Should "openers" be paid more than standard relievers?

[Torridd]

If relievers starting games becomes a trend, do you think those who do so should be paid more than classic relievers? They will probably pitch more innings than a standard reliever, but have more "pressure" than your long relievers. 

[Lou]

No 

[Torridd]

Also, why would this be any more successful than the starter going first?

[Lou]

Asked and answered.

ad nauseum

[zenmaster]

No. And why would they have more pressure? Just because we aren't losing yet?

[T.G.]

They should be paid less.  Their work is done and they can go home.

[Stradling]

So Luke Bard and Cam Bedrosian should be paid similar to a closer?  

[Dtwncbad]

The market will decide.  If somebody emerges as a purely dominant guy that clearly delivers something more valuable than just being an available arm in the pen, the market will recognize it, demand will be high for that player and the money will follow.

[Stradling]

If that dude from the Brewers wasn’t so valuable for a couple of innings a game towards the end of the game he would be the perfect opener.  

[Claude]

So getting through the first inning is a thing? I’m not a fan of that. 

[Docwaukee]

they're going to get paid like a middle of the pen guy.  Anyone of significant high leverage value won't be used as an opener and will be save for later in the game.  

[Jay]

53 minutes ago, Stradling said:

So Luke Bard and Cam Bedrosian should be paid similar to a closer?  

A closer is a special role that can be filled only with a truly awful pitcher like Cody Allen.

 

[Taylor]

It's not my money.

[T.G.]

In before someone suggests Ohtani come back as an opener.

[Taylor]

Just now, True Grich said:

In before someone suggests Ohtani come back as an opener.

If Ohtani is the opener, and he's also batting, could they move him to 1B during innings 2-8 and then move him back to pitcher to close out the 9th?

He'd be the world's first opener-closer.

[Stradling]

I just read a couple of articles on this and the Rays who used this for a bulk of last year (started it in May and used it in 49 games) and their “openers” had an ERA of 3.91.  Also the ERA for those games total was 3.95.  So if we were able to use it and get less than 4 earned runs against us in games where Barria and Pena pitch, sign me up.  That being said they utilized it different than we have so far.  They would have their opener go 1 plus innings at times.  Where it gets tricky for me is after the first inning.  The starter is used to coming in with the bases empty so if you do start an opener and they get in trouble in the 2nd inning the starter will come into a game with very little wiggle room.  

[floplag]

No, they are not producing more innings... but it will lower the values of starters, which is the one thing about it dont hate.

Only one team overall had an average IP/GS over 5 last year, Cle at 6.1.  All teams but TB were between 5 and 6, we were at 5 exactly.  League average was 5.4.  In the last 3 seasons the league wide average of IP/GS has dropped from 5.9-6.0 down  to its current levels by about 0.2 per year, or about half an inning roughly, in just 3 seasons.  I looked back at the average for this in previous decades and they were all about 5.9-6.0, this is a very rapid drop.

Individually only 29 pitchers in all of MLB averaged over 6 IP per start, one of which was Heaney.  All of our guys but Richards were between 5-6.

I hate to say it guy but this is the new norm.  Bullpens are going to be far more important perhaps even than starters as guys just arent going deep into games anymore.  If you get 6 from your starter anything beyond that is gravy.  The premium is going to be those guys that go deeper with good numbers, but the thing is, they just arent there anymore.   Everyone talks about going deeper into games... i think you can pretty much put that out of your mind, thats just not the direction this is going. 

[Stradling]

Yea @floplag that appears to be the case.  Until a new metric comes out where a team finds a way to use one or two less pitchers in their pen because they get more value out of the flexibility of the roster without those two guys and deal with the extra run or two allowed per week because they think they can make it up on the offensive side.  The beauty of the “opener” is it can be done with the current roster size and bullpen size.  What will have value in the future are the starters, like you said, that lose less effectiveness a third time through the order.  

[Ender]

Nah.

[Angel Oracle]

Successful openers, in my mind, should be paid a little less than late innings guys.   Both are pitching in close games, although the late innings guys have more urgency as the game gets into the late innings. 

The Rays opener in 2018 (Stanek) earned a solid salary with his success.   

Maybe BadRock has actually found a niche for himself.    Anything after the early innings seems to be an adventure far more often than preferred. 

Flop is right about starters.   The Halos have gotten at least 6 innings from their starters only EIGHT times so far (25%), and seemingly most of those times the starter is running on fumes.   This emphasis on all out with every pitch naturally calls for reduced innings counts. 

[floplag]

You know who will also see an uptick in value, middle relief.  
What used to be where you were sent when you werent getting it done now become very important if those starters arent getting out of the 6th.  Whether its an opener at the beginning or the 6th and 7th inning guys, they become a critical part of the staff.   You will see at least 4 pitchers per night under the new norms.  SP/opener, MR/Starter, setup, closer.    Guys that dont need a lot of rest between outings will become extremely important as guys will be called on to pitch more often. 
I've never been a huge SP above all guy, thats known, with the new paradigm the smart money is going to be on bullpens in my view over starters.  Maybe the game is finally catching up to me   lol    

[Stradling]

I don’t see it that way.  Teams aren’t spending money on average anymore.  Hell we gave Joe Smith 3 years and like $15 million, I don’t think we will see other middle relievers get that again.  I think what you could see is what you saw with the Yankees, where they simply overpay closers to be 6-9th inning guys.  We aren’t going to see guys like Noe Ramirez or Jose Alvarez get a bump just because of the lack of length of a starter.  

[Reveille1984]

It probably also stems from traditional SPs on the market getting exorbitant salaries when they're one of the most fickle assets in baseball.  There's a reason these out of the box strats seem to come from small market teams.

Why give a decent to good starter a $100M+ contract when I can just get a bunch of flamethrowers to pitch a handful of innings every once in a while and keep the opposing lineup out of rhythm as they'll never see the same pitcher more than once a game?

[floplag]

15 minutes ago, Stradling said:

I don’t see it that way.  Teams aren’t spending money on average anymore.  Hell we gave Joe Smith 3 years and like $15 million, I don’t think we will see other middle relievers get that again.  I think what you could see is what you saw with the Yankees, where they simply overpay closers to be 6-9th inning guys.  We aren’t going to see guys like Noe Ramirez or Jose Alvarez get a bump just because of the lack of length of a starter.  

I dont mean get overpayed, just have more value.   The lines are being blured, what innings a person pitched dont really matter much anymore.  Youll see those monies spread around a lot more but not necessarily increased.  

[Dave Saltzer]

I think the question should be instead whether or not starters deserve to be paid a premium for "starting". If more and more teams go to openers, and with fewer and fewer pitchers going 6+ innings for a quality start, shouldn't it really come down to the number of innings pitched and the quality of those innings rather than when the pitcher pitches those innings?