Article: Constructing Pitching Staff Will Become a Numbers Game

[Riverbrian]

 

While I understand what you're saying in theory, in practice you're just going to end up blowing out all your relievers. When you say "find out what he can handle," all that means to me is that you're going to keep using your best RPs until they break down. Which I guess is a viable approach if you're pushing down the stretch to make the playoffs or pushing in the playoffs to win the world series. But if you have RPs signed for multiple years, trying to increase their innings by 2x from one year to the next seems like a good way to blow out their arms, or end up with a bullpen full of relievers in August and September who are already cooked and won't be able to produce down the stretch (or in the playoffs, though realistically I don't think thats anything we need to worry about in 2019).

 

I do agree that you shouldn't keep trotting out garbage just because of sunk cost or because of some reputation that they've built from years past when they were a completely different pitcher, but going the opposite direction and hugely increasing pitchers innings because they're pitching well isn't a sustainable approach to me. Do I agree that the RP pitching well should get more innings than the Matt Belisles of our roster? Absolutely, but I don't think it is even remotely reasonable to assume you can just send most relievers out there for 100 or 120 innings every year and expect them to hold up over the long term. And likely many of them wouldn't hold up over the short term or are going to start losing velocity and all of a sudden they aren't your best relievers anymore because they're already worn down in July.

 

Maybe but that's going to be a maybe once you tear down the walls. It's an easy no under old methods. 

 

I'm not talking about one inning at a time for 120 games with all of the warmups that a relief pitcher goes through. 

 

Taylor Rogers could throw 3 to 4 innings at a time. In 2015 he threw 174 innings for Rochester plus 25 more in the Arizona Fall League. 

 

Last year Taylor Rogers averaged 0.94 Innings per appearance every 2.25 games. (72 Appearances)

Last Year Jose Berrios averaged 6.01 Innings per appearance every 5.06 games. (32 Appearances)

 

I believe there is middle ground between these numbers that can be achieved. I don't believe that there are only two approaches that can be considered regardless if this is how it's been done for decades. 

 

If you want Taylor Rogers to throw 120 innings and if he's one of our top pitchers I would like to see his innings increased.  

 

How bout (52 Appearances) Averaging 2.30 Innings per appearance every 3.11 Games. 

 

Ryan Yarbrough for the Rays Averaged 3.87 innings per appearance every 4.26 games. 

 

It's just outside the box thinking. Something that could in theory prevent a team from throwing a 5th starter with a 6.11 ERA to eat 160 innings up. 

 

Give your best pitchers more innings to throw. If they get people out... let them keep getting people out. 

 

 

 

 

 

[S.]

 

Maybe but that's going to be a maybe once you tear down the walls. It's an easy no under old methods. 

 

I'm not talking about one inning at a time for 120 games with all of the warmups that a relief pitcher goes through. 

 

Taylor Rogers could throw 3 to 4 innings at a time. In 2015 he threw 174 innings for Rochester plus 25 more in the Arizona Fall League. 

 

Last year Taylor Rogers averaged 0.94 Innings per appearance every 2.25 games. (72 Appearances)

Last Year Jose Berrios averaged 6.01 Innings per appearance every 5.06 games. (32 Appearances)

 

I believe there is middle ground between these numbers that can be achieved. I don't believe that there are only two approaches that can be considered regardless if this is how it's been done for decades. 

 

If you want Taylor Rogers to throw 120 innings and if he's one of our top pitchers I would like to see his innings increased.  

 

How bout (52 Appearances) Averaging 2.30 Innings per appearance every 3.11 Games. 

 

Ryan Yarbrough for the Rays Averaged 3.87 innings per appearance every 4.26 games. 

 

It's just outside the box thinking. Something that could in theory prevent a team from throwing a 5th starter with a 6.11 ERA to eat 160 innings up. 

 

Give your best pitchers more innings to throw. If they get people out... let them keep getting people out. 

In 2015 Taylor Rogers was a starter. 27 of his 28 Rochester appearances were starts. In your plan, he would absolutely 100% need to be stretched out as a starter. And how many days off is a RP going to require after pitching 3-4 innings? So now in your hypothetical situation, if Rogers is one of your best RPs, he is now only appearing ~2 times a week and you're left with your worse RPs for high leverage late inning situations for the other 3-5 games per week. If he isn't one of your best RPs and you're trotting him out there for 3-4 innings, then he is just a mop up man. 

