Another opener question

[arch stanton]

How is it not an advantage to dictate the matchup in the only inning of the game where you can send out your best hitters every time? If you like your starter against their top you let the starter face them. If you think you have a reliever that stands a better chance then use him

[floplag]

5 minutes ago, arch stanton said:

How is it not an advantage to dictate the matchup in the only inning of the game where you can send out your best hitters every time? If you like your starter against their top you let the starter face them. If you think you have a reliever that stands a better chance then use him

Perhaps advantage was a poor choice of word.  For the team, i suppose it is, but to the so-called starter there is no positive in it.   

[Slegnaac]

28 minutes ago, floplag said:

Perhaps advantage was a poor choice of word.  For the team, i suppose it is, but to the so-called starter there is no positive in it.   

Sure there is, the "starter" doesn't have to complete 5 innings to get the Win.  Which is a challenge for some "starters".

I am sure there have been times where a manager left a "starter" in at 4 2/3, hoping he could get out of a jam, or finish the 5th, so that he could get credit for the W.  Only to have the "starter" wind up taking the loss instead.

[floplag]

40 minutes ago, Slegnaac said:

Sure there is, the "starter" doesn't have to complete 5 innings to get the Win.  Which is a challenge for some "starters".

I am sure there have been times where a manager left a "starter" in at 4 2/3, hoping he could get out of a jam, or finish the 5th, so that he could get credit for the W.  Only to have the "starter" wind up taking the loss instead.

if they cant complete 5 innings then they should not BE a starter nor should they earn  a win thru the loophole

[Lou]

So if a pitcher doesn't start the game then throws no-hit ball in innings 2-9, he doesn't deserve the W?

sounds fair 

 

[Slegnaac]

11 minutes ago, floplag said:

if they cant complete 5 innings then they should not BE a starter nor should they earn  a win thru the loophole

But we know every starter is going to have games where they cannot get 15 outs.

[Blarg]

The rules were written in the 1900's. They were fair when the game was much simpler.

[Lou]

Every game should be played under 1900 rules. 

Sorry, bruh. 

[floplag]

4 hours ago, Slegnaac said:

But we know every starter is going to have games where they cannot get 15 outs.

and thats when the reliever would come in as opposed to assuming he wont.  Again i think were blurring the line here for the reasons an opener is used

 

4 hours ago, Lou said:

So if a pitcher doesn't start the game then throws no-hit ball in innings 2-9, he doesn't deserve the W?

sounds fair 

 

i didnt say that did i?  but that also hasnt happened yet so your using an extreme example to justify the point.  if an opener goes 1, the starer goes the next 4, and the bullpen finishes the last 4, giving him the win is to me a loophole.  WE all know the rules says the starter has to go 5, in this case he should have to pitch the 2-6th to qualify

[Inside Pitch]

3 hours ago, floplag said:

WE all know the rules says the starter has to go 5, in this case he should have to pitch the 2-6th to qualify

Most of us also know that of all the stats credited to pitchers none is a less meaningful indication of his actual performance than the W/L record.   I won't go into all the examples that argue recorded wins are a fluff stat because it would take too long, and honestly most people get it.

8 hours ago, Blarg said:

The rules were written in the 1900's. They were fair when the game was much simpler.

Exactly, the rules have changed as the game has evolved.  Scoring changes are even more numerous.. 

Saves, HRs, strikes, walks, base on balls, saves, SBs, RBI, even what was credited as a hit has changed.  If MLB decides to change how players get awarded a win just to appease some purists so be it.  Nobody gauges the value of a pitcher based on his W/L record anymore and those that do are woefully behind the times.

[floplag]

7 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

Most of us also know that of all the stats credited to pitchers none is a less meaningful indication of his actual performance than the W/L record.   I won't go into all the examples that argue recorded wins are a fluff stat because it would take too long, and honestly most people get it.

Exactly, the rules have changed as the game has evolved.  Scoring changes are even more numerous.. 

Saves, HRs, strikes, walks, base on balls, saves, SBs, RBI, even what was credited as a hit has changed.  If MLB decides to change how players get awarded a win just to appease some purists so be it.  Nobody gauges the value of a pitcher based on his W/L record anymore and those that do are woefully behind the times.

Im well aware how wins have been devalued, by why do so even more by making them this trivial? 

[Stradling]

15 minutes ago, floplag said:

Im well aware how wins have been devalued, by why do so even more by making them this trivial? 

Ok we are the road team and we put up a bunch of runs in the first inning and our starter pitches the first inning and gets injured, relief pitcher comes in and pitches the 2nd-5th inning or hell it turns into a bullpen game, where each guy from the pen pitches an inning.   They have to give someone a win.   Is that win devalued?

[Inside Pitch]

1 minute ago, floplag said:

Im well aware how wins have been devalued, by why do so even more by making them this trivial? 

