Another opener question

[Torridd]

Do you think some starters may feel insulted for having an opener?

[krAbs]

Oes noes. Maybe their wittle fewings will get all hurt?

[Stradling]

1 hour ago, Torridd said:

Do you think some starters may feel insulted for having an opener?

The articles I’ve read said it is all in the way you introduce it.  The Tampa team embraced it while other pitchers are dead set against it.  That being said the really good pitchers probably won’t have openers going for them.  If you start to introduce it and utilize it for young guys coming up, then they will be fine with it.  You aren’t seeing this done with veteran starting pitchers with a track record of success.  Hell you aren’t really seeing it with young starting pitchers with above average stuff.  Canning isn’t getting an opener.  Barria does and Pena does.  Once again, this isn’t the future, this is just an option for a handful of teams for one spot in the rotation.  If it is effective, you could see it gaining some traction.  For the Angels it is hard to say it is or isn’t working.  The openers themselves have been lights out and haven’t allowed a run.  But Barria completely shit the bed in one of his outings.  Pena gave up 3 runs in 5 innings another time, which is just ok if not below average.  

[totdprods]

6 minutes ago, Stradling said:

The articles I’ve read said it is all in the way you introduce it.  The Tampa team embraced it while other pitchers are dead set against it.  That being said the really good pitchers probably won’t have openers going for them.  If you start to introduce it and utilize it for young guys coming up, then they will be fine with it.  You aren’t seeing this done with veteran starting pitchers with a track record of success.  Hell you aren’t really seeing it with young starting pitchers with above average stuff.  Canning isn’t getting an opener.  Barria does and Pena does.  Once again, this isn’t the future, this is just an option for a handful of teams for one spot in the rotation.  If it is effective, you could see it gaining some traction.  For the Angels it is hard to say it is or isn’t working.  The openers themselves have been lights out and haven’t allowed a run.  But Barria completely shit the bed in one of his outings.  Pena gave up 3 runs in 5 innings another time, which is just ok if not below average.  

And down in Burlington, Inland Empire, and Mobile, we've seen the Angels alternate SPs - one gets the start, another finishes, and it flips for their next appearance. 

So, they may be conditioning them for more of this in the future. 

[Torridd]

6 minutes ago, Stradling said:

The articles I’ve read said it is all in the way you introduce it.  The Tampa team embraced it while other pitchers are dead set against it.  That being said the really good pitchers probably won’t have openers going for them.  If you start to introduce it and utilize it for young guys coming up, then they will be fine with it.  You aren’t seeing this done with veteran starting pitchers with a track record of success.  Hell you aren’t really seeing it with young starting pitchers with above average stuff.  Canning isn’t getting an opener.  Barria does and Pena does.  Once again, this isn’t the future, this is just an option for a handful of teams for one spot in the rotation.  If it is effective, you could see it gaining some traction.  For the Angels it is hard to say it is or isn’t working.  The openers themselves have been lights out and haven’t allowed a run.  But Barria completely shit the bed in one of his outings.  Pena gave up 3 runs in 5 innings another time, which is just ok if not below average.  

That's another point, Strad. Could having an opener mentally make the starter throw a bad game? I know Pena was lights out today but could it be a psychological downer of sorts? Is using an opener say, "I'm not good enough?" 

[Stradling]

11 minutes ago, Torridd said:

That's another point, Strad. Could having an opener mentally make the starter throw a bad game? I know Pena was lights out today but could it be a psychological downer of sorts? Is using an opener say, "I'm not good enough?" 

If so then the player is mentally weak.  They have to ask themselves, do I want to be in the majors or not.  Guys like Scherzer and Bumgardner aren’t getting openers.  It is Barria and dudes of his ilk.  

[totdprods]

If I were a starter and skipping the first inning had helped me put up three straight appearances like what Pena has done, I'd be feeling pretty good, and confident. 

16.1 innings, 11 hits, 4 earned runs, zero walks, 20 strikeouts in his last three 'starts'.

