Mailbag: Extension-Palooza, Infield Log Jam, New Spring Format

I agree with this statement. You are largely just changing the order in which you use your pitchers. The part I don't agree with is that you can change a 5 inning pitcher into a 6 inning pitcher by having him start his outing in the 2nd inning instead of the first. Nothing in the stats suggest that really happened for Tampa Bay. The hundred pitch limit is still there for one thing.

The other is for the primary to get through thru the 7th inning (His 6th inning of pitching) he is going to, more than not, end up facing the top of the order a 3rd time anyway. Unless the opener only faces 3 batters, the odds get pretty high that the primary will face the top of order a 3rd time in order to get through the 7th inning.

I believe that the opener strategy pretty near guarantees you will use 5 pitchers unless one of your pitchers besides the primary, goes multiple innings. Still, that probably happens most times with your 4th and 5th starters anyway.

I don't really know if the opener is a bad strategy. I suspect that having good enough starters that you didn't have to consider using the opener would be a better situation. Getting to that point should be a goal for the Twins.

i Agree with everything you typed. 

I believe the opener concept is just a change in sequencing... There are times to do it and times not to do it just like there are times to bunt and times that you shouldn't.

The only nitpick I have is that I don't believe it guarantees the use of 4 or 5 pitchers... I believe it guarantees nothing.  I look at it like a new type of sand wedge for getting out of a bunker. It just might help but in the wrong hands... there is still a possibility that you are going to be swinging again from the sand. 

When I look at Tampa Bay... the opener is just a distraction from what really happened last summer with them. They found a way to survive without traditional starters for the overwhelming majority of the season. They went a month with only Blake Snell as a traditional starter. They traded Chris Archer without missing a beat. They found a new (and exciting) way to get more innings out of relievers who were getting the job done and get less innings from those filler starters that were killing every other team in baseball. 

It no longer matters to me if Jose Berrios (or any of our pitchers) starts in the 1st inning or the 2nd inning.

I've gone rogue. The only thing that matters to me is: How many innings did you throw? Were those innings effective? Give the innings to those who are effective. Don't care if they are starters or relievers. This is what Tampa did. The opener just became a distracted discussion point. The subject should be bull-penning. 

If Taylor Rogers is hanging zeroes... Get him more innings to hang those zeroes. I believe it is decades old nonsense to follow some prehistoric formula that Rogers can only throw an inning at a time. While the manager forces Odorizzi to throw as many as humanly possible regardless if he is consistently reduced to ashes after pitch 75. That is strict adherence to a decade old system and the decade old system is costing you wins. 

You are correct the best answer is to find starters 1-5 that are lights out. Because 5 guys like that will hang zeroes over and over again... but very few teams... if any... are finding 5 guys like that and the result is paying Ricky Nolasco 48 million. 

How do you accomplish what I'm asking... Lengthen out everyone who doesn't need to be reduced because they are terrible. The 6 out save is not an impossible ask. The 9 out save isn't either.

Just stop trying to get 6 innings out of a guy with a 5 plus ERA and get bullpen serious. Romero can work out of the bullpen and he doesn't have to be reduced to 1 inning at a time unless he consistently gets beat up in his 2nd inning of work. He can throw 140 innings out of the bullpen and stay stretched out for a traditional starter role in the future. 

Great Post Jim... I agree with you... But I'm guessing I may have lost you a little with my extended comments. 

Only if you think the opener movement isn't at least a contributing factor to the growing momentum for carrying more pitchers on the active roster...and, in fact, the growing momentum to expand active rosters.

 

The theory aside, manager's are going to manage (or at least want to) the back end of games the same way they always have.  When a manager is sitting in the sixth inning tied or down by one in a low scoring game, he's not going to care that the 'follower' should have no problem getting through the sixth. At the very least, it's another reason pushing organizations to agree to roster expansion in the next CBA.

 

And once that extra roster spot comes along, what do you think teams that have managed to acquire defensively-flexible players will do with it?

 

So, am I afraid of it? No...just some of the potential long-term consequences.

I believe the data that clearly states that pitchers are less effective the third time through the order will lead to 13 man staffs. I believe the increased successful use of the bullpen is leading to the 13 man staffs. I don't believe the opener has anything to do with that because that is just sequencing. 

Some Managers are going to want to manage the back end of games like it was still 1984 but the super bullpen has now been created. Boone has a stable of arms to help him manage the back end of games. He might want to lock into Chapman for the 9th and Betances for the 8th out of some hard pulling gravitational force of consistency or contract negotiations based upon saves... BUT... BUT... He no longer has to. The model has been shattered. 

If Kevin Cash had Boone's bullpen... He might let Chapman throw the 7th through 9th in a one run game against a left heavy lineup... knowing that Chapman can rest a day or two afterwards with Ottovino, Britton, Green, Kahnle available to throw the 9th or 8th tomorrow. Cash might bring Chapman into the game in the 5th innings with the bases loaded and one out. 

The extra roster spot that will be created? I haven't thought about it.Probably won't until it happens. 

I think teams will be going to 13 man pitching staff for the majority of the season out of necessary. They might not start with 13... but they will end up there and the 12 positions players are going to need extra gloves for the extra positions... but regardless if the pitching staffs need to be 13 or 12... I still believe that players should have extra gloves regardless.   

Flexibility is not only necessary... It's helpful as safety nets from injury and poor performance across the diamond.  

But my point is not that the opener can't be 'effective' or that maxing the number of pitchers you can carry isn't 'smart'.

 

My point is, I'm not super excited about innovations that will lead to making it harder to string hits and score runs. And that's what is going on with openers and using more and more pitchers in smarter ways. When the rubber was placed at 60-6 in the late 1800's and then set at the current height in 1968, I don't think anyone had in mind 5, 6, 7 pitchers per game throwing alternately from the right and left, and max-efforting every single pitch.

 

Should the opener concept be somehow illegal? I wouldn't even try to go there. But where it gets scary to me is with roster expansion. When 13 pitchers is good, 14 is better. Roster expansion has already come up as a likely topic for the next CBA. (And what about the pace-of-play challenges?). Where does it end? I'm looking for changes that limits/disincents the use of large numbers of pitchers and promotes people getting on base with contact.

Ahh... Well... No telling what the future holds . A 26 man roster will be a political football for both sides to fire out of cannon at each other. 

Last CBA... The Owners were willing to go to 26 if the players would allow a cap of 28 on September Rosters. They couldn't agree, tabled it and this next go round... I don't think anyone will be agreeable. 

I think the GM's will have to figure out how to make the constraints of a 25 man roster work for the time being. 

Personally... as I stated earlier... I believe the answer is too have your good relievers go longer instead of the LOOGY one batter at a time approach.