OPENER

[arch stanton]

Opener makes sense in some cases. Say you're playing the Red Sox and you think you have a reliever who stands a better chance at handling Betts, Benintendi, Bogaerts than the day's starter then go for it. That could be one of the higher leverage situations in the game

[Docwaukee]

4 hours ago, Jay said:

Why should we have a pitcher on the team who needs to control the long ball and stick to righty-righty matchups?

 

shouldn't every pitcher on the team need to control the long ball?  

[Ace-Of-Diamonds]

12 hours ago, Troll Daddy said:

What’s your opinion and do the Angels have a reliever who is suited as a opener? 

Pitchers could rack up a lot more wins as the 2nd pitcher in the game wont need to go 5 innings anymore to qualify for the win.

[Ace-Of-Diamonds]

I seem to remember a few pitchers that had a hard time in the first inning or two, but calmed down after that and were solid for the 5 or so innings. A pitcher like that may be the perfect candidate for following an opener.

[Ace-Of-Diamonds]

12 hours ago, Dtwncbad said:

Yes agreed.  And yet is it the right decision for him to act like that?

Mike Trout has earned the right to threaten to walk out of the ballpark if he isn't batting 2nd or 3rd.  Would you LIKE him to express that right now in a little hissy?

Let's just say I am a little cynical about this Bumgarner quote.  The day you have to sell your badass mentality might be the day your skills are showing some signs of erosion?

Pujols has earned the right to walk out of the stadium after being a generational talent. If he is relegated to a platoon at 1B, I'm Kinda hoping he will.

[Tank]

9 hours ago, Chuckster70 said:

@ettin I hope to God that we do NOT see Noe for even 1/3 of an inning this season. I'm not a fan at all. 

but he's got cool looking hair!

[Tank]

someone like this? 

[NJHalo]

We need to go sign Kimbrel to a one year deal to be our opener.

[Jay]

12 hours ago, Dochalo said:

shouldn't every pitcher on the team need to control the long ball?  

As a matter of practice, not as a goal.

 

[Troll Daddy]

 

[arch stanton]

That’s some UCLA level profundity there

[Lou]

On February 12, 2019 at 10:49 PM, Ace-Of-Diamonds said:

I seem to remember a few pitchers that had a hard time in the first inning or two, but calmed down after that and were solid for the 5 or so innings. A pitcher like that may be the perfect candidate for following an opener.

so he can suck in the second inning?

[Ace-Of-Diamonds]

5 hours ago, Lou said:

so he can suck in the second inning?

Less likely to pitch to the better hitters in the 2nd but who knows. 6 of one half dozen of the others.

[Slegnaac]

If the opener can influence the opposing line up, thinking platoons,  then it might be interesting to see it used.

[AngelsLakersFan]

On 2/12/2019 at 9:54 AM, Stradling said:

We tried an opener every 5th day last year and it sucked balls, but I think that is more due to the fact that our two best options for that were probably Noe and Alvarez.  That being said it did work for the Rays.  But if you notice they didn’t use it when Snell pitched so yea, I have no problem with Mad Bum’s opinion of it.  Bulldog type starters shouldn’t have to deal with what so far is a gimmick.  

It worked very well for us in 2014 down the stretch.

[Stradling]

2 minutes ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

It worked very well for us in 2014 down the stretch.

True. I kinda liked Rasmus in that role. 

[AngelsLakersFan]

On 2/12/2019 at 10:16 AM, Dochalo said:

I think it's about exposure.   

Who do you want to protect?  

The opener offers an element of control.  You are guaranteeing a specific matchup.  Whereas later in the game, you don't really know when the starter is going to be done.  

It add another layer of predictability which is an important key for using analytics.  

But you have to weigh the matchup and talent of either pitcher above all else.  Is the opener more likely to get those outs than the starter.  Which is why it wasn't used for better starters.  Blake Snell is better than anyone on the team that was opening.  

Would I want to limit Felix's Pena's exposure to the top of the lineup so he'd only have to face them once in 3-4 innings or twice in 5-6 innings?  Sure.  Would I do that with Noe Ramirez?  Probably not.  But if you do it with Hansel Robles, then that's one less guy you have available to matchup later as needed.  

In general I think it is a shrewd strategy. The stats bare it out that the more times hitters see a pitcher the better they do. Teams tend to bunch their best hitters at the top of the lineup, which is the part of the lineup you would want to use a specialist reliever to get through - something we see often at the end of games.

Using that guy at the start of the game allows the 'starter' to start against the middle / back portion of a lineup, so if you want to stretch him out later in the game you do so against the weaker middle / back of the lineup. Too often today starters are facing the top of the lineup the third time through and that ends in disaster. This is a great way to sneak an extra inning or so out of your starter.

This is all about thinking about the game as 27 equally important outs, and recognizing an opportunity to get the matchup you want at the start of the game, rather than letting the game dictate that to you. The success of the strategy implies to me, that in the long run we are going to see most pitchers optimized for facing 9-18 hitters in a lineup with a group of one inning matchup guys thrown in. 

[AngelsLakersFan]

17 minutes ago, Stradling said:

True. I kinda liked Rasmus in that role. 

I think 'TBD' in the rotation is actually a little 'over powered' in todays game, and the league is going to have to think of ways to curb it, unless they want to allow teams to embrace it fully. The value of playing match-ups, limiting your pitchers exposure and limiting their usage is as strong as any top flight pitcher in a rotation. We see a ton of no name pitchers come up and show short run success in this role. Right now the only limiting factor seems to only be in terms of roster space.

[Lou]

Sergio Romo's era in the 1st inning was 9.00, his worst of any inning. 

this is what happens when you have mediocre relievers facing your opponent's best hitters.