Also, doesn't it help starters when it comes to wins/losses? 

Since the opener only goes one inning, they won't get credit if the team has the lead or leaves the game tied after one. 
If the 'opener' gives up the lead after one inning, the starter won't get credited with the loss. 

That gives SPs a bit of an edge if W/L is still relevant at all to them personally or in arbitration cases and such. There's some beneficial trade-off in that regard.

Edited May 9, 2019 by totdprods

[stormngt]

5 hours ago, Torridd said:

That's another point, Strad. Could having an opener mentally make the starter throw a bad game? I know Pena was lights out today but could it be a psychological downer of sorts? Is using an opener say, "I'm not good enough?" 

I suspected that with Barria,  he was solid last year without it.  However Barrias vest appearance this year was with an opener

[arch stanton]

6 hours ago, Torridd said:

That's another point, Strad. Could having an opener mentally make the starter throw a bad game? I know Pena was lights out today but could it be a psychological downer of sorts? Is using an opener say, "I'm not good enough?" 

Maybe it says to grow a pair and pitch like Pena did today. This is not the place for mama’s boys

[Blarg]

Arch doesn't believe in the pussification of baseball. 

[arch stanton]

Just now, Blarg said:

Arch doesn't believe in the pussification of baseball. 

I live in a house full of women. They use up my full sensitivity quota 

[Stradling]

15 minutes ago, Blarg said:

Arch doesn't believe in the pussification of baseball. 

Heaven forbid anyone sprains an ankle.

[totdprods]

Small sample size.

Pena as a traditional SP:
4.15 ERA, 1.15 WHIP, 7.3 K9, 57% strikes, 17 pitches per inning

Pena following an opener:
2.20 ERA, 0.67 WHIP, 11.0 K9, 66% strikes, 14 pitches per inning

Edited May 10, 2019 by totdprods

[floplag]

Using an opener is the competitive equivalent of hitting from the ladies tees.   Of course it will potentially insult or offend them a little but no more or less than being dropped in the lineup or sent down to AAA might.  It goes with the territory.  In this case especially, you wan to stop it, do better, bottom line. 

But again i dont think its quite fair to use the numbers as a result when they arent facing the same spot in the order.  You expect them to be better facing 5-9 more than 1-4. 

I wonder with Penas "traditional" number if you were to break that down between how he did versus the front of the order versus the back if it might not be comparable.   Thats a guess mind you i dont have any numbers on that and could be wrong but that is the whole goal of the opener right?

[floplag]

34 minutes ago, totdprods said:

Small sample size.

Pena as a traditional SP:
4.15 ERA, 1.15 WHIP, 7.3 K9, 57% strikes, 17 pitches per inning

Pena following an opener:
2.20 ERA, 0.67 WHIP, 11.0 K9, 66% strikes, 14 pitches per inning

id love to see both of these broken down by facing 1-4 versus 5-9... but ill be damned if i cant find any site that has such stats. 

[Slegnaac]

If I am a Starter I really like the Opener idea. I dont have to go 5 innings to get the win.  The official scorer decides who gets the W. So if I throw 4 or 4+ solid innings I still have a good shot at the W.

[krAbs]

5 minutes ago, floplag said:

id love to see both of these broken down by facing 1-4 versus 5-9... but ill be damned if i cant find any site that has such stats. 

Well...you could look at ERA of the starter with and without and opener, and ERA of the pen (including the opener) during a normal game vs when an opener is used, and see which one aggregates to a better overall result (which I guess is the same as finding the team ERA for games in which we use an opener and comparing it to the team ERA in games in which we don't use one). But, our sample size is waaaaay too small to draw a meaningful result there. You'd probably be better off looking at k/bb numbers here.

