1 hour ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Makes no sense.

I get what you’re saying about saving him for high leverage situations, but you only get the heart of your lineup up four times, maybe five, in a game. And we completely took away one of those in each game. The first inning isn’t any less important than the 7th, 8th, or 9th.

Now, if by high leverage, you don’t mean the inning, but instead you mean the situation (like multiple runners on), I won’t argue that. But you can’t guarantee that situation presents itself where Toronto’s best hitters are up with runners on late in the game.

1 hour ago, tray said:

Seranthony almost blew that by doing what Sox relievers did so many times last year - walking the lead-off batter in the ninth with a three run lead. A lot of stress watching the last batter with Vlad up next. Would like to see a more dominant Closing performance.

He throw an inning and a third yesterday. Im glad he was effective today. Probably a little of yesterday still hanging on him. Good to have a traditional closer so long as hes used accordingly.

56 minutes ago, Autumn Dreamin said:

If you want him as a future closer, then sure. But if they are leaving the starting door open for next season then they'll need to use him in more than one circumstance.

Saving him for leverage only would make it hard to get to their innings target.

That's why this is strange- he's pitching 1 inning, 2 days in a row, which is what closers do.

55 minutes ago, SoxBlanco said:

I get what you’re saying about saving him for high leverage situations, but you only get the heart of your lineup up four times, maybe five, in a game. And we completely took away one of those in each game. The first inning isn’t any less important than the 7th, 8th, or 9th.

Now, if by high leverage, you don’t mean the inning, but instead you mean the situation (like multiple runners on), I won’t argue that. But you can’t guarantee that situation presents itself where Toronto’s best hitters are up with runners on late in the 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.

Edited 20 hours ago20 hr by Look at Ray Ray Run

25 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

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.

Why is later in the game more important than the first inning? A run is a run, regardless of when you score it.

50 minutes ago, SoxBlanco said:

Why is later in the game more important than the first inning? A run is a run, regardless of when you score it.

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.

Toronto's backup catcher has to be our MVP so far this series.

1 hour ago, SoxBlanco said:

Why is later in the game more important than the first inning? A run is a run, regardless of when you score it.

So why do teams still employ a closer?

I tend to agree with the logic that "a run is a run" that the 'closer' is overrated; it's an interesting discussion, I found this article breaking down 'leverage index' by inning for the 2013 season:

https://tht.fangraphs.com/tht-live/leverage-index-by-inning/

The logic of the first inning being very important is a reasonable one, but the values seem close enough between the 1st, 7th and 8th innings that you might prefer to maintain flexibility in the bullpen and use your best reliever when the game calls for it.

Hicks pitched against the top of the order anyway and was called on with runners on first and second in a 4-2 game. I think that's a situation you'd rather see Taylor in than Hicks.

25 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

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.

The problem with that argument is that it treats high-leverage moments as inevitable, when they could actually be the result of earlier pitching decisions. If a weaker pitcher gives up runs early, that could be what creates a high-leverage situation later. Using your best reliever in the first inning can prevent that entire situation from ever existing.

Look, I’m a big math guy. High school math teacher actually, so I love this discussion. I’m not saying using Taylor in the first inning is for sure the right move. I just don’t think it’s obviously the incorrect move like you do.

5 minutes ago, nrockway said:

So why do teams still employ a closer?

I tend to agree with the logic that "a run is a run" that the 'closer' is overrated; it's an interesting discussion, I found this article breaking down 'leverage index' by inning for the 2013 season:

https://tht.fangraphs.com/tht-live/leverage-index-by-inning/

The logic of the first inning being very important is a reasonable one, but the values seem close enough between the 1st, 7th and 8th innings that you might prefer to maintain flexibility in the bullpen and use your best reliever when the game calls for it.

Hicks pitched against the top of the order anyway and was called on with runners on first and second in a 4-2 game. I think that's a situation you'd rather see Taylor in than Hicks.

But if a different pitcher was used in the first inning, there’s a chance that 4-2 situation doesn’t even exist later.

Like I said in my post right above this one, I love this discussion. And I’m not saying I’m correct. I’d love to dive deeper into the math, but I don’t know how you can account for the butterfly effect possibly changing the entire game path.

2 minutes ago, SoxBlanco said:

But if a different pitcher was used in the first inning, there’s a chance that 4-2 situation doesn’t even exist later.

Like I said in my post right above this one, I love this discussion. And I’m not saying I’m correct. I’d love to dive deeper into the math, but I don’t know how you can account for the butterfly effect possibly changing the entire game path.

It's true. I think Autumn Dreamin made a good point in yesterday's game thread about Burke's ERA when he starts vs when he follows an opener (bad vs good). Today's game with a lefty doing the bulk work, I think it makes sense to have a righty vs the top of Toronto's order. But I think Hicks could fill the role well, throw heat to the top of the order and it's not a huge deal if he walks Vlad with the bases empty or a runner on first, whereas I like a pitcher like Taylor in a relief situation with runners in scoring position and fewer than 2 outs because he's the most reliable strikeout pitcher on the roster.

