Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Greg Hibbard

Should the White Sox experiment with the "opener"?

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

I'd say that Nova is actually the pitcher in the rotation we should least want to use this for. We want every inning out of his arm that we can get, that's why he's here, so that we can dump innings onto his arm once a week to save the bullpen and to make up for any days that the youngsters in the rotation hurt or struggled. I really don't care if we make things easier on Nova or we help him win more games, go out and throw 200 innings for us and if you struggle early in a game, go throw 6 innings anyway.

He can throw 6 innings even if they do this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

I'd say that Nova is actually the pitcher in the rotation we should least want to use this for. We want every inning out of his arm that we can get, that's why he's here, so that we can dump innings onto his arm once a week to save the bullpen and to make up for any days that the youngsters in the rotation hurt or struggled. I really don't care if we make things easier on Nova or we help him win more games, go out and throw 200 innings for us and if you struggle early in a game, go throw 6 innings anyway.

He didn't even throw 200 last year. He was at 160. I feel he would be a pretty good arm to do it with. Have a reliever get through the first inning and then have Nova come in from innings 2-6/7. I would prefer it to be him over the youngsters. Of course, it probably means Santana is the 5th starter, who could be an innings eater himself if his finger is fine.

Edited by soxfan2014

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is so neat. This can change the game as we know it.  People talk about silly pitch clocks and different things, but this idea of an opener would gain fan interest. Not only that it seems like can be good strategy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the era of 13 pitchers I would propose that two bench players can be re-used in a game. I miss having a good bench to use and strategize. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Chisox378 said:

This is so neat. This can change the game as we know it.  People talk about silly pitch clocks and different things, but this idea of an opener would gain fan interest. Not only that it seems like can be good strategy.

Man we disagree. The idea of an opener sickens me. If teams all go to "openers" I'm done with baseball. The starting pitcher is part of the lore of baseball. Can you picture baseball when we go to all relievers? Flame throwers will "open" the game and progress through it. Batters will have no chance. Statniks are going to ruin the game of baseball if we go to all relief pitchers. I mean in theory yes it makes a lot of sense. Have the guys who throw 95 and above step to the front of the line and each pitch an inning or two five days a week. Again, hitters will have no chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, greg775 said:

Man we disagree. The idea of an opener sickens me. If teams all go to "openers" I'm done with baseball. The starting pitcher is part of the lore of baseball. Can you picture baseball when we go to all relievers? Flame throwers will "open" the game and progress through it. Batters will have no chance. Statniks are going to ruin the game of baseball if we go to all relief pitchers. I mean in theory yes it makes a lot of sense. Have the guys who throw 95 and above step to the front of the line and each pitch an inning or two five days a week. Again, hitters will have no chance.

Why would hitters have no chance? Without roster expansion theres zero chance a team could ever go to all relievers and relievers - in general - are worse at pitching than starters. Once you get passed your top 3, it's a bunch of middling arms who bounce productivity wise year to year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Why would hitters have no chance? Without roster expansion theres zero chance a team could ever go to all relievers and relievers - in general - are worse at pitching than starters. Once you get passed your top 3, it's a bunch of middling arms who bounce productivity wise year to year.

Because of the heat being thrown at them each and every at bat by a closer type. The relievers will be coming after the hitters. Starters get in a rhythm, etc., and a hitter once in a while guesses right and boom! Home run. Also Ray Ray, it's a proven fact starters weaken their third time through the order. The advantage will be so heavily weighed against the hitter! I will abandon baseball immediately. Aren't the Rays doing this again this season? 

Edited by greg775

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, greg775 said:

Because of the heat being thrown at them each and every at bat by a closer type. The relievers will be coming after the hitters. Starters get in a rhythm, etc., and a hitter once in a while guesses right and boom! Home run. Also Ray Ray, it's a proven fact starters weaken their third time through the order. The advantage will be so heavily weighed against the hitter! I will abandon baseball immediately. Aren't the Rays doing this again this season? 

Do you currently stop watching a baseball game in the late innings because none of hitters have a chance against all of the flame-throwing relievers that enter the game?  The fact is that starters can be hit and relievers can be hit.  You are worrying about something that won’t happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, greg775 said:

Man we disagree. The idea of an opener sickens me. If teams all go to "openers" I'm done with baseball. The starting pitcher is part of the lore of baseball. Can you picture baseball when we go to all relievers? Flame throwers will "open" the game and progress through it. Batters will have no chance. Statniks are going to ruin the game of baseball if we go to all relief pitchers. I mean in theory yes it makes a lot of sense. Have the guys who throw 95 and above step to the front of the line and each pitch an inning or two five days a week. Again, hitters will have no chance.

Does the Designated Hitter also sicken you, mr. traditionalist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Greg Hibbard said:

Does the Designated Hitter also sicken you, mr. traditionalist?

