

[LA Vikes Fan]

I don't think can opener strategy works very well for this team. The whole idea is to take a solid reliever who could give you two innings against the first six – eight hitters in the opposing team's Lineup but who you didn't want anybody to see twice, and then follow them with a "bulk" pitcher would hopefully give you three – five innings or 2 decent trips through the order starting at the back end instead of the front end in case it had to be more than 2 trips so the 7-9 guys get the 3rd hack.  It's kind of way to take a back end starter, combine him with a decent reliever, and make one good starter out of the two of them. To make it work, you need a group of solid relievers so you can burn one for a couple days by pitching him 2 innings against the other team's best hitters, and a decent backend starter who can give you three to five innings, but can't seem to get anyone out that 3rd time through without getting torched.

This team doesn't really have that "bulk" kind of pitcher unless it's Bundy and they don't have a lot of solid relievers so using one has a starter leaves the bullpen exposed. I guess maybe that strategy could work if you started with Jax or even Cotton and then went to Sands but you run a big risk of burning two pitchers and looking for more help by the fifth inning. Also, then you don't have that reliever for back end work for a couple of days thereafter. I think it's a strategy for a team with real bullpen depth but a shallow starting rotation. I think you need that kind of pitching staff to make the opener strategy work and we just don't have the bullpen depth. When not injured we have the opposite – decent rotation depth but a shallow bullpen. Bottom line,  I think with this team really needs is Ryan, Gray, and Winder/Ober back in the rotation. 

[Vanimal46]

2 minutes ago, ashbury said:

I think the Opener strategy involves using a non-crappy reliever.  Seems of limited applicability with this roster.

The Twins used a plethora of relievers as the opener in 2018. Other teams that utilized it didn’t use their best arms either. 

Gabriel Moya - 6 opener starts 7 IP 3.86 ERA vs. 4.91 ERA as traditional reliever. 

Zach Littell - 2 opener starts 7 IP 10.29 ERA (ouch)

Tyler Duffey and Trevor May had 1 opener start. And the original opener was Sergio Romo for the Rays. 

[Rosterman]

Two ways it works. If the opener can get you thru the first 6-7 batters easily. Then it allows the "starter" to come in, and easily face the lower part of the order three times.

Of course, any STARTER SHOULD BE ABLE TO GO THRU THE ORDER THREE TIMES AT THE LEAST, IN OLD-TIME BASEBALL REALITY.  A starter should dominate and control the early innings, and start fooling the batter with a better mix of their stuff in the later innings.

Also, it allows the "real" starter to maybe get the win for their record, maybe by pitching as little as 4 innings. Are wins important come salary time?

 

The other thinking is that a starting pitcher has a favorite routine that they have done for years and years, compared to a bullpen routine. Does the "starter" start the game, tossing in the bullpen while someone does the work of starting the game? Does it break routine to do your warmup and throwing, then go sit on the bench ready to start the game?

Yes, basically ALL the Twins starting arms have been starters. Is Cole Sands better pitching innings 1-3, or can he be more effective pitching innings 3-5. Can he get into the 6th? Do you push to the 7th?

Also, the OPENER was a crazy was for a team to start a lefty against a line-up set for a left-handed pitcher and change to a righty the next inning.

Seriously, you have to trust your starter to throw their 100 measley pitches these days and they should be able to pitch more than four innings 90% of the time.

[Vanimal46]

The Rays still use this strategy to this day it appears via their B-Ref page. Old friend Matt Wisler has 3 opener starts for example. They utilized it heavily last year on their way to 100 wins… Especially after Glasnow was lost for the season. 

Ideally of course all of Ryan, Winder, Gray, and Ober are healthy and remain that way for the rest of the season. For now, and down the road when more injuries occur, the opener could work to get more efficient outings from Sands and Bundy. 

[USAFChief]

Seems awfully negative to me to question Twins strategy. 

[Vanimal46]

8 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

Seems awfully negative to me to question Twins strategy. 

Thanks for the zero added value troll post! 

[sdtwins37]

For Bundy starts yes, maybe Archer if he turns back into a pumpkin.  Three innings max for Bundy no matter what the score is or how he is pitching.  He goes south fast.

