HOU 5, MIN 2: Rough Opener, Strong Stewart Homecoming

Stewart's stuff looks major-league quality.  Or maybe, it's just me.

 

There will be some pretty decent data by the end of the year, when looking at opener results across the league.

 

I think it's still a fact that the best pitchers are your starters....at least 1-3 in the rotation are better pitchers than all but maybe your 8th and 9th inning guys who posses maybe one ++ pitch.  So, more often than not, you're opener is going to be your 6th, 7th, 8th best pitcher pitching against the top of the other teams order.  To make it worse, the other team knows who the opener is going to be.

 

Meanwhile, it does no good to reduce the number of runs surrendered in the second and third innings (or sixth), if you give up even more in the first.

 

Admittedly, I'm hoping it fails.  Only because it will be another reason to carry additional pitchers on the 25-man.  No mater how you figure it, it's one additional pitcher burned before the game gets into the middle stages.  Managers will still want the protection on the back-side for specific match-ups and extra-innings.  Guaranteed.

I am not a huge fan of the move but I think you are missing the point.   The egg heads as they are called show that a higher percentage of runs are scored in the 1st inning because the other team's best hitters are lined up to hit that inning.   The 6th, 7th, or 8th best pitchers are not the ones that should be opening.   Its the one's that have the best ERA for one or two innings.  In this case they had May who had an 1.88 ERA coming in as their Opener.    He arguably was the best pitcher on the team for a one inning stint.  Its a lot like those that argue that your closer shouldn't just automatically come in in the 9th inning when there are higher leverage situations in the 7th or 8th innings.   It makes sense.    Rather than compare this strategy to the A's small ball it should be compared to KC's championship run when they used relievers earlier than ever before or Cleveland who brings in their best pitchers at various stages of a game.   There is no way a sample of 2 games or even 50 games would be conclusive one way or the other.

"Meanwhile, it does no good to reduce the number of runs surrendered in the second and third innings (or sixth), if you give up even more in the first."  Goes back to my earlier post.   The strategy is to increase your odds to give up the fewest number of runs in the first inning.     The execution was poor.   Not necessarily the strategy.

I am not a huge fan of the move but I think you are missing the point.   The egg heads as they are called show that a higher percentage of runs are scored in the 1st inning because the other team's best hitters are lined up to hit that inning.   The 6th, 7th, or 8th best pitchers are not the ones that should be opening.   Its the one's that have the best ERA for one or two innings.  In this case they had May who had an 1.88 ERA coming in as their Opener.    He arguably was the best pitcher on the team for a one inning stint.  Its a lot like those that argue that your closer shouldn't just automatically come in in the 9th inning when there are higher leverage situations in the 7th or 8th innings.   It makes sense.    Rather than compare this strategy to the A's small ball it should be compared to KC's championship run when they used relievers earlier than ever before or Cleveland who brings in their best pitchers at various stages of a game.   There is no way a sample of 2 games or even 50 games would be conclusive one way or the other.

 

"Meanwhile, it does no good to reduce the number of runs surrendered in the second and third innings (or sixth), if you give up even more in the first."  Goes back to my earlier post.   The strategy is to increase your odds to give up the fewest number of runs in the first inning.     The execution was poor.   Not necessarily the strategy.

The theory still has holes.  The "best era for one inning" pool of pitchers (non-starters) only really consists of your closer...and maybe the 8th-inning guy.  Taylor Rogers (as an example) one-inning ERA is irrelevant, because the batters he faces to arrive at that ERA are cherry-picked by the manager.  In the opener role it will be the opposite...instead of the manager choosing which batters that pitcher faces, the other team will get to choose who that pitcher faces.  Huge difference...I don't think there is much of a question that the opener role will not materially help (and might hurt) 1st-inning ERA's...the 'theory' is that it will help 5th and 6th-inning ERA (3rd-time through lineup) more than it will hurt in the 1st.

