Sox "Opener" strategy

[reiks12]

Shower thought of the day, how could the Sox employ the Tampa Bay Rays opener strategy? Whether you like it or not I think this strategy is going to be the future of pitching. Some teams are toying with it in their minors as we speak.

You can't deny its effectiveness, since May 19th the Rays are #2 in the major leagues with a 3.35 ERA with Blake Snell and a bunch of "who"s. With the pitching talent coming through our system, how filthy would our numbers be? I admit I dont understand how they decide who does what, but basically there is an "opener" (~2 innings) and a "bulk guy" (~5 innings) and someone who can cover whatever is left. The issue is that it requires a number of malleable pitchers who can at least go 5 innings.

 Lets come up with a pitching pool:

 

2019, 2020 Pitchers who can go at least 5:

Kopech

Rodon

Lopez

Giolito

Cease

Hansen (2020+)

Dunning (2020+)

Adams

Fulmer

Guerrero

Stephens

FA (Corbin?)

 

2019, 2020 pitchers who can go ~2 innings:

Burdi

Hamilton

Burr

Jones

Cedeno

Frare

Fry

Thompson

Free Agents

 

Example game:

Game 1

Burdi 2ip

Kopech 5ip

Hamilton 2ip

 

It is fun to think about with the flame throwers on this team.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Buehrle>Wood]

Fry would fit nicely as a 2 inning starter

[Jack Parkman]

They don't need to have "openers" they need to train pitchers to face 9 batters per game. That is the best way to maximize innings and keep batters off balance.  Let the batter see a pitcher no more than one plate appearance per game. In practice, they have 6 guys who go between 2-3 IP every 3 days, two at a time. They only need to cover roughly 5-6 IP before going to the daily relievers. It would be functionally no different than how current bullpens work, and would actually result in less pitching changes. 

Edited August 25, 2018 by Jack Parkman

[Jose Abreu]

Even the Rays don't do this with their premier starters. Snell, Archer (before the trade), etc. actually start the games. I don't know if we'd need to do it with Kopech and so on. At least, I hope we don't have to 

Edited August 25, 2018 by Jose Abreu

[reiks12]

5 hours ago, Jack Parkman said:

They don't need to have "openers" they need to train pitchers to face 9 batters per game. That is the best way to maximize innings and keep batters off balance.  Let the batter see a pitcher no more than one plate appearance per game. 

Good point, by all means the 2-5-1-1 doesn't have to be the optimal strategy. They are barely scratching the surface with this imo.

[iWiN4PreP]

I agree that this is a strategy of the future. Statistics continually lead to pitchers getting beat up the third time through the line up. It just makes sense to have a specialist face off against a teams top 3 or so hitters in the first inning and then turning the ball over to a "SP".

I would have *LOVED* if the W'Sox had enough *balls* to look into this strategy this year as it was already a lost year contending wise there would have been nothing lost by it. You don't mess with Rodon/Kopech/Gio and maybe even ReyLo, but then you have an interesting mix up of relievers during the game that would be dependent on advanced scouting/statistics. Hell, I'd do the work for them for a measely salary of $40,000 per year or something :p.

 

 

[ptatc]

1 hour ago, Jack Parkman said:

They don't need to have "openers" they need to train pitchers to face 9 batters per game. That is the best way to maximize innings and keep batters off balance.  Let the batter see a pitcher no more than one plate appearance per game. In practice, they have 6 guys who go between 2-3 IP every 3 days, two at a time. They only need to cover roughly 5-6 IP before going to the daily relievers. It would be functionally no different than how current bullpens work, and would actually result in less pitching changes. 

Because it worked so well when the cubs tried it in the early 70's.

[ptatc]

1 hour ago, iWiN4PreP said:

I agree that this is a strategy of the future. Statistics continually lead to pitchers getting beat up the third time through the line up. It just makes sense to have a specialist face off against a teams top 3 or so hitters in the first inning and then turning the ball over to a "SP".

