Look at Ray Ray Run

If you want to look at what an actual optimal usage of an arm looks like, look at Andrew Miller from about 2014-2017. That's how you don't let the inning tie down the usage, and focus solely on optimizing for leverage. It's also fascinating to me that you haven't put together that blindly using a pitcher in the 9th inning (which you call out as bad practice) is the exact same thing as using a pitcher blindly in the 1st. The difference between is at least with the 9th you've guaranteed it is high-ish leverage and winnable. This will be my last comment on this as I've been going on about this for a few days. If you want to argue this is good for development or etc, fine. Arguing it's optimal for winning games is factually incorrect. As for the below, my guy. Just pull the starter earlier then! There is zero data that says 1-3 have better success in the 1st inning than later innings. The reason you see the most runs scored in the first inning is because it's the ONLY inning where both teams are guaranteed to have their 1-3 bat.

No it's not. Leverage is about the outs given impact on the games expected result. People either need to use a different word or stop misrepresenting what leverage is. You even said it's smarter to use your best reliever as an opener than it is to pay a starting pitcher 150 million. I honestly have no idea what anyone is talking about here. It's obviously much better to have a great starting pitcher than it is to have to use your best relief pitcher in the 1st inning. Using Taylor in the 1st versus in the 7th does not absolve your need to complete the innings in between. All it does is completely remove the flexibility you had with Taylor previously. And yes, it's absolutely guaranteed that the teams 1-3 hitters will come up again. The highest leverage situations aren't always verse the top 3 hitters in the lineup either.

Brutal news, agreed. Was looking forward to seeing if CWS was right on Baldwin!

In what world is that a very solid outfield?

No, it's not in fact better than him coming in later in the game in high leverage situations. You can also face the top of the order later in the game. The rotation still has to face those guys. They either do it twice early in the game or twice later in the game. In fact, you could bring Taylor in relief for the 3rd time through the order. What a concept! Having Taylor open 70 times means it's very likely he pitches in 40ish games that are pretty meaningless given this teams expected win %. There's nothing innovative about applying bad math. Being different just to be different doesn't make it smart.

There's nothing innovative about this.

hard to hit when it's cold like this.

I have no interest in going back and forth with an LLM.

If you can't measure it, I'm skeptical because you can't predict it or validate it. I'm OK with manager feels and reading a player, but in this case the data is pretty black and white. Either way, it seems others are moving the goal post. I brought up it could be routine or developmental, but I won't give this team the benefit of the doubt. I don't think anyone is arguing its optimal so...

I think it's crazy because it's just so obviously not optimal but as I also noted, the sequence with which your pitchers pitch has a very small impact on the runs scored so it's not killing the team overall. This just means your starter gets hit in the 6th instead of the 1st or some lesser reliever faces that group in the 7th. The most egregious part is the situations where it matters heavily favors flexibility and availability which you take away with opening with him, but taylor pitching in general is a net positive regardless of when. I've been arguing forever that your best reliever shouldn't be locked into the 9th inning since it's the same concept, but at least there you're rarely wasting them in blowouts unless you want them to get work.

It didn't lead to two wins.... come on now ha.

Not trying to come off as a dick, but everything you're arguing is subjective/situational and it's merely the positive side of the outcome which no one said has no positives. It's just those positives are outweighed by the negatives and/or what you're giving up. What's confusing me is many who keep defending this action, and arguing its utility also agreed/argued that it might be based on developing taylor and not wins and losses. Which... at least makes some sense but runs counter this argument. I also have no idea why the Sox are receiving the benefit of the doubt on something that runs counter the value add metrics as if they have out smarted everyone.

Meidroth's changes (if that's what we'll call them) aren't looking promising so far. I don't know if he's trying to sell-out for some kind of power (although his swing speeds are the same), but it's greatly impacting what he used to do well. His overall contact rate is down 10% YoY, which puts him in the top 15 biggest drops so far. We still need another 25ish PA's to really say it's indicative of an actual change, but he's going to have to have a great stretch to get that number back to being great. His 23.5% K rate is also up 9% over his previous mark. Bring up Antonacci!

It's gotta be hard being right as often as you are and having to educate everyone. Very kind of you!

We use different ways the evaluate players, and that's OK. Just no point in going back and forth, especially putting leasure in the same class as Taylor.

