Time to Abandon the Opener

[Pancake Bear]

What airtight logic. Not a single flaw in your arguments. Not one. 

[Stradling]

So there are people that would rather have really good starters and not use openers?  That’s weird.  

[Angel Oracle]

47 minutes ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

An opener is a way to help prop up pitchers who aren’t as good. 

The Angels, and every other team, would love to have five starters who were good enough that they felt they didn’t need the opener. 

Right now they don’t have enough any good/healthy starting pitchers. That is the problem, period.

FIFY, Fletch.

[AngelsFaninGA]

10 minutes ago, Stradling said:

So there are people that would rather have really good starters and not use openers?  That’s weird.  

We'd rather not have openers that are below-average mop-up relievers that just put the team in a 3-run hole early in the game

[Claude]

8 minutes ago, Stradling said:

So there are people that would rather have really good starters and not use openers?  That’s weird.  

So is an opener kind of a message to inform the starter that he’s not trusted enough to pitch to the opponents lineup three times. It’s a strange process. The scheduled starter has to warm up while the opener is pitching. I hate it. It sucks. 

[Stradling]

3 minutes ago, Calzone 2 said:

So is an opener kind of a message to inform the starter that he’s not trusted enough to pitch to the opponents lineup three times. It’s a strange process. The scheduled starter has to warm up while the opener is pitching. I hate it. It sucks. 

I don’t care for the opener either, but I understand why it is there and until Taylor Cole who was having a good season, had two rough outings in a row as the opener, it was working out pretty well.  

[Stradling]

It really isn’t anything we can prove works, but it certainly doesn’t mean we can’t prove it doesn’t work either.  The problem we as fans have is we blame the results on the process.  So if Cole pitched well and then Barria comes in and gets shelled it is because they didn’t have faith in him as a starter so he went into his role with less confidence.  Or if Cole pitches like hell, then Sandoval pitches well, we assume Sandoval would have pitched well in the first inning.  

[mmc]

Just let the starters pitch, who gives a shit if we lose?  I'd prefer it if we did at this point, we aren't making the playoffs, might as well get the best draft pick we can get.

[Lhalo]

I wonder how much the whole opener thing affects starters. These guys are all about routines so having someone pitch the first inning in front of them might mess with their game.

[totdprods]

I'll dig through numbers later, but a big thing I've noticed recently with Angels openers is that they seem to be wanting to use Cole and Noe more in the event they can squeeze more than one inning out of them. 
Bedrosian hasn't started a game since 6/11. Robles only started once. 

I personally really like the idea of using a high-lev arm like Robles, Bedrosian, Anderson, even Buttrey and eventually Middleton, to wipe out the top of the order in the first inning and leave it at that. 
Putting in someone like Cole or Noe and trying to squeeze 2 innings-plus out of them, when they're best served in long-relief, lower-leverage situations, seems like an unnecessary gamble. 

I understand injuries have forced their hand a bit, but I think the opener idea starting wobbling once they moved away from the traditional RP guys to start the game.

[totdprods]

8 minutes ago, Stradling said:

I don’t care for the opener either, but I understand why it is there and until Taylor Cole who was having a good season, had two rough outings in a row as the opener, it was working out pretty well.  

I don't think Cole should be used as an opener, and that goes beyond his last two 'starts'. I remember he opened a game last year and looked shaky too. I just don't think he has the same crispness as he does mid/late game.

Bedrosian looked fantastic as an opener.

[totdprods]

3 minutes ago, Lhalo said:

I wonder how much the whole opener thing affects starters. These guys are all about routines so having someone pitch the first inning in front of them might mess with their game.

For some guys, it probably does, but Pena did pretty good working with an opener. Barria, not so much. Pena's used to pen work, Barria isn't, so that might explain it.

If look at the Angels farm this year, they've rarely let their SPs start every game, many of whom have been used with another SP, where one goes until the 4th or 5th inning, and another comes in behind to close it out, alternating for awhile. 
My guess is they're conditioning them to be flexible in either role. 

[Jeff Fletcher]

7 minutes ago, Lhalo said:

I wonder how much the whole opener thing affects starters. These guys are all about routines so having someone pitch the first inning in front of them might mess with their game.

Some guys yes, some guys no. 

[Claude]

1 minute ago, Stradling said:

It really isn’t anything we can prove works, but it certainly doesn’t mean we can’t prove it doesn’t work either.  The problem we as fans have is we blame the results on the process.  So if Cole pitched well and then Barria comes in and gets shelled it is because they didn’t have faith in him as a starter so he went into his role with less confidence.  Or if Cole pitches like hell, then Sandoval pitches well, we assume Sandoval would have pitched well in the first inning.  

I just think it’s something that we have to get used to. I do think it messes with baseball history and how things were done in the past. The Tom Seavers’ and Nolan Ryans’ probably shake their heads in disgust because they were the take charge man up type true major league pitchers. I think most of the league pitching is made up of watered down talent. Sure we have a few solid pitchers like Verlander but not nearly as much as the days I grew up with. I miss guys like Luis Tiant who could pitch on Monday and have no problem pitching on Tuesday. I remember that Dodgers closer Mike Marshall who pretty much pitched five days a week with no issues. Here we have Ohtani who was put on a workload management program and still tore his elbow up. Something has gone way wrong with today’s pitchers. 