I would have *LOVED* if the W'Sox had enough *balls* to look into this strategy this year as it was already a lost year contending wise there would have been nothing lost by it. You don't mess with Rodon/Kopech/Gio and maybe even ReyLo, but then you have an interesting mix up of relievers during the game that would be dependent on advanced scouting/statistics. Hell, I'd do the work for them for a measely salary of $40,000 per year or something :p.

 

 

Why limit your best pitchers and allow the opposition to face your inferior pitchers more often.

Edited August 25, 2018 by ptatc

[Lip Man 1]

2 hours ago, Jack Parkman said:

They don't need to have "openers" they need to train pitchers to face 9 batters per game. That is the best way to maximize innings and keep batters off balance.  Let the batter see a pitcher no more than one plate appearance per game. In practice, they have 6 guys who go between 2-3 IP every 3 days, two at a time. They only need to cover roughly 5-6 IP before going to the daily relievers. It would be functionally no different than how current bullpens work, and would actually result in less pitching changes. 

Tony LaRussa told me years ago that he was thinking about roughly the same idea. Take 12 pitchers and use three per game, three innings each in rotation #1 through #12. Extra inning games, rain outs would change the rotation from time to time but generally you'd be using guys in that cycle.

Thought it was a very interesting concept but I don't know if it would really work. For example would you want say your #10 pitcher opening up a key series in the stretch drive of a pennant race with your #1 pitcher ready to go ? 

[iWiN4PreP]

27 minutes ago, ptatc said:

Why limit your best pitchers and allow the opposition to face your inferior pitchers more often.

Once again -- this isn't about limiting your best pitchers as the best pitchers will still have their normal rotation. This is about the 3/4/5 SP's in the rotation. If I were implementing this on the w'Sox today I'd have kopech/Rodon/Gio go normal and have an opener for ReyLo and an opener for 5th starter (shields) with short hooks on Rey and shields if they seem incapable.

 

The idea of limiting pitchers is an important one nowadays as so often we see SP's who do OK or even great the first and second time through the order, but once we get to the third time through the order they get absolutely annihilated. The prime example is Luke weaver this year, but of course there are many many others.

[iWiN4PreP]

Just now, Lip Man 1 said:

Tony LaRussa told me years ago that he was thinking about roughly the same idea. Take 12 pitchers and use three per game, three innings each in rotation #1 through #12. Extra inning games, rain outs would change the rotation from time to time but generally you'd be using guys in that cycle.

Thought it was a very interesting concept but I don't know if it would really work. For example would you want say your #10 pitcher opening up a key series in the stretch drive of a pennant race with your #1 pitcher ready to go ? 

You presented a nice critique of this, but also this is far too simplistic. We have incredibly advanced statistics these days that would allow teams to set up the best possible RP they have to start a game off and then transition to the next pitcher and so on. There's no reason to have a set 3 per day or something, best to play your best possible match ups always.

[CWSpalehoseCWS]

7 minutes ago, iWiN4PreP said:

You presented a nice critique of this, but also this is far too simplistic. We have incredibly advanced statistics these days that would allow teams to set up the best possible RP they have to start a game off and then transition to the next pitcher and so on. There's no reason to have a set 3 per day or something, best to play your best possible match ups always.

I believe you're also presenting it as too simplistic. These are still human beings, not machines. You would need to have some type of schedule for them so they don't get overused and potentially injured. Advanced statistics are still going to always point you towards your best pitchers, because they are always going to be the most consistent. It's an interesting concept, and I'm sure it's no coincidence the Rays are within the top 10 for ERA, but I wonder what the long-term effects are year to year. Plus relief pitchers tend to be the most volatile in terms of consistency. I could see this type of strategy really imploding certain teams if it started to become more adopted around the league. 

[caulfield12]

Or the union would come down hard if they could assert it was resulting in more pitching injuries...that would be another hurdle if you tried to force top pitchers with agents like Boras into such a system.

What was it the Astros did with their piggybacking system in the minors that’s been one of many factors blamed in Appel falling apart? 