[KirbyDome89]

1 hour ago, wsnydes said:

A short start isn't much different from an opener situation though.  the order is just reversed.

I agree that they're not really set up for it right now with all of the injuries, but that's why I mentioned the health of the staff.  They lack a true long man, which makes it difficult carrying both Archer and Bundy, but if the starters get healthy, one or both could be used as a long man in an opener situation.

I agree, but I see short starts as part of the problem. 

I can't really argue with some of the awful starts turned in by the staff, it's like you said, pick your poison. If the FO feels going with an opener and spreading innings/trying to dictate matchups will be more effective I won't piss and moan, I just feel it's overexposing an already wobbly pen, and it'll impact usage beyond the games that deploy the opener. 

[wsnydes]

Just now, KirbyDome89 said:

I agree, but I see short starts as part of the problem. 

I can't really argue with some of the awful starts turned in by the staff, it's like you said, pick your poison. If the FO feels going with an opener and spreading innings/trying to dictate matchups will be more effective I won't piss and moan, I just feel it's overexposing an already wobbly pen, and it'll impact usage beyond the games that deploy the opener. 

I agree on the short starts thing, and that still kind of exists even with the opener if you're using an Archer or Bundy to piggyback the opener.  That 3 inning start just occurs one inning later, getting you to the 4th.

I'm not a fan of the opener concept, it's not "baseball" to me.  But, to me, it doesn't expose the bullpen more than it already would if the starter has a short start.  It just means that the guy that would have pitched that 4th inning is now pitching in the 1st inning instead.  Everything else stacks up behind that just as it would had the starter only gone 3 innings and that same reliever pitched the 4th in a conventional situation.  The bullpen still has to pitch 6 innings of the game either way.

[Richie the Rally Goat]

An opener with Archer or Bundy where they clearly get exposed the third time through the lineup, makes sense on the surface. I challenge this a bit due to a reliever is more effective after a start, because a fresh arm is more effective than a tired one. Why not just yank the starter before the third time through the lineup?

piggy backing archer or Bundy with a long reliever (like Sands, or each other) would be more effective in managing innings and effectiveness for the starters and the bullpen

[KirbyDome89]

25 minutes ago, wsnydes said:

I agree on the short starts thing, and that still kind of exists even with the opener if you're using an Archer or Bundy to piggyback the opener.  That 3 inning start just occurs one inning later, getting you to the 4th.

I'm not a fan of the opener concept, it's not "baseball" to me.  But, to me, it doesn't expose the bullpen more than it already would if the starter has a short start.  It just means that the guy that would have pitched that 4th inning is now pitching in the 1st inning instead.  Everything else stacks up behind that just as it would had the starter only gone 3 innings and that same reliever pitched the 4th in a conventional situation.  The bullpen still has to pitch 6 innings of the game either way.

The sequencing and everything else is irrelevant, you're right. I pause at planned 3 inning "starts." If the idea is to get Bundy or Archer through the bottom of the order, build momentum, and see how far they'll go then I'm totally on board. If we're only trying to get through 2-3 innings and not face hitters 1-4 more than once that's asking too much of the pen. 

Honestly if we're at the point that these guys need to be handled in such a way I'd rather just cut bait or move them into long relief roles and let some of the younger arms actually start games but that might be a different discussion altogether. 

[wsnydes]

2 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

The sequencing and everything else is irrelevant, you're right. I pause at planned 3 inning "starts." If the idea is to get Bundy or Archer through the bottom of the order, build momentum, and see how far they'll go then I'm totally on board. If we're only trying to get through 2-3 innings and not face hitters 1-4 more than once that's asking too much of the pen. 

Honestly if we're at the point that these guys need to be handled in such a way I'd rather just cut bait or move them into long relief roles and let some of the younger arms actually start games but that might be a different discussion altogether. 

I wasn't planning a 3 inning start, just using that as a reference to a short start.

I would agree that planning for a 3 inning start is silly in most scenarios.  If that's what the standard becomes, then a starter is really meaningless.