IMO almost nobody goes to a game to see a particular starting pitcher, unless it's someone who has just won a Cy Young or is on a crazy streak or something. Given the way that pitching is evolving to be such an irregular cluster, the opener seems worth a try. Probably takes some getting used to for somoene like May

Back in the day I only went if it was Brad Radke Starting. That was when the rest of the rotation was lousy or unproven. He wasn't a Cy Young but he was the closest thing to it at the time. In other words, I support what your saying here in theory.

Last night I turned it on just to see how the "Opener" thing went. At this point I might be interested to go see certain rookies getting their first tastes of starting in the majors but I'm not going to see Odorizzi, or Gibson...

Obviously the Twins have not yet executed the Opener strategy effectively, but in this case we did get an unexpected benefit: We saw Kohl Stewart pitching with less pressure put upon himself. What I saw was extremely encouraging. Stewart definitely has the "stuff" to not just survive, but thrive in this league. Astros were swinging aggressively, but Stewart and Giminez countered with an effective mix of pitches, and most important, Stewart showed that his stuff can get guys out.

That said, he still sails far too many pitches right down the middle, and he still does not command the outside edge with consistency. Fortunately, those are things that young pitchers typically refine over the first few years of their careers. With Stewart's live heater, good sinker, developing change and developing curve, he could wind up being a very, very good mlb pitcher. 

IMO almost nobody goes to a game to see a particular starting pitcher, unless it's someone who has just won a Cy Young or is on a crazy streak or something. Given the way that pitching is evolving to be such an irregular cluster, the opener seems worth a try. Probably takes some getting used to for somoene like May

Yes people still go to games with great pitching - the starter makes a difference.  Do you think that having Verlander start does not add to the incentive to go to the game?  Or Kershaw or Kluber or Sales...

Wow, there are loads of people here who don't seem to actually understand the purpose of an opener.

 

Clayton Kershaw is not going to have an opener start the game for him. The same goes for Verlander, Berrios, and all other starting pitchers who regularly show the ability to manage an opposing offense 3-4 times through a lineup.

 

That entire argument is a strawman. The opener is not going to impact the best (or even good) starting pitchers in the game.

 

It's for the other guys who aren't good enough to pitch more than 150 innings in a season and perform adequately in the traditional starting pitcher role (but still have enough talent to get through a lineup a couple of times).

This is an idea teams are trying based on quite a lot of data. So many fans are vigorously opposed to any kind of change in the game. It's

pretty predictable. Makes me wonder why they bother to continue watching and posting about a sport they obviously care less and less for. No amount of complaining will stop teams from trying new things and the game evolving.

If overall, it doesn't work for some teams, it will be abandoned by them. But let's not forget for one second we have given up tons of runs this season already doing it the traditional way. Still need to have quality pitchers for any strategy to work.

The theory still has holes.  The "best era for one inning" pool of pitchers (non-starters) only really consists of your closer...and maybe the 8th-inning guy.  Taylor Rogers (as an example) one-inning ERA is irrelevant, because the batters he faces to arrive at that ERA are cherry-picked by the manager.  In the opener role it will be the opposite...instead of the manager choosing which batters that pitcher faces, the other team will get to choose who that pitcher faces.  Huge difference...I don't think there is much of a question that the opener role will not materially help (and might hurt) 1st-inning ERA's...the 'theory' is that it will help 5th and 6th-inning ERA (3rd-time through lineup) more than it will hurt in the 1st.

Which is why you don't use Rogers as an Opener.    If there is one guy aside from Berrios that you would choose to pitch one inning with confidence it is probably May.    The fact that he failed is on May, not the theory.    If all the things the advanced metrics show created a difference of two wins over the traditional way of doing things it would be silly not to do it.   The problem is two wins difference over the course of a season means many games were lost by not doing it the traditional way and many games plus 2 were gained by doing it the new way.   Many would be won or lost using either method.    There is no way to know which is which.  In this case, May failed but I am not going to just assume that Stewart would have thrown 5 scoreless innings if he had started the game.