[ptatc]

9 hours ago, iWiN4PreP said:

Once again -- this isn't about limiting your best pitchers as the best pitchers will still have their normal rotation. This is about the 3/4/5 SP's in the rotation. If I were implementing this on the w'Sox today I'd have kopech/Rodon/Gio go normal and have an opener for ReyLo and an opener for 5th starter (shields) with short hooks on Rey and shields if they seem incapable.

 

The idea of limiting pitchers is an important one nowadays as so often we see SP's who do OK or even great the first and second time through the order, but once we get to the third time through the order they get absolutely annihilated. The prime example is Luke weaver this year, but of course there are many many others.

I was looking at it the other way. With this idea the entire bullpen will pitch regularly about every 4 days. This means the worst pitchers you have are taking innings away from better pitchers.

[iWiN4PreP]

They Rays are 16-8 in August and their pitching continues to be insanely good relative to their apparent roster.

 

Since the ASB:

1st in SwStr%

4th in FIP

4th in SIERA

5th in K%

5th in K-BB%

5th in K/9

6th in xFIP

 

The league needs to take notice of this. Of course 1 year could be a statistical anomaly, but my feeling is that what they are doing lends to the future of baseball.

I don't feel like the White Sox Organization has ever been intelligence-heavy (i.e. scouting and strategy wise) so I have no faith in this organization to do something big like this, but if they are listening -- now is a great time to get a head of the curve with the trash we've been throwing out their in our bullpen.

[ptatc]

2 hours ago, iWiN4PreP said:

They Rays are 16-8 in August and their pitching continues to be insanely good relative to their apparent roster.

 

Since the ASB:

1st in SwStr%

4th in FIP

4th in SIERA

5th in K%

5th in K-BB%

5th in K/9

6th in xFIP

 

The league needs to take notice of this. Of course 1 year could be a statistical anomaly, but my feeling is that what they are doing lends to the future of baseball.

I don't feel like the White Sox Organization has ever been intelligence-heavy (i.e. scouting and strategy wise) so I have no faith in this organization to do something big like this, but if they are listening -- now is a great time to get a head of the curve with the trash we've been throwing out their in our bullpen.

If the bullpen is bad, why do you want those pitchers pitching more?If you have a bad beullpen you want all of the starters to much more.

[iWiN4PreP]

12 minutes ago, ptatc said:

If the bullpen is bad, why do you want those pitchers pitching more?If you have a bad beullpen you want all of the starters to much more.

It's to *optimize* the strengths and minimize the weaknesses. Right now, we trout relievers out there with very little purpose in most scenarios.

Here, the Rays are using analysis to determine the best possible RP to face off against a team's line up, hand the ball over to the SP for the best possible outcome (not go through the line up more than 2 times).

One of the reasons you want to use your bullpen more nowadays is because stats are showing that a pitchers third time through the order is usually disaster (unless you are an ace-quality pitcher). So you actually don't want to rely on your starters that much, but rather a complete team effort.

The point of this comparision to the Rays is that the Rays DON'T have some amazing Yankee-like bullpen. They have a bunch of no-names, but unlike the W'Sox no names, they are able to squeeze every ounce of production out of their pitchers.

[GreenSox]

On 8/24/2018 at 9:35 PM, Buehrle>Wood said:

Fry would fit nicely as a 2 inning starter

I've wondered if he can't go back to being a starter starter.
Regardless, he has a WHIP near 1, averaging over 12Ks per 9...not sure why we aren't crowing about Jace Fry.

[southsider2k5]

3 minutes ago, GreenSox said:

I've wondered if he can't go back to being a starter starter.
Regardless, he has a WHIP near 1, averaging over 12Ks per 9...not sure why we aren't crowing about Jace Fry.

He has already had 2 Tommy john surgeries. 

[ptatc]

16 minutes ago, iWiN4PreP said:

It's to *optimize* the strengths and minimize the weaknesses. Right now, we trout relievers out there with very little purpose in most scenarios.

