You mean it's not just our pen that is on fire?

[Docwaukee]

2 hours ago, Stradling said:

@Dochalo and @Jeff Fletcher do a really good job of explaining it.  Here is my below average explanation of it.  If Cam gets through the first inning and faces 3-4 guys.  Now you bring in Pena.  He won’t have to face the best hitters, 2,3,4 hitters a third time through the line up until the 6th or 7th inning.  At that point you have much more information (the score later in the game) on whether or not to allow him to pitch to those guys a 3rd time through.  

I've always thought of it as decreasing exposure to the best part of an opposing lineup.  

past 3 years:

1st time through - approx 3.8 era.  
2nd time through - approx 4.6 era
3rd time through - approx 5.5 era

so almost a run per 9 every time through the order.  

the whole idea behind using a reliever isn't just that the original guy is getting tired but that the hitters have learned from their previous at bats and that a limited repertoire of the pitcher increases the success of the hitter over time. It's likely that the learning curve is steeper for better hitters.  So limit exposure to those better hitters.  

Major league teams have the data on this.  It must be at least somewhat compelling or they wouldn't do it.  

 

[floplag]

27 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

I've always thought of it as decreasing exposure to the best part of an opposing lineup.  

past 3 years:

1st time through - approx 3.8 era.  
2nd time through - approx 4.6 era
3rd time through - approx 5.5 era

so almost a run per 9 every time through the order.  

the whole idea behind using a reliever isn't just that the original guy is getting tired but that the hitters have learned from their previous at bats and that a limited repertoire of the pitcher increases the success of the hitter over time. It's likely that the learning curve is steeper for better hitters.  So limit exposure to those better hitters.  

Major league teams have the data on this.  It must be at least somewhat compelling or they wouldn't do it.  

 

The issue here i think is attrition.  Teams arent going to carry 8-10 relievers that it might take to do this as constantly as we have.  Which means the pen guys are used more often, resulting in fatigue etc... even if it isnt a huge workload gearing up to pitch that many days in succession or in a week is still just as hard on the arm with everyone going balls out not caring about going deeper in to games as much as throwing 100 mph. 
We went out and got a lot of guys with cannon arms or elite action... those things produce more wear than your average joe.  durability isnt in that picture. 
WE keep using these guys like we have were going to get injuries.

[AngelsLakersFan]

3 hours ago, Angel Oracle said:

Three true outcomes is at the root of all of this.   Making the game more boring and longer

Tell them to stop juicing the balls and moving the fences in and you'll see less three true outcomes.

[eaterfan]

42 minutes ago, floplag said:

The issue here i think is attrition.  Teams arent going to carry 8-10 relievers that it might take to do this as constantly as we have.  Which means the pen guys are used more often, resulting in fatigue etc... even if it isnt a huge workload gearing up to pitch that many days in succession or in a week is still just as hard on the arm with everyone going balls out not caring about going deeper in to games as much as throwing 100 mph. 
We went out and got a lot of guys with cannon arms or elite action... those things produce more wear than your average joe.  durability isnt in that picture. 
WE keep using these guys like we have were going to get injuries.

I think the Angels are aware of this. They are treating pitching like the NFL treats running backs. Most are pretty much interchangeable. Get as much as you can out of them while you can. They are drafting a ton of pitchers in the middle rounds. I think they are preparing to cycle through a ton of relievers/short-starters over the next 10 years.

[floplag]

14 minutes ago, eaterfan said:

I think the Angels are aware of this. They are treating pitching like the NFL treats running backs. Most are pretty much interchangeable. Get as much as you can out of them while you can. They are drafting a ton of pitchers in the middle rounds. I think they are preparing to cycle through a ton of relievers/short-starters over the next 10 years.

Im not sure what that says about the game if true... turning it into a meat grinder isnt a positive approach for what you pay these people. 

[eaterfan]

3 minutes ago, floplag said:

Im not sure what that says about the game if true... turning it into a meat grinder isnt a positive approach for what you pay these people. 

I don't think they are going to pay them that much. Yeah, if they find a Weaver they'll pay him but I think the realization is that it's far more efficient to try to find a couple dozen Felix Penas and try to develop them into something slightly better than to try to chase five Jered Weavers. They're better off spending the draft capital on position players.

[floplag]

12 minutes ago, eaterfan said:

I don't think they are going to pay them that much. Yeah, if they find a Weaver they'll pay him but I think the realization is that it's far more efficient to try to find a couple dozen Felix Penas and try to develop them into something slightly better than to try to chase five Jered Weavers. They're better off spending the draft capital on position players.