[floplag]

Just now, krAbs said:

Well...you could look at ERA of the starter with and without and opener, and ERA of the pen (including the opener) during a normal game vs when an opener is used, and see which one aggregates to a better overall result (which I guess is the same as finding the team ERA for games in which we use an opener and comparing it to the team ERA in games in which we don't use one). But, our sample size is waaaaay too small to draw a meaningful result there. You'd probably be better off looking at k/bb numbers here.

Not what i had in mind, im specifically targeting ERA versus spots in the lineup, since that seems to be the primary justification for the opener. 

[totdprods]

44 minutes ago, floplag said:

Not what i had in mind, im specifically targeting ERA versus spots in the lineup, since that seems to be the primary justification for the opener. 

Applying an ERA vs. batting order positions doesn't really work, since that's a cumulative stat trying to be used in a one-on-one situation. 

Here's some data though...
I can't isolate the traditional starts vs. opener starts, but some info:

• vs. #1-2: hitting .267/.313/.433/.746 - 1 walk, 7 strikeouts in only 32 PA
• vs. #3-6: hitting .204/.259/.463/.722 - 3 walks, 16 strikeouts in 54 PA
• vs. #7-9: hitting .125/.205/.225/.430 - 3 walks, 11 strikeouts in 44 PA
• This is why they try to limit the times he faces #1-#2 hitters. 

Ironically, his numbers in the 1st inning this year are good - 4 IP, .214 BAA, .500 OPS against, 0.00 ERA, 0 BB, 5 K in 14 PA. 
Same applies for 2nd inning and 3rd innings - a sub .400 OPS against in both. 
But the 4th inning? When he had likely been facing the top of the lineup for a second time? .827 OPS against. 
The 6th inning? 1.308 OPS against - likely when he's hitting the end of his pitch count. 

• Innings 1-3: .133/.200/.200/.400 - vs 65 PA
• Innings 4-6: .250/.311/.571/.883 - vs. 61 PA and this includes his recent good stretch following an opener, so think how bad it had been. 
• Innings 7-9: .250/.250/.375/.625 - only 8 PA though.
• Struggles in the 4th and 6th innings imply that he gets in trouble as faces the top of the order a second time, and as he nears his pitch limit.

Pena by pitch count:

• 1-25: .095/.136/.190/.327 - one walk, 16 K, 1 HR in 44 PA
• 26-50: .179/.256/.282/.538 - 2 walks, 9 strikeouts, 1 HR in 43 PA
• 51-75: .343/.410/.771/1.182 - 4 walks, 8 strikeouts, 4 HR in 39 PA

Here is the craziest stat I found.

Felix Pena has a perfect game so far as an opener, first time through the lineup. 
1st PA in G, as a RP - opponents are 0-27, 0 BB, 12 K

All of this data suggests...

• Pena pitches well against #1-#3 hitters, but only the first time. They tend to get to him the second time. He rarely faces them a third time.
• Pena kicks ass vs. the entire line-up the first time through. 
• Pena tends to wear down between 50-70 pitches. 
• It makes perfect sense to have him try and get:
  • #4-6 in the 2nd,
  • #7-9 in the 3rd,
  • #1-3 in the 4th,
  • #4-6 in the 5th, a second time
  • #7-9 in the 6th, a second time
  • and pull him before he faces #1-#3 a second time or as he gets past 50 pitches.

It's working so far. Literally perfectly.

Edited May 10, 2019 by totdprods

[krAbs]

2 minutes ago, floplag said:

Not what i had in mind, im specifically targeting ERA versus spots in the lineup, since that seems to be the primary justification for the opener. 

Sure - I guess I just take it as a given that pitchers will do better against better hitters and worse against worse hitters (which is also why I'm kinda less interested in the stats showing how well starters are doing with openers). I'm more curious about the aggregate effect - is it better to have a starter or reliever face the top of the lineup more.

[floplag]

31 minutes ago, totdprods said:

Applying an ERA vs. batting order positions doesn't really work, since that's a cumulative stat trying to be used in a one-on-one situation. 

