chasfh Posted August 27 Author Share Posted August 27 6 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said: I'd say the opposite (talking the 1st take here). He wants to do something to win that might be frowned on so he obfuscates that something is just sort of happening accidentally when he is doing what he is doing with studied intention. "we're just piecing it together as we go....." That's fair. I'm OK with A.J. obfuscating about that kind of thing, provided the intention is to mislead the opposition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4hzglory Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 44 minutes ago, chasfh said: We talk about the games that start with Tyler Holton or Beau Brieske or Alex Faedo as being "bullpen games", but that's not really what they are, are they? A bullpen game is one in which we waste seven pitchers going one to two innings apiece in a bid to rest starters. But really, isn't what we have are doing actually "opener" games, in which A.J. puts a bullpen arm out there based on whatever seems to be the best matchup against the first time through the top of or completely through this particular order, and then we bring long guys Maeda or Sammons or Hurter to come in during the second and then chow innings until the seventh or so? I think A.J.'s strategy is to get a good start against a time first time through the order while hopefully we can steal a run or two ourselves and take an early lead. Please forgive me if this has already been reported, but I haven't seen anything written about it in this precise vein, so, sorry for the Captain Obvious routine here. The Athletic just had an article on it and they've been saying this ad nauseum on the broadcasts. It's partly what you say, and partly so the long guy doesn't have to face the best part of the order 3 times, so they are more likely to be able to get that extra inning. It messes up matchups for the opposing team - the Athletic article was talking to the M's manager (before he was fired). Overall, as much as I hated it to start, it seems like a really good strategy and it's getting results. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4hzglory Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 11 minutes ago, casimir said: Hinch addressed this on camera and it was shown during the Sunday game. One of his points was that he can pick (assuming a good opener) the leadoff hitter that the bulk reliever will face. So, kind of what you you are alluding to with the "top of", the pitching braintrust can pick where the bulk pitcher goes in based on matchup and/or avoid a 3rd plate appearance vs a certain string of opposing batters. I should have read this before posting my response Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted August 27 Author Share Posted August 27 1 minute ago, 4hzglory said: I should have read this before posting my response No you shouldn't have. Your response was 💯 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shelton Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 The tv broadcast very recently had the stats grouped by the type of pitching strategy and distinguished between traditional start, opener game, and bullpen game. I think these distinctions have been clear from the beginning once Mize and Reese and got hurt and Jack was traded. I have not paid any attention to what Hinch specifically calls it, as it is irrelevant, and I can’t imagine that anyone in the league cares either. I do think it’s been interesting to follow lately. I always found it kind of silly that a team was expected to be so forthcoming about their strategy in advance when it comes to pitching, but not necessarily with the lineup. For a long time it didn’t make much of a difference because the traditional rotation made such news obvious. But there is really no reason you should ever make your opener/bullpen use known in advance. Folks can find out when the lineup is posted. And yes, I know that cynically we need to acknowledge that MLB requires advance notice of the lineup for use with their gambling partners. I know that bothers a lot of folks. I recall that over a decade ago Lee (I think) suggested a pitching scheme without the use of a traditional rotation, and instead a group of bulk reliever types, and that it would obviously require some team to try it first before it were widely adopted. I think we have seen over the past five years or so that many teams are willing to use a version of this in their willing adoption of openers and bulk relievers. I don’t have a problem with it. I’m still waiting for it to become commonplace for a team to announce a traditional starter and then pull him after a batter or two and insert a different guy. A team did that against the dodgers in the playoffs a few years ago, but everyone saw through it, including Dave Roberts, because the starter was going on short rest. I want to say it was Miami during the Covid year. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shelton Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 (edited) double post Edited August 27 by Shelton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 (edited) 29 minutes ago, casimir said: Hinch addressed this on camera and it was shown during the Sunday game. One of his points was that he can pick (assuming a good opener) the leadoff hitter that the bulk reliever will face. So, kind of what you you are alluding to with the "top of", the pitching braintrust can pick where the bulk pitcher goes in based on matchup and/or avoid a 3rd plate appearance vs a certain string of opposing batters. RIght. Against a RH 'opener' you expect to see LH bats somewhere in the top of the order so you if you can get your RHP though the order up to the 2nd PA of the 1st good LH bat, that is when you make your change. I can see the league disallowing it at some point just because that is the kind of short sighted 'fix' that top admins like. Of course the real response to 'openers' is developing LH bats to hit LHP. Something the Tigers are notably working on - maybe because they see openers as an inevitable future if they are not banned? I think this will also tie into ABS in a big way. My prediction is that unless they formally widen the K zone, ABS will be calling it narrower. That is going to hurt slider pitchers more than change of speed pitchers and thus it will probably reduce platoon splits for both pitchers and batters as change of speed and fastball movement become the more important aspects of pitching compared to horizontal break. Not that they will disappear, but if splits get smaller strategies like openers become less significant. Again, the risk to the game is that league management won't give the game time to re-equilibrate to needed changes and instead will either back off or make other counter-productive rule changes instead of just giving players time to develop the skills to match the rules. Edited August 27 by gehringer_2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 