Should the White Sox experiment with the "opener"?

[Greg Hibbard]

I heard on the Score this morning someone discussing that Tampa (and possibly Oakland) are allegedly again going to attempt some version of the "opener" - IE a pitcher who pitches the first couple of innings or so but doesn't have a traditional starter's role. Usually it's more of a relief type of role.

So based on how young this staff is, and based on certain data points from last year (such as Dylan Covey's success the first time through the order in many of his starts), outside of Rodon, is this something the White Sox should also experiment with and maybe be effective with, particularly with the back end of their rotation?

[bmags]

If nothing else, showcasing covey in a role where he can show his optimal value versus shoehorning him into one that highlights his weakness could help create value during a year they are not competing. I'd have argued the same with Davidson.

It's really a team set-up thing though. I believe in it for must win games, but don't feel like sox are talented enough to manage its value throughout the season which would put them at a disadvantage.

But I feel like sox want to find traditional roles within the players they have, so letting them play out that role is probably best. This is the horse we have so may as well just let them figure out the way they want to play.

[Greg Hibbard]

1 minute ago, bmags said:

If nothing else, showcasing covey in a role where he can show his optimal value versus shoehorning him into one that highlights his weakness could help create value during a year they are not competing. I'd have argued the same with Davidson.

It's really a team set-up thing though. I believe in it for must win games, but don't feel like sox are talented enough to manage its value throughout the season which would put them at a disadvantage.

But I feel like sox want to find traditional roles within the players they have, so letting them play out that role is probably best. This is the horse we have so may as well just let them figure out the way they want to play.

I don't disagree with your points. However, I truly wonder if the organizational belief is that Fulmer for example can be rebranded as a reliever (I disagree, I think he's done), he might be a candidate for this role, too.

The silver lining about missing out on Machado and Harper is that we have 2019 to try some truly wacky things to see where people might thrive, rather than fit them into some pre-ordained mold. If we could find something that works as a 4th-5th starter type of role as a hybrid, it's less pieces we have to get later. 

[GreenSox]

Why not?
Covey's first time success through a lineup also suggests that he might be a good  late inning guy.

[ChiSox59]

Id be fine stacking Covey and Banuelos as a "starter". 

[Balta1701]

Honestly, with a rotation this young and inexperienced, I want to push them as much as I can, I don't want to help them out by burning a reliever in the first inning. Throw them out there, start the game, and do the best you can. If you last 2 innings, poop, but at least we still have a full bullpen. Even with a guy like Covey who looks like a promising contender to be one - maybe that's just him being young and this year he shows up as someone who lasts longer. 

If it turns out that after another year Covey still shows up as strong in short 1-2 inning doses but not in longer, and we're talking about a winning team in 2020 or 2021 where we care about the record, then maybe think about it then.

[Dick Allen]

Absolutely.  This is free cheese. Make the opponent either change his line up early, and tie his hands for the rest of the game,  or give the reliever, someone you would have used later anyways, optimal match ups. The regular starter can still go 5 or 6 or 7 innings.

Edited March 5, 2019 by Dick Allen

[Bob Sacamano]

34 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

Absolutely.  This is free cheese. Make the opponent either change his line up early, and tie his hands for the rest of the game,  or give the reliever, someone you would have used later anyways, optimal match ups. The regular starter can still go 5 or 6 or 7 innings.

Yeah it would be nice to do it with a lefty and righty for sure.

[Nardiwashere]

I still haven't understood why using an opener during the 162 game regular season is a good idea.  I kind of understand if you are in the playoffs and and the importance of each game is magnified and you think it gives you a better chance to win.  Otherwise, doesn't it just unnecessarily tax your bullpen?

[Dick Allen]

1 minute ago, Nardiwashere said:

I still haven't understood why using an opener during the 162 game regular season is a good idea.  I kind of understand if you are in the playoffs and and the importance of each game is magnified and you think it gives you a better chance to win.  Otherwise, doesn't it just unnecessarily tax your bullpen?

You are going to use the bullpen anyway. I don't know if you could or should do it every game, but at least one or two spots could really benefit.

[Nardiwashere]

Just now, Dick Allen said:

You are going to use the bullpen anyway. I don't know if you could or should do it every game, but at least one or two spots could really benefit.

How often during a normal traditional season does a bullpen get overworked and tired and go through a rough patch?  It happens a couple times a year at least... and that's without forcing an entire 9 inning game on them 1 or 2 times a week.  Seems like an unnecessary stress on the pen.

Maybe I'm a caveman, but give me a James Shields type to eat inning in the back of my rotation any day over openers.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

Not a huge fan as most of the publically available data doesnt really show an advantage but the Rays are sharp and I imagine they have some data supporting it. 