Which is why you don't use Rogers as an Opener.    If there is one guy aside from Berrios that you would choose to pitch one inning with confidence it is probably May.    The fact that he failed is on May, not the theory.    If all the things the advanced metrics show created a difference of two wins over the traditional way of doing things it would be silly not to do it.   The problem is two wins difference over the course of a season means many games were lost by not doing it the traditional way and many games plus 2 were gained by doing it the new way.   Many would be won or lost using either method.    There is no way to know which is which.  In this case, May failed but I am not going to just assume that Stewart would have thrown 5 scoreless innings if he had started the game.

Not arguing that it shouldn't be tried.  Not even arguing that it won't be effective.  What I am arguing is that the theory is to 'win'/improve on the 3rd pass through the lineup...and that there MAY be a price to pay in the theory regarding the first inning.  If the opener was one of the best pitchers on the staff, he'd be a 1-3 (or 4) starter, or one of the very back-end relievers.  The very fact nobody is suggesting that you're going to use an opener for 'good' starters acknowledges this.  I suspect that the effectiveness of the strategy will be related to the delta in ability between the opener and the 'primary'.  If the delta is too big, you'll give up more in the first inning than you'll save in the 5th/6th.  

There's plenty of reason to give up on the opener this season. The Twins don't have good enough pitchers to make it work.

While the Twins are putzing around with this gimmick, good teams like the Astros rely on work horse SPs to get the job done.

THANK.  YOU!!!!  Your starters are your best pitchers.  Many bullpen guys are failed starters...even the best ones.  Why would you start a game...against the best part of an opponents lineup, with your, say, 8th best pitcher??  Analytics (i.e. the shift) have exposed weaknesses in hitters (how pathetic is it that a MLB hitter can't or won't hit the ball the other way.  Or is completely incapable of pushing a bunt toward third?!), but analytics may have outsmarted itself with the opener concept.  Geez, just play the friggin' game!

Oh.  And good for Kohl Stewart!!  How cool would it have been if he'd started the game, put in that performance 10 minutes from where he grew up, and left after five innings after battling the great Justin Verlander to a 0-0 tie instead of leaving in a 4-0 hole??

Oh. And good for Kohl Stewart!! How cool would it have been if he'd started the game, put in that performance 10 minutes from where he grew up, and left after five innings after battling the great Justin Verlander to a 0-0 tie instead of leaving in a 4-0 hole??

IF that would have been the actual outcome, it would have been awesome. Of course, no possible way to know if it would have.

Of course.  Although he did basically start with the top of the order after May allowed the 4 runs and 5 hits in the first.

It makes prefect sense when explained, in theory. Time to run the EA sports simulator!

I get that top of the first inning 1 is automatically an opportunity to bring in your guy in a tie game to gave the opposing offenses' best. But if you score 4 in the first, might you be better saving your opener? And if it's about the third time through, isn't that all relative as well? Like the bottom of the order that are hypothetically auto-outs trip 1 are for sure going to be worse trip 3 than the top 3 trip 1? If not, shouldn't the opener be saved until that 3rd trip where you may or may not even need him (chief theory)? just have a manager capable of counting to 9 twice.

I think the correct use may be to just string together a couple mediocre guys to equal 1 average inning eater...

Which brings me to my next question: why don't teams exercise options regularly to effectively stretch your roster? The Twins regularly call up a fresh pen arm after extra inning affairs or particularly rough stretches. why not a regular rotation of guys with options? You have them, exercise them! Maybe just give your rotation an extra day rest every once in a while. Keep the farm system engaged and connected. We've had a plethora of seemingly interchangeable arms that occasionally rotate up. some frequently, some not at all. I mean why wait till the pen is overwhelmed instead of trying to keep everyone fresh?