How about we approach this from a perspective that isn't akin to busy work...   Why are you putting so much weight on a statistic that tells you almost nothing about how well a pitcher performed??  Please explain to me the value in a figure dependent on the offense scoring and a bullpen not blowing the game when looking at an individual player?  Do you really want to give "value" to wins?  Change the rules the other way... Make the minimum requirement to go 7 innings allowing 1 or 2 runs or less and remove the actual need for the pitcher's team to win.  Make the statistic a measure of actual pitcher dominance and not team performance because the stat itself has little value as it exists.   

Personally.... The only win that matters is the team's win.... and that's the only justification necessary for employing an opener - providing it's actually a benefit.  A team can forego the DH too if it so pleases but they don't because they are trying to win.  If using an opener helps you win, use one.   If it doesn't don't ... 

They don't award pennants to teams for winning games the right way, just for winning.

 

[TroutBaseball]

On 5/10/2019 at 5:40 PM, 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.

OR . . . we could all just recognize the inherent weakness with the W stat and stop using it.

[Inside Pitch]

28 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Ok we are the road team and we put up a bunch of runs in the first inning and our starter pitches the first inning and gets injured, relief pitcher comes in and pitches the 2nd-5th inning or hell it turns into a bullpen game, where each guy from the pen pitches an inning.   They have to give someone a win.   Is that win devalued?

There are a ton of different scenarios in both directions that can be used and the statistic doesn't differentiate between any of them - that's what makes the statistic somewhat worthless.   Allow no runs, allow 6 runs, doesn't freaking matter....  So long as you navigate 5 innings and your team is ahead, you're getting credit for the win...  "Atta Boy, Champ!!!!!"  

Before anyone questions why recorded wins are being devalued they need to ask themselves what value is there to begin with.  It's a fluff stat that continue to lose value the further we get from the days when ballparks lacked fences, and baseballs were not much more than mushy beanbags.

Edited May 12, 2019 by Inside Pitch

[Jeff Fletcher]

I don’t think even pitchers these days care that much about wins, unless you’re good enough to have a chance at 20 or something, in which case you aren’t involved in the opener conversation. Félix Peña isnt going to be all excited that he ended up with 9 wins instead of 6. 

I think nowadays most starters (or starter-types) care about their ERA and innings pitched. 

The bottom line is the opener is used for a pitcher you don’t think is good enough to get good hitters out three times. If you pitch well enough, you won’t need an opener. 

All teams would rather not use any openers.

[floplag]

10 hours ago, Stradling said:

Ok we are the road team and we put up a bunch of runs in the first inning and our starter pitches the first inning and gets injured, relief pitcher comes in and pitches the 2nd-5th inning or hell it turns into a bullpen game, where each guy from the pen pitches an inning.   They have to give someone a win.   Is that win devalued?

Why are you asking me?  Im not the one who devalued or killed the stat as meaningful i was acknowledging what was said as accurate.   Either way again your using an extreme example that doesnt fit the issue of the starter versus opener planned issue.
a starter must be 5, if an opener is used im simply stating that the starter that follws should follow the same rule. 

[floplag]

10 hours ago, Inside Pitch said:

How about we approach this from a perspective that isn't akin to busy work...   Why are you putting so much weight on a statistic that tells you almost nothing about how well a pitcher performed??  Please explain to me the value in a figure dependent on the offense scoring and a bullpen not blowing the game when looking at an individual player?  Do you really want to give "value" to wins?  Change the rules the other way... Make the minimum requirement to go 7 innings allowing 1 or 2 runs or less and remove the actual need for the pitcher's team to win.  Make the statistic a measure of actual pitcher dominance and not team performance because the stat itself has little value as it exists.   

Personally.... The only win that matters is the team's win.... and that's the only justification necessary for employing an opener - providing it's actually a benefit.  A team can forego the DH too if it so pleases but they don't because they are trying to win.  If using an opener helps you win, use one.   If it doesn't don't ... 

They don't award pennants to teams for winning games the right way, just for winning.

 

Seems a bit like you trying to have the discussion both ways actually.  You are the one that asked the question and brought up wins having less value to the discussion.   My only point here is that is a team uses and obvious opener, then the starter that follows should follow the same rules as an actual starter.  I dont see why thats so controversial at all.

[Stradling]

1 minute ago, floplag said:

Why are you asking me?  Im not the one who devalued or killed the stat as meaningful i was acknowledging what was said as accurate.   Either way again your using an extreme example that doesnt fit the issue of the starter versus opener planned issue.
a starter must be 5, if an opener is used im simply stating that the starter that follws should follow the same rule. 

Or else what?  What’s the alternative?  Ok I’ll use less of an extreme.   Harvey goes 4 2/3 against the Astros, leaves after 57 pitches, with the bases loaded, Bedrosian gets out of the bases loaded jam and secured the lead.  Angels rack on a couple more runs, bullpen does their job and we win the game.  Who should get the win?

