looking like twins tigers Sox will all be 4-6

rockies as well as cubs and jays too

kc 5~5 Cleveland 6-5 Dodgers 8-2

Edited Tuesday at 02:25 AM5 days by caulfield12

6 minutes ago, Jake said:

I'm with you. I think it is a stupid strategy TBH. I'm open-minded about openers but it's supposed to gain you a platoon advantage and ideally you don't use your best relief arm for it. In this case it only helped with platoon splits in Kay's start and it of course has always deprived us of him later. Today is effectively a wasted game especially given that he's going to need at least a couple days of rest after going 3x in 4 days (I assume).

I won't call this stupid, but if this flipped around:

-Fedde starts normally, gets hit around, Taylor never gets used.

-Same thing happens, just pitchers get moved up an inning, Taylor doesn't get used late losing 2-0.

Either way, he is available tomorrow if needed. Now with 3 appearances in 4 days, he probably isn't and you are back to Leasure and Seranthony as you high leverage guys only.

3 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

I won't call this stupid, but if this flipped around:

-Fedde starts normally, gets hit around, Taylor never gets used.

-Same thing happens, just pitchers get moved up an inning, Taylor doesn't get used late losing 2-0.

Either way, he is available tomorrow if needed. Now with 3 appearances in 4 days, he probably isn't and you are back to Leasure and Seranthony as you high leverage guys only.

And TBH, I'd feel differently if it was Leasure doing it. I think he's a real nice arm, but if you want him to take down good righties early in the game, I'm okay with losing him later. Grant's on another level, I want to put him in the highest leverage spots until further notice.

1 minute ago, Jake said:

And TBH, I'd feel differently if it was Leasure doing it. I think he's a real nice arm, but if you want him to take down good righties early in the game, I'm okay with losing him later. Grant's on another level, I want to put him in the highest leverage spots until further notice.

Agreed. You NEED Taylor late way more.

8 minutes ago, Jake said:

And TBH, I'd feel differently if it was Leasure doing it. I think he's a real nice arm, but if you want him to take down good righties early in the game, I'm okay with losing him later. Grant's on another level, I want to put him in the highest leverage spots until further notice.

I think Taylor’s use has to be a combination of the opener strategy and a way to guarantee him innings (or get him into a routine).

17 minutes ago, Jake said:

I'm with you. I think it is a stupid strategy TBH. I'm open-minded about openers but it's supposed to gain you a platoon advantage and ideally you don't use your best relief arm for it. In this case it only helped with platoon splits in Kay's start and it of course has always deprived us of him later. Today is effectively a wasted game especially given that he's going to need at least a couple days of rest after going 3x in 4 days (I assume).

No, assuming your best pitcher is a reliever, and especially a non-closer, you want that best pitcher to go against the best hitters. The opener guarantees that. Saving him later in the game does not. This is even more true when you have a closer pigeon holed for the 9th. This is who Taylor has gotten out as an opener:

George Springer

Jesus Sanchez

Vlad Guerrero

George Springer

Davis Schneider

Vlad Guerrero

Gunnar Henderson

Pete Alonso

Adley Rutchsman

To be able to shutdown some of the best players in MLB is such a massive advantage no matter when it happens. This way guarantees your best vs theirs

Edited Tuesday at 02:43 AM5 days by Buehrle>Wood

40 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

won't see any of those 3 guys without warm weather/domes and favorable matchups

maybe mcdougal in relief first

sandlin or cannon first

I had assumed that c. 1/3 of the bullpen roster decisions were made based on who has options; and let the out of options guys pitch, hopefully well, and then move them along.

Story on White Sox "opener" philosophy. Quotes Getz and Venable:

https://chicago.suntimes.com/white-sox/2026/04/06/grant-taylor-opener-white-sox

8 minutes ago, Lip Man 1 said:

Story on White Sox "opener" philosophy. Quotes Getz and Venable:

https://chicago.suntimes.com/white-sox/2026/04/06/grant-taylor-opener-white-sox

How about they solve this problem? Why do Sox starters suck in the 1st inning?

“…as much as their starters’ early-season jitters. A brutal first run through the rotation ballooned the Sox’ team ERA to the highest in baseball in the first week of the year.”

3 minutes ago, WhiteSox2023 said:

How about they solve this problem? Why do Sox starters suck in the 1st inning?