 

I don't disagree with your general theory that your best pitchers should pitch more innings, but there is a limit to how many innings they can pitch before their results diminish. There is also a big reason a lot of failed starters become relievers: they can throw harder in short appearances, and they don't have to face the lineup more than once. So now you're taking guys who for many of them have not had success starting, but they have had success in the bullpen, and you're switching that up. Now they can't throw full gas because they need to face 2-3x more batters. If they're appearing for 2-3+ innings they're going to be facing the same hitters more than once. They now have all the problems they faced as a starter, but instead of having a fixed routine like a starter, they need to be ready to go at any time. They need to be able to jump in the middle of an inning, with runners on base, but they aren't going to be able to approach it the same way they previously were with their success as an RP because you're expecting them to stay out there 2-4x as long.

 

Could it potentially work? Sure, but you're asking for a lot out of a bullpen built up mostly by guys who weren't good enough at working multiple innings to stick as a starter for the Twins. Which is saying something.

[IndianaTwin]

Rotation

SP 1: Berrios

SP 2: Pineda***

SP 3: Odorizzi for 5 IP, followed by Romero*

SP 4: Gibson (He and Berrios are separated primarily to spread out the likelihood of a long start that preserves the bullpen.

SP 5: Clay Buchholz/Mejia** 

*I don't think you enter the season assuming that Romero can give you an entire season as a starter, but neither do I assume that Mejia or Pineda do that either. In any case, if they can get through the rotation 10 or so times with Romero throwing 3-4 innings every five games, he can quickly be stretched back out to be a starter and moved into the rotation as needed.

**As mentioned in another thread, I go after Clay Buchholz on an incentive-driven contract and use the Romero approach on Mejia.

***If Pineda gets hurt, slide Mejia into that spot and let Buchholz pitch as a "regular" starter.

 

Bullpen

RP 1: David Robertson (go 3/36 or more if it takes that) (Magill's probably my first cut)

RP 2: Joakim Soria (go 2/24 if it takes that) (Slegers is probably next. Or maybe Duffey)

RP 3: Addison Reed (see what I did there? Robertson, Soria, and Reed are laddered like a bunch of CDs. Hopefully they are worth more.)

RP 4: Trevor May

RP 5: Taylor Rogers

RP 6: Andrew Vazquez

RP 7: Whoever wins it in spring training, but Gabriel Moya is my first bet.

 

My three signings require three DFAs, so people smarter than me can pick three from among the guys highlighted, probably two pitchers and a hitter.

 

Am I going with 14 pitchers? No, but there's no way that 14 pitchers get through ST with no one going on the DL. And if they do, well, I guess Romero goes down to Rochester for a few (short) starts after all. And maybe Moya too, since there are five off-days in the first 15 days and there are three stacked pairs. By that time, someone is almost guaranteed to be hurt.

 

Rochester rotation

1: Gonsalves

2: Stewart 

3: Thorpe

4: Littell

5: Magill or Slegers if they survive the DFA. 

 

The assumption is that Gonsalves, Stewart and Thorpe will fight for the first "real" rotation opening after the seven guys named above. If it's a one-start deal, it could be one of the other three, unless one of them pitches himself in front of the other three.

 

Rochester bullpen

Everybody else, riding the shuttle and filling in DL spots as they deserve it.

 

 

 

[Jim Hahn]

Actually, this is interesting but it isn't new. It's pretty much what was done with many relief pitchers in the late 50's and 60's. During the 70's the number of appearances went up but the innings per appearance began to trend down. Certain rubber armed relievers thrived, but many were burnt out after a year or two by this kind of use. So gradually the one inning reliever became the norm.

 

The use you describe is possible, certainly it was done in the 60's. Part of the reason it worked then is because most teams had at least a couple of starters who could be relied on to throw complete games on a regular basis.

 

The problem today, is that you need relievers pretty much every game. It may indeed be possible to let someone like Rogers pitch 2 to 3 innings per appearance. Then of course he is unavailable for the next 2 games when he maybe needed, and then multi inning appearances may not be needed for another week. So then you use him for an inning or less and then he is not available for a multi inning appearance.

 

I don't know the total answer to this. There are too many max delivery guys who aren't very well suited to multi inning use. A guy like Rogers may very be more valuable as single inning high leverage guy where he gets a lot more appearances than as a multi inning guy. If you try to move him back and forth between those roles, you will almost certainly overuse him. Which may of happened with Andrew Miller.