Interesting theory... we all know my thoughts on over spending on starters but the whole meat grinder approach is kinda hard to stomach... i guess well see. 

[2112]

Do you think that velocity has a lot to do with starting pitching problems?  I remember watching baseball as a kid there were several ground ball pitchers as starters.  They would go 7 or 8 innings and turn over the ball to some reliever throwing 95+ MPH.

It wasn't sexy, but it got the job done.

Now it seems like everyone is a strikeout pitcher and goes 5 innings.

[Docwaukee]

7 minutes ago, 2112 said:

Do you think that velocity has a lot to do with starting pitching problems?  I remember watching baseball as a kid there were several ground ball pitchers as starters.  They would go 7 or 8 innings and turn over the ball to some reliever throwing 95+ MPH.

It wasn't sexy, but it got the job done.

Now it seems like everyone is a strikeout pitcher and goes 5 innings.

mostly because hitters aren't focused on putting the ball in play.  Ground ball rates are lower than ever.  HR rates are up.  It's all about launch angle and exit velo.  pitchers are being encouraged to pitch hard up and soft low.  

preserving a guys arm is going to be contingent on rest and limited use because the appearances will be higher effort.  

The nature of the game has led to this approach.  

[eligrba]

7 hours ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

Once again, the point of the opener is to get more out of “rotation” guy. 

You don’t want him facing the top of the order a 3rd time.

If he starts his game with the lead off hitter, he’s got 18 batters before seeing him a 3rd time. If he starts his game with the No 4 hitter, he’s got 24 hitters before seeing the lead off man a 3rd time.

Thats a whole extra inning, which actually means using one less reliever. 

That’s really all it is. 

The problem, however, comes if you don’t have enough good relievers where you still have pitchers you trust with a lead, even after using the opener. I think Ausmus got caught in that with one of the Dodgers games that Bedrosian started. He didn’t want to use anyone else but Buttrey and Robles and had to stretch them both to their limits to get the two of them through 3 innings. I think now he’s come to the realization that he should find a different opener and save Bedrosian for protecting leads. Now you’re seeing García and Ramírez do it.

It’s risky either way. What they really need is another good reliever. Getting JC and Middleton back would help. 

I actually think we may see Peña as the opener for JC at some point. 

But don't you use a reliever to allow the starter to get that extra inning?

To me and my simple mind, the result is the same except that the inevitable reliever is being front-loaded.

[Lou]

Does anyone know if that the "starters" are actually pitching more innings when an "opener" is used?

[Jeff Fletcher]

15 hours ago, eligrba said:

But don't you use a reliever to allow the starter to get that extra inning?

To me and my simple mind, the result is the same except that the inevitable reliever is being front-loaded.

No. 

You aren’t looking at correctly.

The primary pitcher goes from 18 batters to 23 batters. By himself. That’s 5 more batters that he’s facing. 

Look

123456789123456789

456789123456789123456789

So you need fewer relievers  

 

[Jeff Fletcher]

15 hours ago, Lou said:

Does anyone know if that the "starters" are actually pitching more innings when an "opener" is used?

More innings than what?

[Stradling]

5 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

More innings than what?

I’m guessing he is asking is Pena averaging more innings now as the primary pitcher than he was as a starter.

[Lou]

6 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

More innings than what?

Than they did when they weren't using an opener

[zenmaster]

The whole 100 pitch count thing blows my mind. Somewhere along the line everyone decided this nice round number of 100 is the magical spot as which you should remove your starter unless he's throwing a no-hitter, and sometimes even then. Shouldn't pitching be on a more individual level in terms of pitch count? I'm just surprised with all the analytics out there being used most teams stick to this 100 pitch limit thing (or close). 

[Jay]

3 minutes ago, zenmaster said:

The whole 100 pitch count thing blows my mind.

it blows your mind?

[Stradling]

2 minutes ago, zenmaster said:

The whole 100 pitch count thing blows my mind. Somewhere along the line everyone decided this nice round number of 100 is the magical spot as which you should remove your starter unless he's throwing a no-hitter, and sometimes even then. Shouldn't pitching be on a more individual level in terms of pitch count? I'm just surprised with all the analytics out there being used most teams stick to this 100 pitch limit thing (or close). 

I am sure someone with more knowledge can dispute my belief on this, but my guess is the 100 pitch plateau is more important now that it has ever been based on how starters pitch these days.  They basically go out and throw gas for as long as they can, there is no pacing themselves.  