“…as much as their starters’ early-season jitters. A brutal first run through the rotation ballooned the Sox’ team ERA to the highest in baseball in the first week of the year.”

To be fair the Sox starting rotation in toto is among the worst in baseball so it really doesn't matter what inning they are bad in, they just aren't very good.

As everyone knows for the last several years the Sox offense has been poor at best. If I remember right in 53% of the games last season they scored three runs or less.

It's early but just something to keep an eye on, they have scored three runs or less in six of their first 10 games this season.

1 hour ago, southsider2k5 said:

And for the record, this is my problem with Taylor as an opener. We used him in a game where we didn't score until one out left in the bottom of the 9th and lost. We used him in a game we effectively had zero chance of winning in the end.

The opener didn't stop Fedde from giving up a dong to Henderson. Nothing against Fedde, he pitched a pretty good game, but my hunch is that Gunnar doesn't hit one off him in the first inning or off Grant later in the game. It just seems pointless unless the idea is specifically to get Taylor consistent innings. Still think if they're gonna do this opener strategy, at least use a guy like Hicks or a handedness matchup.

20 minutes ago, nrockway said:

The opener didn't stop Fedde from giving up a dong to Henderson. Nothing against Fedde, he pitched a pretty good game, but my hunch is that Gunnar doesn't hit one off him in the first inning or off Grant later in the game. It just seems pointless unless the idea is specifically to get Taylor consistent innings. Still think if they're gonna do this opener strategy, at least use a guy like Hicks or a handedness matchup.

Hicks consistently facing the top of a team’s order is a recipe for disaster. I love Taylor starting 3-4 games a week.

3 minutes ago, fathom said:

Hicks consistently facing the top of a team’s order is a recipe for disaster. I love Taylor starting 3-4 games a week.

That could work but only if the bullpen is better than putrid.

1 hour ago, southsider2k5 said:

And for the record, this is my problem with Taylor as an opener. We used him in a game where we didn't score until one out left in the bottom of the 9th and lost. We used him in a game we effectively had zero chance of winning in the end.

Eh. Their WP% in the 9th of this game peaked at 33.4. Their WP% in MIL, in the game where they saved him for leverage, peaked at 15.6 in the 9th.

The only way to treat this as a "zero chance of winning" game is by working backwards from the fact that they didn't...in which case, both usages were a waste because they lost both games. In an absolute statistical sense, tonight's game wound up more winnable in the end, and that's before even getting to the impact of Hays' bad hammy on the first run against.

So is it worth something to have Fedde leaving the game today with a 43% chance of winning in the 7th, compared to leaving with a 22% chance of winning in the 5th of his first start?

If Taylor doesn't get his 3 outs then someone else would have had to. Does Fedde get them third time through, or does a different reliever if you hook him before that? If not, then are the Sox facing worse odds in the 9th than being one swing away? Does it take more than 3 arms to finish the game? Does BAL get to save their best arms? Does that impact pen availability/performance for the rest of the series?

With Taylor opening for Burke, he left with a 88% chance of winning in the 7th, compared to a leaving with a 16% chance of winning after the 4th of his first start. In the latter scenario, you can theoretically save Taylor for a more winnable game* but what if the former scenario actually makes the game more winnable to begin with?

*In reality, they couldn't actually save him, because he (and the team) needed innings, so he got "wasted" on a <10% win probability game anyway... Saving him for leverage on a below average team will mean some number of non-leverage "work" innings that are guaranteed to be less meaningful than any outing as an opener by default.

Neither route is perfectly waste free, they just have different uncertainties. Saving Taylor could just as easily mean you traded a one hit away home 9th today for him pitching in a decided game on Wednesday or Thursday if there's no leverage spot before then to get him off the bench.

Despite Taylor's absolutely elite stuff, the performance of the bullpen and the "starters" behind him have both been better with him opening in this handful of games. Obviously, a larger sample size would be needed to control for the effects of home vs. road, opponent variance, and players/teams just settling in to the season.

But if the pattern continues, and Taylor opening gets an extra ~4 innings from the starters in a series combined with better bullpen performance courtesy of reduced workload + better pockets, could that have a larger cumulative effect on winning than the marginal difference between an early 0 and a late one in an individual game? Especially when you can't project how many games will have late leverage value to cash in on at all?