[Stradling]

2 minutes ago, floplag said:

Seems a bit like you trying to have the discussion both ways actually.  You are the one that asked the question and brought up wins having less value to the discussion.   My only point here is that is a team uses and obvious opener, then the starter that follows should follow the same rules as an actual starter.  I dont see why thats so controversial at all.

It’s not controversial it’s asking yourself, if not the follow up pitcher, then which pitcher gets credited for the win?

[floplag]

37 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Or else what?  What’s the alternative?  Ok I’ll use less of an extreme.   Harvey goes 4 2/3 against the Astros, leaves after 57 pitches, with the bases loaded, Bedrosian gets out of the bases loaded jam and secured the lead.  Angels rack on a couple more runs, bullpen does their job and we win the game.  Who should get the win?

The win rule is pretty simple,"A pitcher receives a win when he is the pitcher of record when his team takes the lead for good -- with a couple rare exceptions. First, a starting pitcher must pitch at least five innings (in a traditional game of nine innings or longer) to qualify for the win.  So, assuming Harvey was the starter  he cant get it as he didnt go 5.  I would assume in this case it would have to go to Bedrosian.

Bottom line starter must go 5 to qualify by rule, im only suggesting that if an opener is used the same rule should apply to the "starter" that follows him.  It seems proper to me.

Heres one for you... lets say the team goes off in the first and puts up 6 and wins 6-2... who counts as the starter?  The guy who started the game or the guy that was supposed to?  I assume by rule it would be the guy that pitched to the first batter, who then also didnt go 5 therefore cant qualify.

To be honest im not sure who would get it in that scenario.  I realize wins have little real value, im not arguing otherwise, but the rules for it just arent written to support this logically. 

[Stradling]

The opener is basically the starter we just changed the name because they were only going to pitch an inning or two regardless.  

[floplag]

Just now, Stradling said:

The opener is basically the starter we just changed the name because they were only going to pitch an inning or two regardless.  

i understand that of course, which is why i saw the intended actual starter could be in line for a win he wouldn't have otherwise earned by pitching fewer innings and it robs the opener of a chance to earn one regardless of how meaningless the stat may be and further dilutes it.

[Tank]

So does this mean Mariano Rivera should have started the all star game?

[Inside Pitch]

2 hours ago, floplag said:

Seems a bit like you trying to have the discussion both ways actually.  You are the one that asked the question and brought up wins having less value to the discussion.   My only point here is that is a team uses and obvious opener, then the starter that follows should follow the same rules as an actual starter.  I dont see why thats so controversial at all.

Actually I made a statement.  YOU in response asked "why devalue the win even further?"  It appears you are struggling to follow along with the flow of the conversation.

My point is that anyone obsessing on protecting the "value" of the statistic is a wasting their time and that a better move would be to rework the statistic to actually measure pitcher performance and thus have it actually be useful as anything other than a scoring rule.

There is no double talk, just a belief that pitcher wins as a statistic offers little value when looking for insight.   

2 hours ago, floplag said:

Why are you asking me?  Im not the one who devalued or killed the stat as meaningful i was acknowledging what was said as accurate.   Either way again your using an extreme example that doesnt fit the issue of the starter versus opener planned issue.
a starter must be 5, if an opener is used im simply stating that the starter that follws should follow the same rule. 

What exactly is it you view as accurate?  Because it seems you place a great deal of value on pitcher wins. 

You referred to the usage of an opener as a "crutch" and that a pitcher shouldn't be called a starter if he can't go 5 innings both of which evoke mental images of an old man yelling at a cloud. 

You say you'd like to see a statistic that measures pitcher ERA while facing select parts of the lineup.  Obviously you think wins are actually meaningful, why else put so much effort into trying to protect the integrity of pitcher wins instead of actually admitting that the stat doesn't really tell us much about how the pitchers performance.  

And this response is why I purposely chose not to point to specific examples that you would dismiss as extreme...   There are dozens of non extreme situations that he could of used.

11 hours ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

I don’t think even pitchers these days care that much about wins, unless you’re good enough to have a chance at 20 or something, in which case you aren’t involved in the opener conversation. Félix Peña isnt going to be all excited that he ended up with 9 wins instead of 6. 

I think nowadays most starters (or starter-types) care about their ERA and innings pitched. 

The bottom line is the opener is used for a pitcher you don’t think is good enough to get good hitters out three times. If you pitch well enough, you won’t need an opener. 

All teams would rather not use any openers.

Agree across the board.   Even Cy Young award voters stopped putting a lot of weight in pitcher wins totals in recent years..   The opener is a tactic, the win is a scoring record.  Great starting pitchers won't be affected by either.

Edited May 12, 2019 by Inside Pitch