19 minutes ago, Shelton said: I’m still waiting for it to become commonplace That's the more interesting question - why hasn't it? I wonder it comes down to identifying what pitcher is suitable to use as an opener. I think most teams want to keep at least two top relievers for end games, so now you are down to your 3rd/4th best reliever and the question is whether you actually get a split advantage with your 3/4 reliever vs the starter/bulk guy you are holding back. Given that it's the best pitchers that tend to be put into starter roles, there might not be that many situations when that 3rd/4th reliever is actually a better choice even with the split advantages. It's true now for the Tigers as we are so deep into the end of our starter depth but would it be with Mize and Olson in the rotation? Also the Tigers have had a lot of success moving Holton around, but the question is how many guys can be as effective as Holton while being moved around as much - and obviously some people just lobby that Holton is starter material anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger337 Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 31 minutes ago, Shelton said: I recall that over a decade ago Lee (I think) suggested a pitching scheme without the use of a traditional rotation, and instead a group of bulk reliever types, and that it would obviously require some team to try it first before it were widely adopted. I think we have seen over the past five years or so that many teams are willing to use a version of this in their willing adoption of openers and bulk relievers. I had mentioned the three three three rotation. I believe Tango was the first to suggest it. Your three best starters are used traditionally and then you have two bullpen days where the three pitchers pitch three innings apiece. There are also three traditional relievers to finish things off. We may very well be headed in that direction or something close to it. Requiring starters to to pitch six innings per start would put an end to all the recent experimentation. I don't think that's a good idea. I do like watching traditional starters pitch deep into games, but I also don't like to see rules put in place that limit strategy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4hzglory Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 1 minute ago, Tiger337 said: I had mentioned the three three three rotation. I believe Tango was the first to suggest it. Your three best starters are used traditionally and then you have two bullpen days where the three pitchers pitch three innings apiece. There are also three traditional relievers to finish things off. We may very well be headed in that direction or something close to it. Requiring starters to to pitch six innings per start would put an end to all the recent experimentation. I don't think that's a good idea. I do like watching traditional starters pitch deep into games, but I also don't like to see rules put in place that limit strategy. Yeah, as much as I hated the opener/definitely still hate complete bullpen days and long for the days of starters pitching 220-250 innings, requiring starters to pitch 5-6 innings would be an extremely foolish rule - which means MLB has at least a 30-40 pct chance of doing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shelton Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 13 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said: That's the more interesting question - why hasn't it? I wonder it comes down to identifying what pitcher is suitable to use as an opener. I think most teams want to keep at least two top relievers for end games, so now you are down to your 3rd/4th best reliever and the question is whether you actually get a split advantage with your 3/4 reliever vs the starter/bulk guy you are holding back. Given that it's the best pitchers that tend to be put into starter roles, there might not be that many situations when that 3rd/4th reliever is actually a better choice even with the split advantages. It's true now for the Tigers as we are so deep into the end of our starter depth but would it be with Mize and Olson in the rotation? Also the Tigers have had a lot of success moving Holton around, but the question is how many guys can be as effective as Holton while being moved around as much - and obviously some people just lobby that Holton is starter material anyway. I was referring to announcing Mize and starting Mize and then unleashing Skubal a couple batters in on a lefty heavy lineup (as an example; don’t quote me on some weird reverse split or something). As to why openers are not more common, I suspect it is as simple as you suggest. Your best starters are probably better than your mediocre relievers, and it’s also tough to have enough of a right/left distribution to be able to do it too often. The first inning is inherently low leverage, that you aren’t going to typically use your best RP, where they are clearly better than the SP option that would follow. So from roster management and personnel standpoint, it still feels like it will remain limited to using an opener ahead of your back end of the rotation types or worse, to try to give them whatever boost you can get by being able to find the right lineup pocket. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edman85 Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 (edited) I was pushing for something like this in one of the playoff years instead of relegating two SP to mopup duty. Let Verlander and Scherzer go all out, but tandemize the rest. Edited August 27 by Edman85 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMRivdogs Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 29 minutes ago, Tiger337 said: I had mentioned the three three three rotation. I believe Tango was the first to suggest it. Your three best starters are used traditionally and then you have two bullpen days where the three pitchers pitch three innings apiece. There are also three traditional relievers to finish things off. We may very well be headed in that direction or something close to it. Requiring starters to to pitch six innings per start would put an end to all the recent experimentation. I don't think that's a good idea. I do like watching traditional starters pitch deep into games, but I also don't like to see rules put in place that limit strategy. I seem to remember Tony LaRussa and Dave Duncan experimenting with such a setup. I found a story.. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-07-25-sp-16700-story.html Everything old... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 (edited) 1 hour ago, Shelton said: I was referring to announcing Mize and starting Mize and then unleashing Skubal a couple batters in on a lefty heavy lineup (as an example; don’t quote me on some weird reverse split or something) ah. I think you answered that question when you said "traditional rotation." Some of our more exercise science oriented posters tell us the 5 day rotation system is settled science - at least for now. Edited August 27 by gehringer_2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 (edited) 1 hour ago, Tiger337 said: Requiring starters to to pitch six innings per start would put an end to all the recent experimentation. I don't think that's a good idea. I do like watching traditional starters pitch deep into games, but I also don't like to see rules put in place that limit strategy they can't be so stupid to require a guy stay in the game when he's being shelled can they? At best they would have to pair it to some maximum pitch per inning number which would be too high to actually keep guys from getting hurt but still too low to actually keep guys in consistently. If they really want to use fewer pitchers, and won't deaden the ball or otherwise make the game easier for pitchers, then allow any pitcher to re-enter the game once. Edited August 27 by gehringer_2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger337 Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 16 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said: they can't be so stupid to require a guy stay in the game when he's being shelled can they? At best they would have to pair it to some maximum pitch per inning number which would be too high to actually keep guys from getting hurt but still too low to actually keep guys in consistently. If they really want to use fewer pitchers, and won't deaden the ball or otherwise make the game easier for pitchers, then allow any pitcher to re-enter the game once. Yes, they have suggested caveats which make it reasonable in theory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger337 Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 26 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said: ah. I think you answered that question when you said "traditional rotation." Some of our more exercise science oriented posters tell us the 5 day rotation system is settled science - at least for now. I think science involving variation between inividuals is never fully settled. There are always going to be pitchers who don't fit the norm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oblong Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 10 minutes ago, Tiger337 said: Yes, they have suggested caveats which make it reasonable in theory. I don't like it for the same reason I don't like banning the shift. You are dictating play. I don't buy a pace of game argument because you've already introduced the pitch clock and other things to get the game moving along, it shouldn't be an issue anymore. A solution in search of a problem. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hongbit Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 3 minutes ago, oblong said: I don't like it for the same reason I don't like banning the shift. You are dictating play. I don't buy a pace of game argument because you've already introduced the pitch clock and other things to get the game moving along, it shouldn't be an issue anymore. A solution in search of a problem. The problem from the owners perspective is the amount of money they are paying starting pitchers continues to increase while their usage goes down. They want to better maximize their roster spending and get more bang for their buck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 5 minutes ago, oblong said: I don't like it for the same reason I don't like banning the shift. You are dictating play. I don't buy a pace of game argument because you've already introduced the pitch clock and other things to get the game moving along, it shouldn't be an issue anymore. A solution in search of a problem. I suppose the 'problem' is too many pitchers filling up rosters. If you can 'make' guys pitch more innings you in theory need fewer pitchers on the roster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 (edited) 1 minute ago, Hongbit said: The problem from the owners perspective is the amount of money they are paying starting pitchers continues to increase while their usage goes down. They want to better maximize their roster spending and get more bang for their buck. good point. certainly this also. But doing anything that drives more injuries isn't going to be the answer because they still have to pay all those guys doing TJ rehab - also money down the drain. Edited August 27 by gehringer_2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oblong Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 I don't know whether what Hinch is doing is the result of injuries or part of a plan, or a combo of both, but it's working so far and it's innovative and the league should encourage that. Maybe they exploited an inefficiency. Or exploited an effiency, whatever. But baseball is like the Catholic Church or other large conglomerate that moves at the pace of a glacier. Don't rock the boat. Play the game "like it's supposed to be played!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 (edited) 1 hour ago, Tiger337 said: I think science involving variation between inividuals is never fully settled. There are always going to be pitchers who don't fit the norm. True - and I would usually take the argument that human variability is greater than assumed in most situations, but if you have a staff of 5 starters, in the absence of contradicting evidence, your best course is still to drive toward what's best for the average. That always leave the possibility that for a particular staff, a manager somehow learns that he has mostly outliers and so runs an unconventional pitching schedule. But to go back to the question of whether and why it would become common, the existence of a team or two with an unusual staff shouldn't necessarily influence the way most teams with pitchers who they assume will do best on 5 days are going to schedule. Or as in one of your examples you split the staff into a group on a standard schedule and group on an alternate one. But of course we also know that a team or two wins a WS doing something different, within a couple of years everyone will try it! 🤷♀️ Edited August 27 by gehringer_2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casimir Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 4 hours ago, 4hzglory said: I should have read this before posting my response Great minds think alike. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casimir Posted August 27 Share Posted August 27 4 hours ago, Shelton said: I don’t have a problem with it. I’m still waiting for it to become commonplace for a team to announce a traditional starter and then pull him after a batter or two and insert a different guy. A team did that against the dodgers in the playoffs a few years ago, but everyone saw through it, including Dave Roberts, because the starter was going on short rest. I want to say it was Miami during the Covid year. Milwaukee, Wade Miley. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.