He's by far their best and most talented.

Yeah, I mentioned this as well. This seems like the one reason that makes some sense. Everyone else is basically using sequencing variance as an example/reason why it could be smart. They are mistaking, imo, possibility with reasonableness. Just because sequencing luck can work in your favor, doesn't mean its the best strategy. You can lead the league in sac bunting and runs scored, but it wouldn't make sac bunting Smart for maximizing scoring.

That 86% is already giving the first inning extra weight and value, and more than exists given the actual run distribution. I'm just using it as an example to say even if you argued the first was the most valuable inning because it has the highest runs scored it's not so much more valuable that using your best pitcher win that inning blindly would make sense. There's too much opportunity cost being wasted in that situation, in the hope of capturing that 14%. Your basically sacrificing the 86% for the 14%. And yes, that 86% is lower as it's unlikely you're going to pull your starter in the 3rd inning (which also might be the highest leverage situation) but the idea remains. Additionally, the order your pitchers pitch really doesn't have an impact on the general run scoring environment (as noted, even if you reduced the runs in the 1st slightly it will come at the cost of runs somewhere else, and while that may result in a slight overall reduction of runs against, it doesn't mean it'll increase wins given the overall leverage/influence. The reason for using them in high leverage situations is that you get more value creation out of those specific outs by reducing the opportunity the other team has to maximize that moment. You can't really predict or dictate when the other team is going to put themselves in their optimal run scoring situation (sometimes it'll even be the 1st!), but you can reserve your best arms usage until a moment that has a higher likelihood of being it than blanketly using them in the 1st inning to cover that possibility. As opportunities decrease throughout the game, the value of an out changes. Lastly as it relates to the below: "I think the part I struggle with the most is that the 86% number is based on how games typically play out with traditional usage." It's not really traditional usage though. This concept holds up whether you use a starter/reliever or you're throwing an elite starter. The first inning is the highest run scoring environment because it's the only inning guaranteed to have the 1-3 hitters all hitting for both teams. In fact, it's more likely that Taylor himself will give up more runs in that inning than other innings. Because this applies to all arms, your general gain isn't more or less significant than it would be in a lesser run scoring inning, as it's all relative to the opposition and general conditions. We can certainly agree to disagree, but appreciate the dialogue.

I think the issue here is this implication that the butterfly effect is only positive. Another huge issue with using him in the 1st is it might be a completely meaningless game. Say Burke gives up 6 in the 2nd or 3rd, now you've used taylor in an unwinnable game. In theory you could end up using Taylor in all games and slots that end up having zero outcome influence. It's just as egregious as bringing him in up or down 8 in the late innings. Which you'd never do. And those 3 outs early, even if they correlated to a slight reduction in total runs against because of the 1st having the highest amount per game, it doesn't mean its how you optimize wins (meaning it has no impact on wins) and a team deploying their best in the highest leverage spots would outperform the former.

I just said that? I showed that there are odds it ends up being the best place, but those odds are much smaller than the odds that it's not. Therefore, it's a bad usage of him. You aren't guaranteeing you don't use him in the most optimal spot, but you're stacking the deck against it. Additionally, the only way for the 1st to turn into a high leverage situation with him starting is for him to create it. Meanwhile, bringing him in up 1 to start the 8th is already high leverage without any situation being created. I'll add, there's a reason no other team in baseball is using their best reliever as an opener and it's not because getz is smarter than them al.

The 1st inning can certainly decide a game, and it's the highest scoring inning. That said, the odds of a given one containing the highest leverage situation in a game are low, meaning the likelihood of it being the situation that most influences the outcome of the game are also low (even if it's high relative to other innings!) So using your best reliever in that spot isn't smart. The beauty of a reliever is you don't have to blindly guess when that moment will be, but by using him there you take your best arm off the board when it's 86%+ likely that the most important moment is not then. This is really just an example of badly applied math, or they want Taylor to have a starter routine before a game.

You can use him against the top of the lineup later in the game. Using your best reliever in the first inning is just bad strategy. There's no way around it.

Makes no sense.

Colson and Murakami. These will be common causes of wins this year.

The point of your best reliever is to use them in the highest leverage scenarios. That is rarely ever going to be the first inning.