I just want to point out that the Rays didnt use it with Snell on the mound so based on their data the match up edge is negated if the starter is good. Which makes me think that the bullpen stater in general is worthless if your staff is talented but if you throw out guys who have only 1 or 2 average or + big league pitches, then not letting them see the heart of the order three times helps - heck maybe even 2.

The advantage has more to do with the heart and top of the lineup not seeing a starter three times - more than it has to do with righty vs lefty match ups. Limit their exposure to the best hitters while making the hitter see at least 3 arms in 4 at bats. As I said, if your starter is even league average though, might as well scratch the closer starting.

[Superstar Lamar]

I think they should experiment with the opener by announcing the chairman and general manager's names at the same time as the players just to get anecdotal evidence of fan sentiment

[Dick Allen]

20 minutes ago, Nardiwashere said:

How often during a normal traditional season does a bullpen get overworked and tired and go through a rough patch?  It happens a couple times a year at least... and that's without forcing an entire 9 inning game on them 1 or 2 times a week.  Seems like an unnecessary stress on the pen.

Maybe I'm a caveman, but give me a James Shields type to eat inning in the back of my rotation any day over openers.

You would still have the "starter". The guy that you hope gives you 5 or 6 innings. 

I think using a bullpen guy first if you can get the match ups or make the other manager change his line up  early and limit his options late, gives you an edge, especially when you aren't going to be throwing an ace quality pitcher out to start. 

Edited March 5, 2019 by Dick Allen

[thxfrthmmrs]

Yes, but Cooper has already shot down the idea. Because while other organization are trying to gain any advantage possible through advanced statistics, this organization still wants to focus on the fundamentals, like bunting, for example

[flavum]

Ban the opener. If you start a game, you aren't eligible to pitch for 4 days after.

Takes the opener out of the equation, and the decision to pitch on three days rest.

I know, probably an unpopular opinion.

[Nardiwashere]

21 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

You would still have the "starter". The guy that you hope gives you 5 or 6 innings. 

I think using a bullpen guy first if you can get the match ups or make the other manager change his line up  early and limit his options late, gives you an edge, especially when you aren't going to be throwing an ace quality pitcher out to start. 

Maybe my understanding of the opener is wrong.  To me, that just sounds like an organizational decision to be quicker with the hook for their shitty pitchers.  I thought the idea was you pull them before they get into trouble and each guy has a limit like the way they pitch all star games. 

What's the typical length of an outing for the opener?  Does anyone know what the longest outing was for a guy who "opened" a game for Tampa or whoever else did this last year?

[Nardiwashere]

Here's another question... 

What happens if you are following a schedule of SP1, SP2, SP3, SP4, Opener in the middle of the season and your #4 SP gets rocked and he needs to be taken out of the game super early.  Your bullpen picks up the slack.  A bunch of bullpen guys pitch in your opener game.  SP1 does ok, but he's facing the Yankees and they make him throw a lot of pitches and he leaves in the 5th and the rest is pitched by the pen.  SP2 is fine and pitches 6 innings but that game goes 12 innings. etc. etc. etc.

 Isn't it easier to just find guys who are able to keep a team in the game?  

[GenericUserName]

1 hour ago, Nardiwashere said:

I still haven't understood why using an opener during the 162 game regular season is a good idea.  I kind of understand if you are in the playoffs and and the importance of each game is magnified and you think it gives you a better chance to win.  Otherwise, doesn't it just unnecessarily tax your bullpen?

Not really. If you are going to use a reliever a few times a week anyway, why not use him in the first instead of the seventh or eighth?

8 minutes ago, Nardiwashere said:

Maybe my understanding of the opener is wrong.  To me, that just sounds like an organizational decision to be quicker with the hook for their shitty pitchers.  I thought the idea was you pull them before they get into trouble and each guy has a limit like the way they pitch all star games. 

What's the typical length of an outing for the opener?  Does anyone know what the longest outing was for a guy who "opened" a game for Tampa or whoever else did this last year?

Yeah, I think you are thinking of something else. This isn't a bullpen game like you might see in the playoffs. The idea behind an opener is that you use a reliever who can concentrate on only getting a few guys out open the game so that the starter doesn't have to come out against the other team's best players right away. It is a better matchup, and if you are going to use a reliever to get through those guys when they come up a third time, why not just use them the first time so that the starter gets to face them one fewer time. The whole idea revolves around two facts: pitchers give up more runs each time through the order and pitchers are worse in the first inning compared to the second inning. The second part of this is likely due to the fact that in the first inning it is guaranteed the pitcher is facing the top of the order who are likely the best hitters. In games where you do not have a TOR starter on the mound that can get these guys out, why not start out with a reliever who is more likely to be successful, and then instead of having the starter go innings 1-6 and then relievers 7,8,9, you can go with a reliever in the first inning and then the starter for the same 6 inning amount but now those innings are 2-7 with relievers in 8 & 9. You are using the same number of pitchers, but putting them in an order which is more likely to limit run production.

