Opener strategy

[thedddd]

Madison Bumgarner not a fan of opener strategy

I get it for teams with horrible starting pitching that is the only reason to deploy this. Protecting health is nonsense because you basically making a pitcher who is a starter into a reliever.

 

[JohnU]

It's a trendy thing that the ESPN scribes have turned into a strategy. If a team is building its pitching staff around this circus act, they need to look at the history of baseball. The 'opener' hasn't been successful at any level. It's been an event that, not unlike the blind squirrel, occasionally looks good. It's time the players had a say in some of this Hot Stove horse crap. Six- or seven-man rotations are for teams that plan to lose 106 games.

 

[Chewbaccer]

It wouldn't be a good idea for the Braves. Our middle relievers are trash and I'd rather have any starter going the first inning, and the good relieves we do have, I want them used when the game is on the line.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

I think the strategy is actually pretty genius...

what is the only inning where you can actually prepare for knowing who will be hitting?? Thats right the first inning...

also, why would a SP not like this strategy?? now he can go 4 innings and still get the win!!!

 

[DragonfromTO]

It's a trendy thing that the ESPN scribes have turned into a strategy. If a team is building its pitching staff around this circus act, they need to look at the history of baseball. The 'opener' hasn't been successful at any level. It's been an event that, not unlike the blind squirrel, occasionally looks good. It's time the players had a say in some of this Hot Stove horse crap. Six- or seven-man rotations are for teams that plan to lose 106 games.

Has it been used extensively then? I'm unaware of its history I guess. I'm also not including "tandem starters" in the minors and stuff like that where the primary goal of the strategy isn't "win more baseball games".

 

[DragonfromTO]

It wouldn't be a good idea for the Braves. Our middle relievers are trash and I'd rather have any starter going the first inning, and the good relieves we do have, I want them used when the game is on the line.

Yeah, but generally the guys that have been used as openers haven't been the best relievers in the pen and I don't think that's generally the point of the strategy/usage.

 

[JohnU]

Has it been used extensively then? I'm unaware of its history I guess. I'm also not including "tandem starters" in the minors and stuff like that where the primary goal of the strategy isn't "win more baseball games".

I don't know how extensively it has been used in affiliated ball. It's more common in the indy leagues, which isn't much of a yardstick. Piggybacking isn't as rare and normally happens after the Sept. callups. That's giving 3 guys a chance to go 3 innings.

I also don't know how often it needs to be used before it can approach any real evaluation.

In any case, starting a game with a reliever is just starting a game with a reliever. In what way does the competitive team benefit? I think the principle of the strategy ought be defined by the pitchers, not the stats gurus.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

I don't know how extensively it has been used in affiliated ball. It's more common in the indy leagues, which isn't much of a yardstick. Piggybacking isn't as rare and normally happens after the Sept. callups. That's giving 3 guys a chance to go 3 innings.

I also don't know how often it needs to be used before it can approach any real evaluation.

In any case, starting a game with a reliever is just starting a game with a reliever. In what way does the competitive team benefit? I think the principle of the strategy ought be defined by the pitchers, not the stats gurus.

simply because it maximizes your relievers chances of success...

especially in modern baseball where no pitcher goes more than 6 innings...

Of course though, you never do it with your better starters, as they might go more than 7 on any given game...

 

[TKOSpikes]

It's a ridiculous notion. It will create more injuries, not less.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

It's a ridiculous notion. It will create more injuries, not less.

how so??

 

[TKOSpikes]

how so??

Less recovery time. More erratic. Weakens the bullpen.

It's fine for Little League. But still less efficient. I could pitch six innings per week (in two 6 inning games per week). Usually just pitched one game.

Sporadically throwing your arm out on a time clock, as opposed to a production clock is not good for the psyche, preparation, or health.

Take a closer. Why do closers rarely pitch three days in a row? A maximum effort is needed on every pitch. A 3 inning "opener" doesn't have that luxury. But they'll try...and they'll be injured.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Less recovery time. More erratic. Weakens the bullpen.

It's fine for Little League. But still less efficient. I could pitch six innings per week (in two 6 inning games per week). Usually just pitched one game.

Sporadically throwing your arm out on a time clock, as opposed to a production clock is not good for the psyche, preparation, or health.

Take a closer. Why do closers rarely pitch three days in a row? A maximum effort is needed on every pitch. A 3 inning "opener" doesn't have that luxury. But they'll try...and they'll be injured.

I don't agree with any of your points..

First off, this strategy is not meant to be an every game strategy... If it is then sure, it is awful... I see it to be like how the Rays used it last year... Maybe even go further and let the opener pitch longer...

I actually like the strategy, if used less no more than twice a week...

it maximizes the chances for the "opener" to succeed since you actually know who he will face... first inning is the easiest inning to prepare for... especially if a team starts off their offense heavily on one side of the bat...

No offense will pinch hit before the 4th inning... so a team wont mess with their lineup too much JUST FOR AN OPENER...


and the pitcher who is meant to be the SP(the pitcher that pitches the bulk of the game) is going to pitch to enough batters to see them at least 2 times, does it matter who they start with?? and do you think the "SP" who starts in the 2nd or third has any disadvantage than one who starts in the beginning of the game?? I honestly don't think that matters...

 

[JohnU]

simply because it maximizes your relievers chances of success...

especially in modern baseball where no pitcher goes more than 6 innings...

Of course though, you never do it with your better starters, as they might go more than 7 on any given game...