[Jeff Fletcher]

6 minutes ago, zenmaster said:

The whole 100 pitch count thing blows my mind. Somewhere along the line everyone decided this nice round number of 100 is the magical spot as which you should remove your starter unless he's throwing a no-hitter, and sometimes even then. Shouldn't pitching be on a more individual level in terms of pitch count? I'm just surprised with all the analytics out there being used most teams stick to this 100 pitch limit thing (or close). 

In the Angels case, it’s actually less than 100. It’s more like 90.

[zenmaster]

5 minutes ago, Jay said:

it blows your mind?

Not literally. It's a figure of speech Mr. Literal.

[Jeff Fletcher]

48 minutes ago, Lou said:

Than they did when they weren't using an opener

Pena has thrown 52 innings in 10 starts after an opener (5.2, not 5-2/3). He has a 4.67 ERA

He has thrown 107-1/3 innings in 21 traditional starts. (5.1 not 5-1/3). He has a 4.02 ERA.

Most of the difference is one game, though. If you throw out the one game he gave up 7 runs in 1-2/3 innings, his ERA with an opener is 3.67 and his innings average is 5.6. Yes, he also had a bad game as a traditional starter, but he had twice as many opportunities to make up for that.

My opinion is it probably helps him a little, but not enough to compensate for the negative of burning your 3rd best reliever in the first inning (Bedrosian). If they were to come up with a 4th dependable reliever, it would be a better strategy. Maybe that’s Noé Ramírez now? Maybe García becomes that. Maybe Middleton comes back? Maybe JC becomes the 5th starter and Peña becomes the 4th best reliever/opener for JC.

(Edit: I should add that the comparison isn’t perfect because most of the traditional starts were in 2018, after they’d already given up on the season. Also a different manager. If Ausmus was managing those games he may not have let Peña go as long as he did. So Ausmus probably would be pulling him a lot quicker in traditional starts this season.)

 

Edited June 26, 2019 by Jeff Fletcher

[floplag]

14 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

Pena has thrown 52 innings in 10 starts after an opener (5.2, not 5-2/3). He has a 4.67 ERA

He has thrown 107-1/3 innings in 21 traditional starts. (5.1 not 5-1/3). He has a 4.02 ERA.

Most of the difference is one game, though. If you throw out the one game he gave up 7 runs in 1-2/3 innings, his ERA with an opener is 3.67 and his innings average is 5.6. Yes, he also had a bad game as a traditional starter, but he had twice as many opportunities to make up for that.

My opinion is it probably helps him a little, but not enough to compensate for the negative of burning your 3rd best reliever in the first inning (Bedrosian). If they were to come up with a 4th dependable reliever, it would be a better strategy. Maybe that’s Noé Ramírez now? Maybe García becomes that. Maybe Middleton comes back? Maybe JC becomes the 5th starter and Peña becomes the 4th best reliever/opener for JC.

(Edit: I should add that the comparison isn’t perfect because most of the traditional starts were in 2018, after they’d already given up on the season. Also a different manager. If Ausmus was managing those games he may not have let Peña go as long as he did. So Ausmus probably would be pulling him a lot quicker in traditional starts this season.)

 

I dont get to watch every game and dont see when all the changes are being made but i found your comment on Ausmus curious.  Is Ausmus perhaps pulling these guys too soon do you think?  Its hard to gauge with all the openers and what not but your comment gave me the impression that he has a much shorter leash in general.   Should he perhaps let them go a little longer?  Are the numbers the result of him using the hook to soon or were they for the most part justified?  Just curious your take on that. 

[Lou]

I think the numbers are a result of our starting pitchers sucking.

[Angel Oracle]

So at this point, it is safe to pretty much count on Robles, Buttrey, BedRock, Noe Ramirez, and Anderson?

Would be nice to acquire another young reliever, like they did Buttrey a year ago.    

Then once Middleton is back and contributing, the pen is pretty much set with Cole, Jewell, and others at AAA for depth.   

[Jeff Fletcher]

47 minutes ago, floplag said:

I dont get to watch every game and dont see when all the changes are being made but i found your comment on Ausmus curious.  Is Ausmus perhaps pulling these guys too soon do you think?  Its hard to gauge with all the openers and what not but your comment gave me the impression that he has a much shorter leash in general.   Should he perhaps let them go a little longer?  Are the numbers the result of him using the hook to soon or were they for the most part justified?  Just curious your take on that. 

There have been more times I have felt like the starter came out early than times I felt he was left in too long. 

Not a ton. Maybe 4-5 games.

Overall Ausmus is pretty aggressive with pitching changes.