[LA Vikes Fan]

52 minutes ago, wsnydes said:

I agree on the short starts thing, and that still kind of exists even with the opener if you're using an Archer or Bundy to piggyback the opener.  That 3 inning start just occurs one inning later, getting you to the 4th.

I'm not a fan of the opener concept, it's not "baseball" to me.  But, to me, it doesn't expose the bullpen more than it already would if the starter has a short start.  It just means that the guy that would have pitched that 4th inning is now pitching in the 1st inning instead.  Everything else stacks up behind that just as it would had the starter only gone 3 innings and that same reliever pitched the 4th in a conventional situation.  The bullpen still has to pitch 6 innings of the game either way.

Except that's not the way you do it. You don't use a weaker middle reliver as an opener, you use one of your better 7th/8th inning guys. Remember, the opener is going to face the other team's best hitters at the front of the order and set the tone for the game. In order to make this work, you have to use seventh or eighth inning guy to start out and frankly, go more than just one inning. Most openers go two innings if possible. So that exposes your bullpen in two ways, it means that seventh or eighth inning guy isn't available later in a close game situation so you have to dip down one more guy, and by having him pitch more than one inning, he isn't available tomorrow or maybe even the next day. The opener strategy works but you have to have the people to do it. It's not the same as simply reversing the roles of the weak middle reliever and weak starter.

So, in short, it is a strategic change. Effectively you're using a later inning relievers the starter, followed by own of your weaker starters, hopefully followed by your late inning relievers were are now down one of their number. This strategy requires enough bullpen depth to still have two or three solid late inning relievers available after you burn one as your opener. That is one of the reasons most teams don't do this; they don't have the bullpen depth to pull it off. In my view, the Twins don't either.

 

[jorgenswest]

What is the profile of a successful opener?do the Twins have someone that meets this profile? Griffin Jax? Would that be the best way to use him?

[wsnydes]

13 minutes ago, LA VIkes Fan said:

Except that's not the way you do it. You don't use a weaker middle reliver as an opener, you use one of your better 7th/8th inning guys. Remember, the opener is going to face the other team's best hitters at the front of the order and set the tone for the game. In order to make this work, you have to use seventh or eighth inning guy to start out and frankly, go more than just one inning. Most openers go two innings if possible. So that exposes your bullpen in two ways, it means that seventh or eighth inning guy isn't available later in a close game situation so you have to dip down one more guy, and by having him pitch more than one inning, he isn't available tomorrow or maybe even the next day. The opener strategy works but you have to have the people to do it. It's not the same as simply reversing the roles of the weak middle reliever and weak starter.

So, in short, it is a strategic change. Effectively you're using a later inning relievers the starter, followed by own of your weaker starters, hopefully followed by your late inning relievers were are now down one of their number. This strategy requires enough bullpen depth to still have two or three solid late inning relievers available after you burn one as your opener. That is one of the reasons most teams don't do this; they don't have the bullpen depth to pull it off. In my view, the Twins don't either.

 

That's one way to do it, sure.  I don't think there's any written rules governing how it has to be done.

As for using your best arms, @Vanimal46has a post upthread about that.

[KirbyDome89]

38 minutes ago, wsnydes said:

I wasn't planning a 3 inning start, just using that as a reference to a short start.

I would agree that planning for a 3 inning start is silly in most scenarios.  If that's what the standard becomes, then a starter is really meaningless.

I think we're there with Bundy; Archer might be turning a corner.

I get the feeling whomever enters as the defacto starter does so with an innings or batter limit, but if it's just about sequencing then the results can't be much worse than they have been so roll the dice I guess. 

[Vanimal46]

29 minutes ago, jorgenswest said:

What is the profile of a successful opener?do the Twins have someone that meets this profile? Griffin Jax? Would that be the best way to use him?

That is a good question. I don’t think there’s any rhyme or reason; it’s simply based off the matchup. If, for example an opener was used in Bundy’s appearances, they could use a power arm like Megill since Bundy is more a soft tosser. Or go with a lefty first like Thielbar and switch to the righty Bundy.

[a-wan]

Right handed Duffey and his curveball would be interesting to open before left handed Smeltzer. If Duffey wasn't a dumpster fire right now.