If it's on the list of options when all else looks impractical, then it's not a strategy but simply an opportunity for a manager to get past an immediate problem. Such as, the guy who is supposed to start today has a blister and nobody else is warmed up.
That's comparable to what the Reds did in G. 1 of the 2012 series when Cueto pulled an oblique.
So in that respect, the 'opener' principle isn't a thing. The idea that it would catch on and become an established strategy is what bothers me, because I don't think any real baseball people believe that. The keyboard nerds tend to promote this sort of thing because the data suggest it. Any pitcher should be able to get 3 hitters out.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

If it's on the list of options when all else looks impractical, then it's not a strategy but simply an opportunity for a manager to get past an immediate problem. Such as, the guy who is supposed to start today has a blister and nobody else is warmed up.
That's comparable to what the Reds did in G. 1 of the 2012 series when Cueto pulled an oblique.
So in that respect, the 'opener' principle isn't a thing. The idea that it would catch on and become an established strategy is what bothers me, because I don't think any real baseball people believe that. The keyboard nerds tend to promote this sort of thing because the data suggest it. Any pitcher should be able to get 3 hitters out.

the problem with that is when a new thing comes the wrong teams try it... football example.. Look at the Wild Cat offense... When The dolphins used it, they had the perfect team to do it... and found success, but when other teams copied, the wrong teams with the wrong fit tried and failed... and then it was assumed that the Wild cat was a failed formation...

the "opener" strategy will fail EVERY time a pitcher goes 6 or more innings... and seem like it fails any time the "opener" starts off poorly...

 

[JohnU]

the problem with that is when a new thing comes the wrong teams try it... football example.. Look at the Wild Cat offense... When The dolphins used it, they had the perfect team to do it... and found success, but when other teams copied, the wrong teams with the wrong fit tried and failed... and then it was assumed that the Wild cat was a failed formation...

the "opener" strategy will fail EVERY time a pitcher goes 6 or more innings... and seem like it fails any time the "opener" starts off poorly...

Yeah, sort of like the first time an aeroplane crashed ... see, we warned you!
But if the 'opener' is a strategy, I will need to see if rosters are constructed to make the most use of it. If it's just, well our starter has a dead shoulder today, here Chico, go out and get me 3 hitters ...

Still, I don't think anybody is claiming that's what it is.


But not unlike any other sports strategy, I agree, you can't force a square peg into a round hole. I guess my issue with it is, there is a growing number of people who think baseball needs to be re-invented.

To bored baseball fans, anything that's a Kewpie doll with big boobs is preferable to flat-chested Miss Maypo in the library. Only one of them actually gets any work done.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Yeah, sort of like the first time an aeroplane crashed ... see, we warned you!
But if the 'opener' is a strategy, I will need to see if rosters are constructed to make the most use of it. If it's just, well our starter has a dead shoulder today, here Chico, go out and get me 3 hitters ...

Still, I don't think anybody is claiming that's what it is.


But not unlike any other sports strategy, I agree, you can't force a square peg into a round hole. I guess my issue with it is, there is a growing number of people who think baseball needs to be re-invented.

To bored baseball fans, anything that's a Kewpie doll with big boobs is preferable to flat-chested Miss Maypo in the library. Only one of them actually gets any work done.

I mean, if you have a legitimate 5 SP, then you are not going to want to use this strategy anyway... its really only for teams that are to start weak options...

 

[VikingFan2k2]

I think the strategy is actually pretty genius...

what is the only inning where you can actually prepare for knowing who will be hitting?? Thats right the first inning...

also, why would a SP not like this strategy?? now he can go 4 innings and still get the win!!!

No starting pitcher worth a shit would be happy going 4 innings.

 

[TKOSpikes]

I don't agree with any of your points..

First off, this strategy is not meant to be an every game strategy... If it is then sure, it is awful... I see it to be like how the Rays used it last year... Maybe even go further and let the opener pitch longer...

I actually like the strategy, if used less no more than twice a week...

it maximizes the chances for the "opener" to succeed since you actually know who he will face... first inning is the easiest inning to prepare for... especially if a team starts off their offense heavily on one side of the bat...

No offense will pinch hit before the 4th inning... so a team wont mess with their lineup too much JUST FOR AN OPENER...


and the pitcher who is meant to be the SP(the pitcher that pitches the bulk of the game) is going to pitch to enough batters to see them at least 2 times, does it matter who they start with?? and do you think the "SP" who starts in the 2nd or third has any disadvantage than one who starts in the beginning of the game?? I honestly don't think that matters...

If a pitcher is an "opener" it means he is not a good SP, therefore, as a manger, I don't care about my lineup...especially in the AL East vs Tampa.

 

[MilkSpiller22]

If a pitcher is an "opener" it means he is not a good SP, therefore, as a manger, I don't care about my lineup...especially in the AL East vs Tampa.

and that's the point... If you can get an advantage for your pitching staff that day that you have a weak starter, then why wouldn't ya???

 

[TKOSpikes]

and that's the point... If you can get an advantage for your pitching staff that day that you have a weak starter, then why wouldn't ya???

It's not an advantage.

Pitching is not a sprint. Erratic rotations kills the rest of the bullpen, because you have to rely on limits, not production...and if you try to rely on production, your limits go to fuck, and your strategy implodes...hence you risk your bullpen.

And again....all for no advantage.
Most teams have four capable starters. The fifth can be managed. There is a "long man" in most bull pens.

This is creating a problem with no solution, for an at best, equal outcome.