I just think it's possible on a situational basis, and I think it's interesting that they're trying it. It's certainly led to more winnable and more watchable games in a VERY small sample size this week. I expect Taylor will still get leverage spots when the matchups for a series suggest that's better. Last year vs. TOR, he opened the opener and closed the finale.

It doesn't have to be a pure either/or unless you're determined to only use Taylor in games where his inning individually is most likely to decide the game in a vacuum.

In that case, I agree that he absolutely should appear almost exclusively in save situations. My thought process is based around maximizing Taylor the player and the staff overall both being higher priorities than maximizing potential leverage opportunities specifically.

8 hours ago, Autumn Dreamin said:

Eh. Their WP% in the 9th of this game peaked at 33.4. Their WP% in MIL, in the game where they saved him for leverage, peaked at 15.6 in the 9th.

The only way to treat this as a "zero chance of winning" game is by working backwards from the fact that they didn't...in which case, both usages were a waste because they lost both games. In an absolute statistical sense, tonight's game wound up more winnable in the end, and that's before even getting to the impact of Hays' bad hammy on the first run against.

So is it worth something to have Fedde leaving the game today with a 43% chance of winning in the 7th, compared to leaving with a 22% chance of winning in the 5th of his first start?

If Taylor doesn't get his 3 outs then someone else would have had to. Does Fedde get them third time through, or does a different reliever if you hook him before that? If not, then are the Sox facing worse odds in the 9th than being one swing away? Does it take more than 3 arms to finish the game? Does BAL get to save their best arms? Does that impact pen availability/performance for the rest of the series?

With Taylor opening for Burke, he left with a 88% chance of winning in the 7th, compared to a leaving with a 16% chance of winning after the 4th of his first start. In the latter scenario, you can theoretically save Taylor for a more winnable game* but what if the former scenario actually makes the game more winnable to begin with?

*In reality, they couldn't actually save him, because he (and the team) needed innings, so he got "wasted" on a <10% win probability game anyway... Saving him for leverage on a below average team will mean some number of non-leverage "work" innings that are guaranteed to be less meaningful than any outing as an opener by default.

Neither route is perfectly waste free, they just have different uncertainties. Saving Taylor could just as easily mean you traded a one hit away home 9th today for him pitching in a decided game on Wednesday or Thursday if there's no leverage spot before then to get him off the bench.

Despite Taylor's absolutely elite stuff, the performance of the bullpen and the "starters" behind him have both been better with him opening in this handful of games. Obviously, a larger sample size would be needed to control for the effects of home vs. road, opponent variance, and players/teams just settling in to the season.

But if the pattern continues, and Taylor opening gets an extra ~4 innings from the starters in a series combined with better bullpen performance courtesy of reduced workload + better pockets, could that have a larger cumulative effect on winning than the marginal difference between an early 0 and a late one in an individual game? Especially when you can't project how many games will have late leverage value to cash in on at all?

I just think it's possible on a situational basis, and I think it's interesting that they're trying it. It's certainly led to more winnable and more watchable games in a VERY small sample size this week. I expect Taylor will still get leverage spots when the matchups for a series suggest that's better. Last year vs. TOR, he opened the opener and closed the finale.

It doesn't have to be a pure either/or unless you're determined to only use Taylor in games where his inning individually is most likely to decide the game in a vacuum.

In that case, I agree that he absolutely should appear almost exclusively in save situations. My thought process is based around maximizing Taylor the player and the staff overall both being higher priorities than maximizing potential leverage opportunities specifically.

They literally never led. They didn't score until 1 out before the end of the game. They wasted his outing tonight for a game They couldn't win. If he had been held on to until later, they would have KNOWN they were losing and held him out so he was available for the next game where he could make a difference. N9w they have an L, plus an inferior pitchers for the highest leverage situations in their next game. This could end up with 2 Ls instead of one.

8 hours ago, fathom said:

Hicks consistently facing the top of a team’s order is a recipe for disaster. I love Taylor starting 3-4 games a week.

So do I. Venable should do it all yea, He gets 70 "starts"Venable will be known as an innovator.

2 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

So do I. Venable should do it all yea, He gets 70 "starts"Venable will be known as an innovator.

There's nothing innovative about this.

2 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

There's nothing innovative about this.