 

Unless baseball expands rosters some of these ideas look better on paper rather than actual practice. With less innings being eaten up by starters, we are having more and more innings being covered by the 8 thru 13th best pitchers on a staff. Often the back end of the staff is being changed off with AAA pitchers, so now we are using our 14th and 15th best pitchers.

 

I think figuring out how to get more innings out of your best pitchers is a good thing. What I think though is that the best way to do that maybe figuring out how to get starters to maintain their effectiveness the 3rd time through the lineup. Also teaching them to be more efficient with their pitches would get them deeper in the games. Typically your starters are among your best pitchers. Making them more effective would help reduce the innings of your least effective relievers.

[wabene]

Three reasons.

1) MLB Players are habitual creatures and most players prefer to stay if it does not cost them financially.

2) Eliminates the risk associated with injury or poor performance.

3) He just witnessed Dozier's value plummet.

4. He's a Midwestern boy who can appreciate a fine Minnesota summer.

5. After working his way back from the abyss he gained some confidence and started to lead a little. He will appreciate the place where he came of age.

[Riverbrian]

 

In 2015 Taylor Rogers was a starter. 27 of his 28 Rochester appearances were starts. In your plan, he would absolutely 100% need to be stretched out as a starter. And how many days off is a RP going to require after pitching 3-4 innings? So now in your hypothetical situation, if Rogers is one of your best RPs, he is now only appearing ~2 times a week and you're left with your worse RPs for high leverage late inning situations for the other 3-5 games per week. If he isn't one of your best RPs and you're trotting him out there for 3-4 innings, then he is just a mop up man. 

 

I don't disagree with your general theory that your best pitchers should pitch more innings, but there is a limit to how many innings they can pitch before their results diminish. There is also a big reason a lot of failed starters become relievers: they can throw harder in short appearances, and they don't have to face the lineup more than once. So now you're taking guys who for many of them have not had success starting, but they have had success in the bullpen, and you're switching that up. Now they can't throw full gas because they need to face 2-3x more batters. If they're appearing for 2-3+ innings they're going to be facing the same hitters more than once. They now have all the problems they faced as a starter, but instead of having a fixed routine like a starter, they need to be ready to go at any time. They need to be able to jump in the middle of an inning, with runners on base, but they aren't going to be able to approach it the same way they previously were with their success as an RP because you're expecting them to stay out there 2-4x as long.

 

Could it potentially work? Sure, but you're asking for a lot out of a bullpen built up mostly by guys who weren't good enough at working multiple innings to stick as a starter for the Twins. Which is saying something.

 

1990's thinking. MLB has starters who are tossing 97 MPH or higher pretty routinely now.

 

We got Josh Hader throwing multiple innings out of the pen now. Not to mention the Drew Pomeranz, Brad Peacock, Collin McHugh, Kenta Maeda types who move from rotation to bullpen at the drop of a dime. 

 

Those walls are coming down. Albeit Slowly.  

 

Was Taylor Rogers a failed starter or did the Twins stubbornly try to force things with Tyler Duffey making 26 starts with a 6.43 ERA in 2016, Kyle Gibson 25 starts with a 5.07, Nolasco 21 starts with a 5.13, Berrios 14 starts with a 8.02 ERA, Tommy Milone, Hector Santiago, Phil Hughes and Pat Dean all with ERA's from 5.58 to 6.28 over 43 starts combined. 

 

That's 129 out of 162 starts or 720.1 Innings out of 1443 team total innings thrown by 7 starters who produced 469 earned runs totalling a combined ERA of 5.86. 

 

All of sudden Taylor's 3.98 in Rochester in 2015 doesn't look like a failed starter. He looks more like a guy who was brought up for a bullpen role and no matter how bad the starters crashed and burned... he remained in the bullpen role while the Twins just cycled through 5 starter rotation that has been done for decades. 

 

Finding 5 capable starters is perhaps the hardest thing a GM has to do and only 4 or 5 teams can honestly say that they found 5 in any given year and there is a big chunk of the remaining 25 teams that are lucky to have 2 of them. And then you factor in the injuries and you start needing 6 7 8 or 9 of them. And the data collected is getting larger every year and producing undeniable evidence that each turn through the order is becoming problematic and the Royals and the Indians were winning baseball games with a bullpen. 

 

Then the Rays come along last year and blow it all out of the water. 