[totdprods]

5 minutes ago, Calzone 2 said:

I just think it’s something that we have to get used to. I do think it messes with baseball history and how things were done in the past. The Tom Seavers’ and Nolan Ryans’ probably shake their heads in disgust because they were the take charge man up type true major league pitchers. I think most of the league pitching is made up of watered down talent. Sure we have a few solid pitchers like Verlander but not nearly as much as the days I grew up with. I miss guys like Luis Tiant who could pitch on Monday and have no problem pitching on Tuesday. I remember that Dodgers closer Mike Marshall who pretty much pitched five days a week with no issues. Here we have Ohtani who was put on a workload management program and still tore his elbow up. Something has gone way wrong with today’s pitchers. 

Hasn't the average fastball increased like 7 mph since those guys were pitching? Obviously, they were flamethrowers - but that doesn't necessarily mean everyone that's a flamethrower today would've been back then. 

Pitchers are coaxed into throwing as hard and max-effort as possible these days, more often than ever, from a younger age, etc. 

[Jay]

11 minutes ago, Calzone 2 said:

I just think it’s something that we have to get used to. I do think it messes with baseball history and how things were done in the past. The Tom Seavers’ and Nolan Ryans’ probably shake their heads in disgust because they were the take charge man up type true major league pitchers. I think most of the league pitching is made up of watered down talent. Sure we have a few solid pitchers like Verlander but not nearly as much as the days I grew up with. I miss guys like Luis Tiant who could pitch on Monday and have no problem pitching on Tuesday. I remember that Dodgers closer Mike Marshall who pretty much pitched five days a week with no issues. Here we have Ohtani who was put on a workload management program and still tore his elbow up. Something has gone way wrong with today’s pitchers. 

I agree the talent is watered down, which is why I'm opposed to adding teams to the league.

We'll still have our Seavers, Ryans, and Verlanders but we'll need some scrubs to fill out the rotations. Some of those scrubs need openers, unfortunately.

 

[Stradling]

I believe that the the improved power from the average hitter has much more to do with the “watered down talent” on the mound than anything else.  When I started watching baseball in the late 70’s and early 80’s if your name wasn’t Ryan or JR Richard or Seaver, then you were considered a fastball pitcher if you threw 90-92 mph.  Now if your fastball is 92 you will get lit up like a Christmas tree.  Guys don’t have the luxury of saving some of their stuff for later in the game like they once could.  The hitters, while striking out too much, are working the count better than ever, and are hitting the ball over the fence at a much greater pace than ever before, or at least he seems like that.  Infielders like Fletcher are the exception, but back in the day if your SS hit 15 home runs he was considered a power threat.  Hitters are too good, scouting reports are too good.  Remember the Nasty Boys in the 1990 pen for the Reds, they all threw mid 90’s and were considered an amazing bullpen.  The Angels currently have a good but not amazing bullpen, and Anderson, Buttrey and Robles all throw 98-100 mph.  The game has evolved a devolved at the same time.  

[Docwaukee]

I'm all for doing whatever it takes to get some sort of advantage for the players in order to win more games.  They've obviously run the numbers just like they do for defensive positioning, pitch sequencing, pitch mix, bunting, stolen bases, launch angle, spin rate, exit velocity and all the other things that we've seen become part of the game or get taken away.  

Sometimes I think the perception is that if analytics came up with something then it should work every time.  Which, of course, we know isn't true but I really do think people have a different level of acceptance for when the 'numbers' don't work vs. using instinct.  Maybe not.  

I do know that while it may create an advantage and they should use whatever opportunity they can, it does make the game a little less enjoyable sometimes.  

Personally, I'd prefer no shits, no openers, and more balls in play but in the end, I don't care as long as the Angels win.  

[stormngt]

1 hour ago, Jeff Fletcher said:

An opener is a way to help prop up pitchers who aren’t as good. 

The Angels, and every other team, would love to have five starters who were good enough that they felt they didn’t need the opener. 

Right now they don’t have enough good pitchers. That is the problem, period.

My problem is that Barria and Pena was good enough last year.  This year both have struggled with it.  

[Stradling]

3 minutes ago, stormngt said:

My problem is that Barria and Pena was good enough last year.  This year both have struggled with it.  

Barria this year has been better as a starter than a reliever.  Pena this year was worse as a starter than a reliever.  

[stormngt]

5 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Barria this year has been better as a starter than a reliever.  Pena this year was worse as a starter than a reliever.  

Barria was pretty good as a starter last year too.

[Stradling]

6 minutes ago, stormngt said:

Barria was pretty good as a starter last year too.

Yes he was.  

[Docwaukee]

I think the Halos should do this year what they intend to do with certain players next year.  

If they think certain guys will be more effective with an opener, then so be it.  

I care more about who they're giving opportunities to than whether there's an opener.  

I would like to see consistent starts from Sandoval, Barria, Suarez, and Canning.  I am fine with limiting their innings.  I would also like to see Heaney come back healthy and finish strong.  

I would also very much like to see the offense pick things back up again.  

And guys like Cole, Anderson and Buttrey do well.  

[rafibomb]

2 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

I think the Halos should do this year what they intend to do with certain players next year.  

If they think certain guys will be more effective with an opener, then so be it.  

I care more about who they're giving opportunities to than whether there's an opener.  

I would like to see consistent starts from Sandoval, Barria, Suarez, and Canning.  I am fine with limiting their innings.  I would also like to see Heaney come back healthy and finish strong.  

I would also very much like to see the offense pick things back up again.  

And guys like Cole, Anderson and Buttrey do well.  

I would add Dillon Peters to that list as well

[Claude]

This is a great thread. Good discussion.