It's a pretty minuscule thing, the pitching has pretty much shut down a high-powered Blue Jays offense, so it's probably the right decision. If anything, I would've wanted to see Taylor come out to face Okamoto and let Kay start against the LHH Varsho.

7 hours ago, SoxBlanco said:

The problem with that argument is that it treats high-leverage moments as inevitable, when they could actually be the result of earlier pitching decisions. If a weaker pitcher gives up runs early, that could be what creates a high-leverage situation later. Using your best reliever in the first inning can prevent that entire situation from ever existing.

Look, I’m a big math guy. High school math teacher actually, so I love this discussion. I’m not saying using Taylor in the first inning is for sure the right move. I just don’t think it’s obviously the incorrect move like you do.

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.

Edited 11 hours ago11 hr by Look at Ray Ray Run

7 hours ago, SoxBlanco said:

But if a different pitcher was used in the first inning, there’s a chance that 4-2 situation doesn’t even exist later.

Like I said in my post right above this one, I love this discussion. And I’m not saying I’m correct. I’d love to dive deeper into the math, but I don’t know how you can account for the butterfly effect possibly changing the entire game path.

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.

Edited 10 hours ago10 hr by Look at Ray Ray Run

9 hours ago, chw42 said:

Toronto's backup catcher has to be our MVP so far this series.

Jerry got the right man at the right price with this guy.

1 hour ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

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 think this is where we are just valuing different types of risk. You’re focused on “wasting” your best reliever in a game that ends up not mattering, which I get. But there’s also risk on the other side, which is not using him early and letting the game get away from you in the first place.

On the butterfly effect point, I don’t think it’s about assuming it’s positive or negative. It’s that uncertainty exists no matter when you use him. A weaker pitcher might get through the first inning clean, but that same pitcher might also get through a high-leverage spot later. Or if Taylor gives up runs in the first (creating a negative butterfly effect), he could just as easily give up runs in a tie game in the 8th. So I’m not sure that uncertainty really favors waiting.

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 descriptive of what happens, but not necessarily what would happen if teams used their best reliever early. If early decisions can affect how often a game becomes close late, then that distribution of leverage might change, too. I’m not sure how you would even account for that mathematically.

4 minutes ago, SoxBlanco said:

I think this is where we are just valuing different types of risk. You’re focused on “wasting” your best reliever in a game that ends up not mattering, which I get. But there’s also risk on the other side, which is not using him early and letting the game get away from you in the first place.

On the butterfly effect point, I don’t think it’s about assuming it’s positive or negative. It’s that uncertainty exists no matter when you use him. A weaker pitcher might get through the first inning clean, but that same pitcher might also get through a high-leverage spot later. Or if Taylor gives up runs in the first (creating a negative butterfly effect), he could just as easily give up runs in a tie game in the 8th. So I’m not sure that uncertainty really favors waiting.

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 descriptive of what happens, but not necessarily what would happen if teams used their best reliever early. If early decisions can affect how often a game becomes close late, then that distribution of leverage might change, too. I’m not sure how you would even account for that mathematically.

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.

Edited 8 hours ago8 hr by Look at Ray Ray Run

I wonder if using Taylor as an opener has anything to do with winning. Sox don’t seem to care about that. I think it is a way of grooming him to go back to starting, which would be a good thing. It will hurt less if/when Berroa comes back.

Do they win a few more games by saving Taylor for leverage spots? Maybe (assuming they want to prioritize that over whatever development path for him)....Though honestly I'd argue maybe they don't, if the starter variance forces Will to scramble with the pen anyway. We've seen those scrambles have a lot of negative domino effects already.

Obviously it's impossible to truly know how the counterfactuals play out, but was Taylor going in the 6th or 7th vs. MIL really more impactful than having him in the 1st inning of these two games vs. Toronto? (Not by WPA, for what it's worth)

Like if Taylor put up a 0 ahead of Burke's first outing vs MIL, that's probably a more winnable game. Potentially tied in the 6th? Even if not, does Burke simply going deeper mean they have a fresher pen to avoid the collapse in the finale?

In that game, Kay was pulled in the 5th to dodge a 3rd AB for the cleanup hitter (who had already homered against him) with runners on. That created an extra leverage spot trying to even make it to Taylor, who was saved for the top of the order in the 7th. Sure, Taylor puts up a 0 there...but the 8th is now in Murphy's hands because they had to spend a better arm on that earlier fire from Kay's third time through. Murphy doesn't have his best stuff/luck in a back to back outing after covering for Burke's short start in the prior game, and now they have to rush Dominguez in...Yelich, who got a free look at Dominguez when he also had to cover an extra inning the night before, takes him deep and wins the game.

Yesterday could have played out similarly. Vlad Jr just missed a HR in his first AB vs. Kay, then found the extra distance in the second attempt on a very similar pitch in his next one. But Taylor getting him out in the 1st meant the second look at Kay came all the way in the 6th inning, and another look wasn't even a factor. Venable got to pick his spot to pull Kay (with a lefty up for Murphy, bases empty) instead of the game situation forcing it, because Taylor's scoreless first removed both the pressure for more length from Kay and the looming threat of a third time through.