 

One size does not fit all... If you say that they are all failed starters. We can never advance. They are labelled and done. I believe that there is middle ground between a starter going 6 and a reliever throwing 1 rinse and repeat. 

[S.]

Taylor Rogers 2015 numbers in Rochester were in Rochester, not in the majors. 3.98 ERA in AAA. Maybe he would've been a successful starter in the majors, but we don't know that and to this point we have nothing to show us if he can consistently pitch multiple innings at a time in the majors. Looking at his AAA numbers from 4 years ago doesn't mean anything to me now. It is going to be 4 years since he has started. In the last 3 seasons he hasn't broken 70 IP in a year. Why are we just assuming he can ramp that up so much and perform as well as he's been doing in the majors? I also don't buy that the Rays blew anything out of the water. In fact, I doubt having an RP start the game before a starter sticks long term for anything besides September rosters/fringe situations/playoff shenanigans, but that's a whole different discussion

 

I don't dispute that there is some middle ground and good RPs should be able to go multiple innings as needed. However, I absolutely do think taking your best RP and turning him into multi inning guy every outing is a waste. Sometimes you need your best guys out there for 1 out, sometimes you need them to get 6 outs. But if you want them available for as many potential high leverage situations as possible over the course of the season, you try to limit those 6 out appearances to when you really need them so they don't need extended days off and to ensure they're still going strong come August/September/October. I'd love to have a bullpen full of guys who were all as good at getting 1 out as they were at getting 6 and had the ability to go 100+ innings every season, but its an unrealistic ask. I'd love to just have a bullpen full of actually good RPs. That would probably be a good starting point.

 

Jim Hahn, a few posts up, did a great job of detailing a few concerns that I also share about the idea of that role. In general, I think there are plenty of times where you want your best RPs to have the fortitude to stay out there for more than 1 inning when you really need it, but I don't want to take my best guy and turn him into some role player who isn't available 2/3rds of the time because he's constantly coming off of 2 and 3 inning appearances. I feel like the much more sustainable option is to build a bullpen with a variety of good pitchers. If you want one of them to go get 6 outs here and there, then thats no big deal since you're not risking burning out arms with 100 IP by having a few guys make a handful of extended appearances over the course of the season. I also don't think this is an unrealistic ask because we sure as hell have plenty of money we could be spending on good RPs, but it remains to be seen if we will do so.

[Riverbrian]

 

Actually, this is interesting but it isn't new. It's pretty much what was done with many relief pitchers in the late 50's and 60's. During the 70's the number of appearances went up but the innings per appearance began to trend down. Certain rubber armed relievers thrived, but many were burnt out after a year or two by this kind of use. So gradually the one inning reliever became the norm.

The use you describe is possible, certainly it was done in the 60's. Part of the reason it worked then is because most teams had at least a couple of starters who could be relied on to throw complete games on a regular basis.

The problem today, is that you need relievers pretty much every game. It may indeed be possible to let someone like Rogers pitch 2 to 3 innings per appearance. Then of course he is unavailable for the next 2 games when he maybe needed, and then multi inning appearances may not be needed for another week. So then you use him for an inning or less and then he is not available for a multi inning appearance.

I don't know the total answer to this. There are too many max delivery guys who aren't very well suited to multi inning use. A guy like Rogers may very be more valuable as single inning high leverage guy where he gets a lot more appearances than as a multi inning guy. If you try to move him back and forth between those roles, you will almost certainly overuse him. Which may of happened with Andrew Miller.

Unless baseball expands rosters some of these ideas look better on paper rather than actual practice. With less innings being eaten up by starters, we are having more and more innings being covered by the 8 thru 13th best pitchers on a staff. Often the back end of the staff is being changed off with AAA pitchers, so now we are using our 14th and 15th best pitchers.

I think figuring out how to get more innings out of your best pitchers is a good thing. What I think though is that the best way to do that maybe figuring out how to get starters to maintain their effectiveness the 3rd time through the lineup. Also teaching them to be more efficient with their pitches would get them deeper in the games. Typically your starters are among your best pitchers. Making them more effective would help reduce the innings of your least effective relievers.

 

Great Post

 

Bullpen guys are easier to acquire at a lower price. Get bullpen serious and go get some guys. 

 

If we are overflowing with starters and we are... the extra's can be placed in the pen and be 3 inning guys like Rogers. 

 

All you got to do is think differently. What's the proper amount of rest for a 3 innings stint and 1 inning stint... If Berrios goes 3 innings... does he have to wait all the way through the rotation like he just threw 8 innings? 