This opener crap makes it where I can’t even check Stewart’s game score. Instead I have to see May’s stinkshow 18 game score. I’m telling you, fans come out to see their favorite players. And develop relationships with their favorite players. They do not want to see Joe blow come out and stink at the place up for two innings, followed by the guy they wanted to see for 4 innings, then another guy for 1 inning then lefty specialist for one inning then maybe a closer if the first guy didn’t already blow it in the first inning. Meanwhile the other side has a Chris Sale or Kluber in for 8 innings and their fans are happy. Get better pitching. And there’s no need for this stupid experiment invented by academic nerds who likely never even played the damn game.

Smoke and mirrors won't dazzle opposing hitters. They don't care who is pitching.

The Twins are overthinking this. Better players on the field will beat "the opener" concept every day of the week.

It makes prefect sense when explained, in theory. Time to run the EA sports simulator!

I get that top of the first inning 1 is automatically an opportunity to bring in your guy in a tie game to gave the opposing offenses' best. But if you score 4 in the first, might you be better saving your opener? And if it's about the third time through, isn't that all relative as well? Like the bottom of the order that are hypothetically auto-outs trip 1 are for sure going to be worse trip 3 than the top 3 trip 1? If not, shouldn't the opener be saved until that 3rd trip where you may or may not even need him (chief theory)? just have a manager capable of counting to 9 twice.

I think the correct use may be to just string together a couple mediocre guys to equal 1 average inning eater...

Don't forget, once a pitcher is out of a game he is out for good. A team has painted itself in a corner if a game goes long and they blew through a pitcher in the first inning.

Kohl Stewart vs. defending WS champs:

5IP, 3H 0R 1BB 3K

For a guy that was rule 5 candidate at the start of the season, great joy supreme.

There is hope for this 23 year old former 1st rounder.

The whole thing is a result of what we have become under Falvine. We have decided we suck because we didnt acquire any of these guys so lets force Molitor to employ this Tampa version of lising baseball. I would rather watch the Little League quarter finals.

They kind of do, currently. Your 40-man roster is in principle what you have to work with in a season. But league rules have minimum stays, once a player is sent to the minors, so you can't just yoyo the 25-man roster up and down at will.

 

AAA rosters are limited in number as well, and probably their managers tear their hair out with being short-handed, what with someone being sent down in favor of a fresh arm, meaning that that guy can't pitch for a couple of days (or else the majors would have kept him), and with another guy you've been told is coming up to the majors so don't use him tonight or tomorrow either.

 

It can be done, and is, but requires a lot more juggling than is at first apparent, IMO.

7 days right? That's why planned call up waves make sense to me. rotate in, over, and out on a set schedule. You have to have deep interchangeable AAA options with options as well as option slots available in the pen or rotation as well. This would have been a prefect year for the Twins to employ this. We didn't really have a 5th starter or set long reliever. Schedule a piggy back pen game instead of struggling auditions. Mediocre starters often end up as relievers anyhow. Slegers into Littel. Gonzo into Mejia. Romero into Duffey. This also allows use of Curtis, Reed, Vasquez, Moya and Boozy in rotation. If anyone sticks, adjust. Overworked? replace. Makes available options very valuable. why not utilize add much of your 40 man as the rules allow?

10 days minimum for a minor league assignment. Unless someone goes on the DL, then you can recall the player sooner.

Ok. So it could be piggy back start, 2 days rest, available in pen. I'd send 1 down immediately and replace the other on day 6 (or earlier if you need fresh arms). Repeat with fresh arm(s), and recycle on day 11. So (up to) 10 up, 10 down. Negates having a designated long man or 5th starter and provides additional pen strength since usually your 5th starter is not available. You trade some Romero innings for Stewart innings. But have a more effective Romero who can come in in a traditional relief role days after the piggy back. Prevents over work by providing fresh arms and protecting against short starts by planning for them and always having a fresh arm available.