No. I worship the DH. I despise pitchers hitting. Look at it rationally. Once all teams get rid of starters and embrace the "opener," what you have is gut-check baseball from the first inning on. Lefty/righty matchups as early as the second inning. The poor hitters are going to be facing closers the first time up and 101 mph heat and they are going to whiff. Maybe a lousy reliever will be in there at some point but if he's lousy you can bet he'll be used L/R matchups mostly. The baseball starter is the lore of baseball.

You get to the game early with your son and daughter, see the starter warming up, remembering he started four days ago. On the way to the game you talk about the starter and how you are glad (or mad) a certain starter is pitching the day you are attending the game. Is it Buehrle today or Steve Trout or LaMarr Hoyt or some stiff like James Shields or Todd Ritchie (although I credit James for being OK last season).

I'm sure before too long no starter will ever be allowed to face a hitter a third time in a game. I would think analytics shows the odds greatly favor the hitter in that third at bat vs. the pitcher.

I pray that when "openers" take over with 5-6 reliever/starters to follow that baseball forbid the opener for opening the next four days or some way to get statnik front office types to stop this insane ruination of the game! Just my take. I see no way openers can do anything but slow down the game and help ruin it more for the Millenials.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Leonard Zelig said:

Sox should have kept Matt Davidson and let him start 162 games this season.

He's probably the only "opener" I would ever accept. I love Matt Davidson. He and Palka both have hit some bombs in their young careers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg's hatred of Openers has to make the Greg Hall of Fame. Right above Alex Rios and below statniks. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ron883 said:

Greg's hatred of Openers has to make the Greg Hall of Fame. Right above Alex Rios and below statniks. 

Good post. I can't take it. I get so mad thinking of openers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the opener is smart but probably not great for thre aesthetics of the game. There is already some traction for limiting pen action like installing a 3 batter minimum for a pitcher or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an interesting idea that could be abused if done correctly. Think about it. You have an opener who pitches the first inning, then depending on how they set up their line up, depends on what "long reliever you use". Make all your starters "long relievers and you can get the six innings when you want from them. Even replace the opener for the 2nd inning with another reliever before bringing in your long guy.

You have a flexible 13 man pitching squad, one you utilise when you need it. It would need an inventive manager to manage it properly though. I wonder if Tampa Bay may eventually try this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Staffing aside it sounds good when your Paulinos and Paniaguas are starting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, glangon said:

It's an interesting idea that could be abused if done correctly. Think about it. You have an opener who pitches the first inning, then depending on how they set up their line up, depends on what "long reliever you use". Make all your starters "long relievers and you can get the six innings when you want from them. Even replace the opener for the 2nd inning with another reliever before bringing in your long guy.

You have a flexible 13 man pitching squad, one you utilise when you need it. It would need an inventive manager to manage it properly though. I wonder if Tampa Bay may eventually try this.

So... what good pitcher is going to sign up to be a long reliever and destroy his earning potential? I'll give you a hint. None of them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

So... what good pitcher is going to sign up to be a long reliever and destroy his earning potential? I'll give you a hint. None of them.

Ones who know it is their chance to pitch in the majors.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, southsider2k5 said:

Ones who know it is their chance to pitch in the majors.

Sure, so no one good for an extended period of time. 

Unless arbitration changes, the union and agents will be furious and won't stand for it. Teams that do that will see pitchers not wanting to play or pitch there. If the Rays would have done this with Blake Snell last year they would have gotten chewed up by everyone. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Sure, so no one good for an extended period of time. 

Unless arbitration changes, the union and agents will be furious and won't stand for it. Teams that do that will see pitchers not wanting to play or pitch there. If the Rays would have done this with Blake Snell last year they would have gotten chewed up by everyone. 

How many teams have studs as 4th and  5th starters? When was the last time the Sox had 5 studs? And if they  realized they could pitch just as many innings, but face the opponents top hitters one time less. 

Edited by Dick Allen
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Sure, so no one good for an extended period of time. 

Unless arbitration changes, the union and agents will be furious and won't stand for it. Teams that do that will see pitchers not wanting to play or pitch there. If the Rays would have done this with Blake Snell last year they would have gotten chewed up by everyone. 

No one is going to refuse to do this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

How many teams have studs as 4th and  5th starters? When was the last time the Sox had 5 studs?

Reread the post I responded too. It was in relation to using it everyday I thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

No one is going to refuse to do this.

No established mlb starter is going to sign somewhere to be used as a long reliever on days where the match ups suit him. That implies not having a set day you pitch and it greatly reduces your potential statistical output reducing your future earnings.

Reread the post I quoted. I am not saying the opener can never be used. I'm saying you're not creating a 13 man team of arms all doing this every day.

Edited by Look at Ray Ray Run

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

No established mlb starter is going to sign somewhere to be used as a long reliever on days where the match ups suit him. That implies not having a set day you pitch and it greatly reduces your potential statistical output reducing your future earnings.

Reread the post I quoted. I am not saying the opener can never be used. I'm saying you're not creating a 13 man team of arms all doing this every day.

Teams like Tampa that doesn't matter to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×