 

You can see how robotic it has been. And I think this is something that can be done without question. Maybe Rogers is the right guy or the wrong guy but we got stop living and dying with a rotation and start figuring out how to get the ball in the hands of our best pitchers for more innings. 

 

Our best pitchers should be called "Innings Eaters" not the guy with an ERA in the High 4.00's who throws ground balls. 

[Riverbrian]

 

Taylor Rogers 2015 numbers in Rochester were in Rochester, not in the majors. 3.98 ERA in AAA. Maybe he would've been a successful starter in the majors, but we don't know that and to this point we have nothing to show us if he can consistently pitch multiple innings at a time in the majors. Looking at his AAA numbers from 4 years ago doesn't mean anything to me now. It is going to be 4 years since he has started. In the last 3 seasons he hasn't broken 70 IP in a year. Why are we just assuming he can ramp that up so much and perform as well as he's been doing in the majors? I also don't buy that the Rays blew anything out of the water. In fact, I doubt having an RP start the game before a starter sticks long term for anything besides September rosters/fringe situations/playoff shenanigans, but that's a whole different discussion

 

I don't dispute that there is some middle ground and good RPs should be able to go multiple innings as needed. However, I absolutely do think taking your best RP and turning him into multi inning guy every outing is a waste. Sometimes you need your best guys out there for 1 out, sometimes you need them to get 6 outs. But if you want them available for as many potential high leverage situations as possible over the course of the season, you try to limit those 6 out appearances to when you really need them so they don't need extended days off and to ensure they're still going strong come August/September/October. I'd love to have a bullpen full of guys who were all as good at getting 1 out as they were at getting 6 and had the ability to go 100+ innings every season, but its an unrealistic ask. I'd love to just have a bullpen full of actually good RPs. That would probably be a good starting point.

 

Jim Hahn, a few posts up, did a great job of detailing a few concerns that I also share about the idea of that role. In general, I think there are plenty of times where you want your best RPs to have the fortitude to stay out there for more than 1 inning when you really need it, but I don't want to take my best guy and turn him into some role player who isn't available 2/3rds of the time because he's constantly coming off of 2 and 3 inning appearances. I feel like the much more sustainable option is to build a bullpen with a variety of good pitchers. If you want one of them to go get 6 outs here and there, then thats no big deal since you're not risking burning out arms with 100 IP by having a few guys make a handful of extended appearances over the course of the season. I also don't think this is an unrealistic ask because we sure as hell have plenty of money we could be spending on good RPs, but it remains to be seen if we will do so.

 

Please don't make me spend hours researching the many examples of players who produced better numbers in the majors than AAA. 

 

I will and you'll find the list lengthy but I really don't have the time... but I will. 

 

Also the Rays wasn't about the opener... It's just the part that everybody is talking about... and if you immediately think Opener when I bring up Rays. I began to realize that I really haven't prepared anyone for what I'm talking about in my posts and might as well be talking about earth revolving around the sun. 

 

What the Rays did was stay in contention with two starters and just one for a decent stretch... a good one in Blake Snell but he was the only starter they had for awhile. They traded away Archer and Eovaldi and kept ticking... only two pitchers over 100 innings for the entire year of 2018. 

 

They blew it out of the water. 

 

It's an unrealistic ask because we haven't asked it before.  

[DocBauer]

Honestly, this is one of the best, most fun, and intillegent debates I've ever seen on TD, much less anywhere else. The crux is, EVERYONE is both right as well as wrong. But let's just get to the meat on the bone:

 

1] Finding a complete 5 man starting staff of high quality is tough as hell if not impossible. The game has changed. Period! To be fair, top flight SP who can consistently perform well, and pitch multiple innings, are still extremely valuable

 

2] Bullpens, and their usage, and value, has also changed. See point #1. Arguably, the SAVE statistic has been magnified and then de-valued over recent seasons. To be fair yet again, top RP who can hold leads and get saves are still extremely valuable.

 

I have spent a lot of "stubborn" time evaluating and re-evaluating SP vs BP usage vs DS usage...(Designated Starter)...and have come to a couple simple and reasonable conclusions.

 

1] QUALITY PITCHING usually wins, or gives you the best chance to compete and win. Yes, you need at least decent defense and some offense, and a BIG offense offsets lesser pitching, but you need a quality STAFF. You can look at recent history like the Royals two fine seasons, or the past and the two WS seasons by the Twins to realize that SP OR RP can lead you to competition and victory.