[Nardiwashere]

1 minute ago, GenericUserName said:

Not really. If you are going to use a reliever a few times a week anyway, why not use him in the first instead of the seventh or eighth?

Yeah, I think you are thinking of something else. This isn't a bullpen game like you might see in the playoffs. The idea behind an opener is that you use a reliever who can concentrate on only getting a few guys out open the game so that the starter doesn't have to come out against the other team's best players right away. It is a better matchup, and if you are going to use a reliever to get through those guys when they come up a third time, why not just use them the first time so that the starter gets to face them one fewer time. The whole idea revolves around two facts: pitchers give up more runs each time through the order and pitchers are worse in the first inning compared to the second inning. The second part of this is likely due to the fact that in the first inning it is guaranteed the pitcher is facing the top of the order who are likely the best hitters. In games where you do not have a TOR starter on the mound that can get these guys out, why not start out with a reliever who is more likely to be successful, and then instead of having the starter go innings 1-6 and then relievers 7,8,9, you can go with a reliever in the first inning and then the starter for the same 6 inning amount but now those innings are 2-7 with relievers in 8 & 9. You are using the same number of pitchers, but putting them in an order which is more likely to limit run production.

Ok... thanks.  That makes much more sense.  

[Dick Allen]

33 minutes ago, flavum said:

Ban the opener. If you start a game, you aren't eligible to pitch for 4 days after.

Takes the opener out of the equation, and the decision to pitch on three days rest.

I know, probably an unpopular opinion.

If it catches on and works, at least so,e form of what you are proposing will more than likely happen.

now is the time for the White Sox to experiment. I don’t see what they have to lose. If they tried it and it didn’t work, it’s not like not signing Machado  or Harper for really no reason.

Edited March 5, 2019 by Dick Allen

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

SP are creatures of habit. Routines matter to a lot of starters. This is one valid non-analytical thing that teams need to take into account. 

[Capital G]

I would like to see this with starters 4/5. No need to use it for Rodon/Lopez/ Gio. We need to see what we have in them as regular starters to analyze our next steps.

[Eminor3rd]

18 hours ago, Nardiwashere said:

I still haven't understood why using an opener during the 162 game regular season is a good idea.  I kind of understand if you are in the playoffs and and the importance of each game is magnified and you think it gives you a better chance to win.  Otherwise, doesn't it just unnecessarily tax your bullpen?

It’s just reshuffling relief innings to the only point in the game where you know you’re going to face the best hitters. 

It makes sense because there’s a ton of evidence that suggests that the “times through the order” effect is more about hitters becoming familiar with the pitcher arsenal than it is about pitcher fatigue. So if you protect your starter against the top of the lineup the first time around, now when he faces them in the third or fourth inning it’s still it’s the first time they’re seeing him. The advantage is even more significant when your starters is a guy with a limited arsenal, as he should theoretically be hurt by the times through the order effect even more, since he has fewer “tricks” to show. 

And that’s essentially exactly what you’ve seen the Rays/A’s do — use it before they throw a swingman type who has good stuff but lacks a third pitch or good enough command to go deep. The opener would have had to relieve the guy anyway, but this way he cuts out the top of the order, instead of waiting to have to bail the “starter” out of trouble in an unpredictable situation. The inning you “burned” early is really just racked on to the other side of the starter’s outing.

All that said - no, the Sox shouldn’t use it this year. It’s a win-now strategy that covers deficits in a rotation. This is still development time, where we seek to limit those deficits in the future. 

Edited March 6, 2019 by Eminor3rd

[Balta1701]

4 hours ago, Capital G said:

I would like to see this with starters 4/5. No need to use it for Rodon/Lopez/ Gio. We need to see what we have in them as regular starters to analyze our next steps.

I'd say that Nova is actually the pitcher in the rotation we should least want to use this for. We want every inning out of his arm that we can get, that's why he's here, so that we can dump innings onto his arm once a week to save the bullpen and to make up for any days that the youngsters in the rotation hurt or struggled. I really don't care if we make things easier on Nova or we help him win more games, go out and throw 200 innings for us and if you struggle early in a game, go throw 6 innings anyway.