Finding a pathway to the end of the game is a bit easier with this staff when it starts in the 6th or later, and all of the bullpen usage/matchups/leverage stuff becomes more projectable. The pen deployment yesterday felt relatively smooth despite using 6 arms, because there was no emergency need for length or leverage from the starter's exit causing unexpected ripple effects or forcing tough choices. Only one guy came in with runners on (Hicks). Same for the series opener (Dominguez). In Kay's first start, it was 4/6 arms coming in with inherited runners...which made that 4.2IP/2ER vs. MIL feel so much less effective than the 4.1IP/2ER vs. TOR.

TLDR: The ability to append any quality inning onto a possibly less than quality start is pretty useful, Taylor as opener just locks it in at the start where Taylor as setup guy requires you to actually make it to that setup scenario first. It seems feasible to me that "How can we get to the 7th WITH Taylor?" is an easier puzzle to solve than "How can we get to the 7th FOR Taylor?" and smoothing out some of that variance could help a lot of other pieces fall into place more consistently. I think Vasil as swiss army pitcher had a similar effect at times last year.

But despite all of my yapping, I'm not necessarily saying Taylor will/should exclusively open games from here on out. For this back to back specifically, I think a lot of stars just aligned once he was so efficient in Game 1.

I do think being willing to do it at least situationally does have multiple benefits for this roster right now though:

• Guaranteed innings for Taylor, instead of waiting for leverage chances that may be harder to come by/bridge to

• Insulating a rotation of mostly unproven arms from third time through penalties

• Having more projectable/consistent bullpen deployment for later innings (even when that doesn't include Taylor himself)

• Providing a more natural path to eventual longer outings than trying to force multi-inning holds/saves

• Potentially helping with "momentum" in games, given an offense that often scores more early than late

It's also just kind of cool that they just won back to back games with the same two pitchers recording the first 3 outs and last 3 outs of both games. Has to be a rarity.

I keep asking this question but you keep arguing why Taylor shouldn’t be the opener and not answering my question.

Why do you keep saying he’s their best reliever? What is your evidence? Certainly, he’s had those two, only two, great innings, but he wasn’t close their best reliever last year. Down the stretch Leasure clearly was their best, and Taylor was just among the rest. And the Sox added Dominguez and Newcomb.

Right now it is a VERY SMALL sample size, and I doubt it will happen, but it’s very possible the Sox could have two or three relievers better than Taylor.

If the Sox have a couple relievers (or three depending on lefty/ righty matchups) better than Taylor, there’s no reason why not to use him as an opener.

Edited 8 hours ago8 hr by vilehoopster
Added more

58 minutes ago, Timmy U said:

I wonder if using Taylor as an opener has anything to do with winning. Sox don’t seem to care about that. I think it is a way of grooming him to go back to starting, which would be a good thing. It will hurt less if/when Berroa comes back.

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.

39 minutes ago, vilehoopster said:

I keep asking this question but you keep arguing why Taylor shouldn’t be the opener and not answering my question.

Why do you keep saying he’s their best reliever? What is your evidence? Certainly, he’s had those two, only two, great innings, but he wasn’t close their best reliever last year. Down the stretch Leasure clearly was their best, and Taylor was just among the rest. And the Sox added Dominguez and Newcomb.

Right now it is a VERY SMALL sample size, and I doubt it will happen, but it’s very possible the Sox could have two or three relievers better than Taylor.

If the Sox have a couple relievers (or three depending on lefty/ righty matchups) better than Taylor, there’s no reason why not to use him as an opener.

He's by far their best and most talented.

14 hours ago, nrockway said:

Fair point. I'm basically resigned to the fact that Grant isn't gonna start though. I don't think the injury concerns re: his extension have went away.

Sox were 1-5 and the starters had been sucking. He started both games and the Sox won both.

Maybe that move + plus home cooking settled down the team.

Why would you be resigned to him not starting ? He still just 23 . You might be right but you might not be. We still need to see him pitch consistently well in whatever role they put him in . I just want to see more Sox pitchers putting up zeros.

2 hours ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said:

Sox were 1-5 and the starters had been sucking. He started both games and the Sox won both.

Maybe that move + plus home cooking settled down the team.

Why would you be resigned to him not starting ? He still just 23 . You might be right but you might not be. We still need to see him pitch consistently well in whatever role they put him in . I just want to see more Sox pitchers putting up zeros.

I'm worried his arm might fall off. Something about that 98th percentile extension despite being "only" 6'3. Can it be repeated 100 times a game?

2 hours ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

He's by far their best and most talented.

Well, now since you’ve given me so much evidence to your claim that Taylor is the best Sox reliever, I have to agree with you.

My fault. I thought you were just stating your opinion.

29 minutes ago, vilehoopster said:

Well, now since you’ve given me so much evidence to your claim that Taylor is the best Sox reliever, I have to agree with you.

My fault. I thought you were just stating your opinion.

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.