 

2] The DS, Designated Starter, is an illusion. Unless baseball expands the roster to 27 or more players, there simply is no way to implement this as a full time strategy. HOWEVER, if used properly, it IS the perfect way to fill in a spot in the rotation, especially when breaking in a young SP or two. Instead of a young/questionable SP facing the top of the lineup right off the bat, you pitch a "RP" the first inning, hoping/assuming he does his job, and then bring in the LS...Long Starter...to pitch an expected/hopeful 4-6 IP. Combined, you get the same 5-7 IP you expect from a "top" of the rotation starter. In this case, by conventional pitching standards, you had a SP who went 4-6 IP before you turned to your bullpen. What's different other than bringing in a RP early? You're LP, didn't have to face the top hitters a 3rd time, theoretically.

 

Again, this approach simply doesn't work daily unless you have an expanded roster. But it works very well if used wisely for one of your rotation spots if you build your pen wisely. And, come on, it doesn't work at all if you have trash in your rotation! And we have seen teams that have quality rotations with a lousy bullpen that sunk them. So building a quality pen isn't as easy as just plugging some guy in an just telling him to go perform. And we all have heard laments about Molitor and his usage of the pen. But you do have to use what you have. And it's up to the FO and the manager and the 40 man to use what you have.

 

I am NOT picking on Brian, who I agree with about 90% of the time, lol, but it's not about just pitching Rogers 100+ IP because he's quality. (Just an example). It's about the best 12 arms to complete your staff, with SP, short RP, and the guys in between.

 

This is, truly, not a re-invention of pitching. Some of us are old enough to remember Mike Marshall from the Twins in the late 70's, before there were FIREMAN awards and big save numbers measured. 9 times he saved 10 or more games. 5 times he won 10 or more games as a RP. 6 times he threw 100IP+, 99 once, and 200 once!

 

The point isn't a HOF advocacy for Marshall, or some similar expectancy for the Twins pen in 2019 or beyond. Simply, maybe the new way of thinking is not so dissimilar to to retro. Being cutting edge may not be as difficult as it appears. Bring in a couple of really nice bullpen arms to work with what you have, and the new staff. Trust in the rotation you have and work in the new arms. Use ALL the arms you have available. Let Rocco and Johnson and Heffner work with them.

 

Frankly, while optimistic, I'm more concerned with the lineup for next season. And it's been a while since I could say that.

[akmanak]

This is another excuse the FO will give on why no money was spent on pitching. This team is turning into the Florida Marlins.

[Riverbrian]

 

I am NOT picking on Brian, who I agree with about 90% of the time, lol, but it's not about just pitching Rogers 100+ IP because he's quality. (Just an example). It's about the best 12 arms to complete your staff, with SP, short RP, and the guys in between.

 

 

I think these debates are necessary. 

 

I'm questioning baseball conventions right now and I'm questioning them hard. When I left the game threads, I ended up with time and energy on my hands. 

 

I spent that time and energy looking into what happened to my Twins. I traced it all the way back to 2011, I then started looking at the teams that were doing well and I started tracing them back. 

 

I ran across some examples of things working that were clearly different than what everybody typcially does and I wanted to share those things with my crew on Twinsdaily, I got crickets...  So I continued which led to a smattering of we can't do that... because... (it won't work with the arcane model that has been in place for decades).  

 

I'm saying the Rays, the Dodgers, The Cubs are doing some things different and there is a reason that Brandon Hyde interviewed for nearly every manager job. There is a reason why the Rays staff was poached. There is a reason why the Dodgers are losing staff to other teams. 

 

I'm saying baseball is about to change and the things I'm talking about are going to hit you all between the eyes. 

 

The opener isn't the story of the Rays. The opener is a great idea but it's nothing. You take your guy in the 7th and move him to the 1st whatever.

 

The living and dying with a starting rotation as we know it was challenged by the Rays (and A's) and the Rays won this round. This doesn't mean you don't acquire starters... The Rays just got Charlie Morton because they are still going to try and acquire starters because there is value in a guy who can go 6 or 7 innings... this is what I'm talking about... having your best pitchers throw the most innings... but if you don't have that guy... TRY SOMETHING ELSE... such as giving ROGERS more innings. 

 

But, you can't look at what I'm saying objectively unless you are prepared to take things out of their current boxes.