To do it that often it is. The rotation is bleak. Let this guy get their best hitters out, then have the dopes come in. At least they miss most of the top of the order to begin. It's way better than him coming in the 6th and pitching to the 6-8 hitters. The only thing that sucks for him is he can't get a win or a save, so his baseball card will look pretty weak.

3 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

To do it that often it is. The rotation is bleak. Let this guy get their best hitters out, then have the dopes come in. At least they miss most of the top of the order to begin. It's way better than him coming in the 6th and pitching to the 6-8 hitters. The only thing that sucks for him is he can't get a win or a save, so his baseball card will look pretty weak.

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.

11 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

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.

AND not only can you choose to deploy him against the best hitters, you can also do it in key leverage situations instead of potentially wasting him in a game that was never going to be won.

15 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

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.

But that is not guaranteed. Facing their best hitters in the first inning is. Rotation does have to face them, but not right away with no outs. Saving Grant Taylor for "high leverage" situations with the 2026 White Sox is silly. Facing the top of their line up 60 or 70 times is way more high leveraged than he would get slotted anywhere else with this team.

Edited Tuesday at 01:13 PM5 days by Dick Allen

Technically, the definition of “innovative” doesn’t include that the new method/idea is always successful. A new baseball strategy can be “innovative” and yet still fail.

Edited Tuesday at 01:30 PM4 days by WhiteSox2023

11 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

But that is not guaranteed. Facing their best hitters in the first inning is. Rotation does have to face them, but not right away with no outs. Saving Grant Taylor for "high leverage" situations with the 2026 White Sox is silly. Facing the top of their line up 60 or 70 times is way more high leveraged than he would get slotted anywhere else with this team.

It's a weird solution to none of his futures though.

If you want him being a premier closer, you want him dealing with closing situations, complete with late game pressure. Walking into a game with full warm ups, ritual and routine does him no good if you want him available on a moments notice, or just in the 9th. It doesn't replicate the randomness of the game already happening, and the sense that you can't give up anything if you want to win

If you want him as a high leverage reliever for the toughest spots in the 7th through the 9th innings, coming in clean with a zero to zero game, with 8 other innings to worry about also doesn't replicate the sense of immediacy to needing to get out of a situation to win a game.

It goes back to some guys aren't built to close. There are Guys who are really, really good in the 7th and 8th, but can't handle the 9th. It goes to show that it isn't just WHO you face, it is also WHEN you face them that adds to a situation. This gets Taylor innings, and it gets him facing certain hitters. It does not get him the mental challenge of overcoming situations and being prepared at a moments notice. It doesn't prepare him for facing a guy with the bases loaded and 1 out needing to allow nothing to hold a game where it is, late in a game.

Honestly, this is better if he want to make him a starter long term than anything else, because he is getting more of those types of advantages than anything else.

2 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

It's a weird solution to none of his futures though.

If you want him being a premier closer, you want him dealing with closing situations, complete with late game pressure. Walking into a game with full warm ups, ritual and routine does him no good if you want him available on a moments notice, or just in the 9th. It doesn't replicate the randomness of the game already happening, and the sense that you can't give up anything if you want to win

If you want him as a high leverage reliever for the toughest spots in the 7th through the 9th innings, coming in clean with a zero to zero game, with 8 other innings to worry about also doesn't replicate the sense of immediacy to needing to get out of a situation to win a game.

It goes back to some guys aren't built to close. There are Guys who are really, really good in the 7th and 8th, but can't handle the 9th. It goes to show that it isn't just WHO you face, it is also WHEN you face them that adds to a situation. This gets Taylor innings, and it gets him facing certain hitters. It does not get him the mental challenge of overcoming situations and being prepared at a moments notice. It doesn't prepare him for facing a guy with the bases loaded and 1 out needing to allow nothing to hold a game where it is, late in a game.

Honestly, this is better if he want to make him a starter long term than anything else, because he is getting more of those types of advantages than anything else.

While true to some degree, Matt Thornton comes to mind, those that are overwhelming in the 7th and 8th, should still be overwhelming in the 9th. And it does help the starters. Burke's ERA last year with an opener was under 3.00 and he sucked. The one reason why this idea won't take off is a dominating closer's ego might be crushed if he didn't get wins or saves. If I were the Dodgers though, I think it's a way better option than spending 150 million a year on starting pitchers.