I’m fine with letting this experiment run its course to the end of this season, but I just think it’s not ... right ... to all of a sudden make your relievers starters. While I know that all relievers were basically failed starters, they are relievers now. They are accustomed, both physically and mentally, to relieve, not start. Yes, let’s just drop the ‘opener’ name; you are asking these relief pitchers to start. It doesn’t matter if it’s only an inning or two. And doesn’t the ‘need’ for this strategy send a message to your actual starters, that they aren’t good enough to get through Innings like they should? Or, if you need an ‘opener’, shouldn’t that be an indication to you that maybe you need better starting pitching? Or is this baseball evolving to have entire games pitched by relievers? Or maybe this is the strategy trying to compete when you don’t have a Kershaw or a Verlander? Or maybe I just don’t fully grasp the concept? (Which, to be honest, is probably the most likely.) So many questions which is why I am uncomfortably okay with riding out this experiment.