Here's some data though...
I can't isolate the traditional starts vs. opener starts, but some info:

• vs. #1-2: hitting .267/.313/.433/.746 - 1 walk, 7 strikeouts in only 32 PA
• vs. #3-6: hitting .204/.259/.463/.722 - 3 walks, 16 strikeouts in 54 PA
• vs. #7-9: hitting .125/.205/.225/.430 - 3 walks, 11 strikeouts in 44 PA
• This is why they try to limit the times he faces #1-#2 hitters. 

Ironically, his numbers in the 1st inning this year are good - 4 IP, .214 BAA, .500 OPS against, 0.00 ERA, 0 BB, 5 K in 14 PA. 
Same applies for 2nd inning and 3rd innings - a sub .400 OPS against in both. 
But the 4th inning? When he had likely been facing the top of the lineup for a second time? .827 OPS against. 
The 6th inning? 1.308 OPS against - likely when he's hitting the end of his pitch count. 

• Innings 1-3: .133/.200/.200/.400 - vs 65 PA
• Innings 4-6: .250/.311/.571/.883 - vs. 61 PA and this includes his recent good stretch following an opener, so think how bad it had been. 
• Innings 7-9: .250/.250/.375/.625 - only 8 PA though.
• Struggles in the 4th and 6th innings imply that he gets in trouble as faces the top of the order a second time, and as he nears his pitch limit.

Pena by pitch count:

• 1-25: .095/.136/.190/.327 - one walk, 16 K, 1 HR in 44 PA
• 26-50: .179/.256/.282/.538 - 2 walks, 9 strikeouts, 1 HR in 43 PA
• 51-75: .343/.410/.771/1.182 - 4 walks, 8 strikeouts, 4 HR in 39 PA

Here is the craziest stat I found.

Felix Pena has a perfect game so far as an opener, first time through the lineup. 
1st PA in G, as a RP - opponents are 0-27, 0 BB, 12 K

All of this data suggests...

• Pena pitches well against #1-#3 hitters, but only the first time. They tend to get to him the second time. He rarely faces them a third time.
• Pena kicks ass vs. the entire line-up the first time through. 
• Pena tends to wear down between 50-70 pitches. 
• It makes perfect sense to have him try and get:
  • #4-6 in the 2nd,
  • #7-9 in the 3rd,
  • #1-3 in the 4th,
  • #4-6 in the 5th, a second time
  • #7-9 in the 6th, a second time
  • and pull him before he faces #1-#3 a second time or as he gets past 50 pitches.

It's working so far. Literally perfectly.

Interesting, so if im understanding this then in his case it shouldn't really matter if its an opener or a reliever is its the third time thru higher pitch counts thats the issue then, right?
This would seem to indicate that he simply doesnt really have the endurance to be a "true" starter and would be a dynamite middle reliever.   
Effectively were trying to shoehorn him into a starter role that doesnt suit his actual abilities. 

[AngelsLakersFan]

On 5/9/2019 at 1:57 PM, totdprods said:

And down in Burlington, Inland Empire, and Mobile, we've seen the Angels alternate SPs - one gets the start, another finishes, and it flips for their next appearance. 

So, they may be conditioning them for more of this in the future. 

I think we might see a trend towards tandem starters in the near future.  

[Jay]

Openers are like training wheels. Hopefully at some point you outgrow them.

[Slegnaac]

17 hours ago, Randy Gradishar said:

Imagine a starter goes 4 2/3 perfect innings, leaves the game with a 17-run lead, and the team uses 13 different relievers to get the remaining outs. By law, the scorer has to give the W to one of the guys that got one out. 

The opener gives the "starters" the chance to take back their Ws. That's huge; probably the #1 reason for the opener tbh.

This is exactly why a Starter shouldn't be against the idea of an Opener.

[floplag]

I think a lot of people are either misunderstanding the reason for the opener, or reaching for justification on it. 
Its a crutch, plain and simple.  Its lowers the risk by having them face quality hitters less.   Its not a positive, its not an advantage.