Here, the Rays are using analysis to determine the best possible RP to face off against a team's line up, hand the ball over to the SP for the best possible outcome (not go through the line up more than 2 times).

One of the reasons you want to use your bullpen more nowadays is because stats are showing that a pitchers third time through the order is usually disaster (unless you are an ace-quality pitcher). So you actually don't want to rely on your starters that much, but rather a complete team effort.

The point of this comparision to the Rays is that the Rays DON'T have some amazing Yankee-like bullpen. They have a bunch of no-names, but unlike the W'Sox no names, they are able to squeeze every ounce of production out of their pitchers.

It still doesn't make sense. if the team's weakness is bullpen depth, pitching them more does not minimize the weakness. I can somewhat understand it if they have a competent bullpen. I would just pitch the starter 2 times through the lineup then bring in the reliever if this is your reasoning. This still puts more pressure on the bullpen but at least you aren't guaranteed to use the 1st reliever for only one inning.

If they are going to bring back philosophies from the 70's, I would think the more appropriate one would be to stretch out the better relievers to go 2 or more innings to maximize the good ones. Similiar to the relievers in the early days.

Edited August 27, 2018 by ptatc

[BamaDoc]

A injury saving advantage is pitchers pitch. You may be less apt to have a guy warm up three times in a game,for two days before going in. Their appearances are somewhat more scheduled 

[iWiN4PreP]

4 minutes ago, ptatc said:

It still doesn't make sense. if the team's weakness is bullpen depth, pitching them more does not minimize the weakness. I can somewhat understand it if they have a competent bullpen. I would just pitch the starter 2 times through the lineup then bring in the reliever if this is your reasoning. This still puts more pressure on the bullpen but at least you aren't guaranteed to use the 1st reliever for only one inning.

I would think the more appropriate evolution would be to stretch out the better relievers to go 2 or more innings to maximize the good ones. Similiar to the relievers in the early days.

But this issue isn't simply a bad bullpen. It's an atrocious SP corpse. Rays have who? Blake Snell and no one.

The White Sox now have Kopech and Rodon looking like quality starters, but prior to that all they really had was an interest in Gio and ReyLo and seeing what they had in a season.

Guys like Covey, Fulmer, Shields, Cease all could have likely benefited from being in a roll similar to what the Rays system implemented. At this point Reylo is looking like someone who could also benefit here and Gio is a question mark deserving of a longer leash.

 

Edited August 27, 2018 by iWiN4PreP

[Jose Abreu]

11 minutes ago, GreenSox said:

I've wondered if he can't go back to being a starter starter.
Regardless, he has a WHIP near 1, averaging over 12Ks per 9...not sure why we aren't crowing about Jace Fry.

He's a very good reliever, his peripherals are exceptional. He should be talked about more. 

[ptatc]

1 minute ago, iWiN4PreP said:

But this issue isn't simply a bad bullpen. It's an atrocious SP corpse. Rays have who? Blake Snell and no one.

The White Sox now have Kopech and Rodon looking like quality starters, but prior to that all they really had was an interest in Gio and ReyLo and seeing what they had in a season.

Guys like Covey, Fulmer, Shields, Cease all could have likely benefited from being in a roll similar to what the Rays system implemented. At this point Reylo is looking like someone who could also benefit here and Gio is a question mark deserving of a longer leash.

 

i like the corpse reference. In this scenario, they are maximizing their strengths and minimizing their weakness because the starting staff is the weakness. You make reference to the Sox not willing to try it, they shouldn't. The Sox weakness is the bullpen not the starting staff. I would much rather have Lopez in there than most of the crap the Sox have had in the bullpen. If the bullpen improves, then it changes.

[ptatc]

6 minutes ago, BamaDoc said:

A injury saving advantage is pitchers pitch. You may be less apt to have a guy warm up three times in a game,for two days before going in. Their appearances are somewhat more scheduled 

There is some validity to this. However, you always worry about a guy that has 2 UCL replacements already. He may only have a small number of pitches left in that elbow.