2 hours ago, DoUEvenShift said:

And all of NC too. I'm 7 hours away from Baltimore and 2 states over. They block me from Balt, DC, Atlanta, and Cincy. So dumb. I sent you a DM

That is crazy. Blackout rules are stupid

13 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Except you have 6 to 7 innings to figure it out that you don't have with an opener. It's why it's called high leverage. If Taylor goes out and strikes out three in the first inning, but the "starter" comes in and gets bombed, it was a waste. If you reverse Taylor and the starter, you don't use Taylor in that game, and he is more available for the next day, where he might not be in the first scenario. If he is pitching the 8th or 9th inning, the chances of a pitcher blowing it AFTER him is reduced by a very large percentage. The odds of using him in a blow out game are WAY increased in the opener situation. I get the idea OF the opener, but when you basically have two, MAYBE three high leverage relievers, it doesn't make nearly as much sense. Your chances of optimizing Taylors usage are massively increased by the more game that has been played.

But regardless of what you think the chances are of it happening, is it a waste to use Taylor in a game that another pitcher subsequently loses? What if using Taylor as an opener reduces the chances of your starter getting bombed? And what if that in turn reduces strain on the remaining pen arms in a way that improves their performance?

A scoreless first inning in a game is worth ~5% win probability for the home team. A scoreless 7th with a one run lead is worth ~9%. So sure, the latter leverage inning is "better" in a vacuum...

But the first situation is guaranteed and the second is not. The first also comes against a known set of batters, while the second does not. The impact of the extra WPA from the later leverage situation becomes more marginal the less reliably you are able to get to it.

So how likely are the Sox to be in late innings with a lead, and does opening with Taylor improve those odds? How much more valuable is going from 69% to 78% win probability once in a series compared to going from 50% to 55% twice in a series? I think those are interesting questions to consider for this particular roster at this particular time, so I kind of dig the experiment.

I already gave most of my thoughts on this in the other thread, but think it's at least feasible that Taylor as opener both 1. decreases the odds of your starter getting lit up and 2. simplifies later bullpen deployment, both in ways that are potentially more impactful to winning than waiting for the team to already be in a late lead situation to begin with.

Also, if they want to increase his workload, he'll be pitching some "waste" innings either way. This isn't exactly a team with 70+ save opportunities up for grabs right now. Having him open a game certainly seems like less of a "waste" than him coming in down 4 because "he just needs work" while team is in a skid.

14 minutes ago, Autumn Dreamin said:

But regardless of what you think the chances are of it happening, is it a waste to use Taylor in a game that another pitcher subsequently loses? What if using Taylor as an opener reduces the chances of your starter getting bombed? And what if that in turn reduces strain on the remaining pen arms in a way that improves their performance?

A scoreless first inning in a game is worth ~5% win probability for the home team. A scoreless 7th with a one run lead is worth ~9%. So sure, the latter leverage inning is "better" in a vacuum...

But the first situation is guaranteed and the second is not. The first also comes against a known set of batters, while the second does not. The impact of the extra WPA from the later leverage situation becomes more marginal the less reliably you are able to get to it.

So how likely are the Sox to be in late innings with a lead, and does opening with Taylor improve those odds? How much more valuable is going from 69% to 78% win probability once in a series compared to going from 50% to 55% twice in a series? I think those are interesting questions to consider for this particular roster at this particular time, so I kind of dig the experiment.

I already gave most of my thoughts on this in the other thread, but think it's at least feasible that Taylor as opener both 1. decreases the odds of your starter getting lit up and 2. simplifies later bullpen deployment, both in ways that are potentially more impactful to winning than waiting for the team to already be in a late lead situation to begin with.

Also, if they want to increase his workload, he'll be pitching some "waste" innings either way. This isn't exactly a team with 70+ save opportunities up for grabs right now. Having him open a game certainly seems like less of a "waste" than him coming in down 4 because "he just needs work" while team is in a skid.

When it comes to using your BEST pitchers in situations that may not require them, it is absolutely a waste. Yes. It also means inferior pitchers get used in the highest pressure situations when they happen. You are also gambling on everyone behind you doing their jobs, where if you are in the 8th or 9th inning, you are either the last, or second to last one to take the ball. You have full knowledge that this IS a high leverage situation instead of hoping you don't need someone inferior in one. You are putting two guys into unfamiliar situations with Taylor starting, but not extending, and the starter not getting the familiar routine of his entire life of starting a game.

You want "ifs", but you are creating a whole new list of them here.

31 minutes ago, Autumn Dreamin said:

But regardless of what you think the chances are of it happening, is it a waste to use Taylor in a game that another pitcher subsequently loses? What if using Taylor as an opener reduces the chances of your starter getting bombed? And what if that in turn reduces strain on the remaining pen arms in a way that improves their performance?

A scoreless first inning in a game is worth ~5% win probability for the home team. A scoreless 7th with a one run lead is worth ~9%. So sure, the latter leverage inning is "better" in a vacuum...

But the first situation is guaranteed and the second is not. The first also comes against a known set of batters, while the second does not. The impact of the extra WPA from the later leverage situation becomes more marginal the less reliably you are able to get to it.

So how likely are the Sox to be in late innings with a lead, and does opening with Taylor improve those odds? How much more valuable is going from 69% to 78% win probability once in a series compared to going from 50% to 55% twice in a series? I think those are interesting questions to consider for this particular roster at this particular time, so I kind of dig the experiment.

I already gave most of my thoughts on this in the other thread, but think it's at least feasible that Taylor as opener both 1. decreases the odds of your starter getting lit up and 2. simplifies later bullpen deployment, both in ways that are potentially more impactful to winning than waiting for the team to already be in a late lead situation to begin with.

Also, if they want to increase his workload, he'll be pitching some "waste" innings either way. This isn't exactly a team with 70+ save opportunities up for grabs right now. Having him open a game certainly seems like less of a "waste" than him coming in down 4 because "he just needs work" while team is in a skid.

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.

Edited Monday at 11:49 PM5 days by Look at Ray Ray Run

10 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

When it comes to using your BEST pitchers in situations that may not require them, it is absolutely a waste. Yes. It also means inferior pitchers get used in the highest pressure situations when they happen. You are also gambling on everyone behind you doing their jobs, where if you are in the 8th or 9th inning, you are either the last, or second to last one to take the ball. You have full knowledge that this IS a high leverage situation instead of hoping you don't need someone inferior in one. You are putting two guys into unfamiliar situations with Taylor starting, but not extending, and the starter not getting the familiar routine of his entire life of starting a game.

You want "ifs", but you are creating a whole new list of them here.

Both sides of the argument are using “ifs”. There’s no way around that. With your strategy, there’s a chance Taylor doesn’t even pitch because the starter got rocked in the first inning and there was never a high leverage situation for him. But maybe with Taylor starting, the starter who comes in pitches well and that domino effect allows us to cruise to victory.

I was discussing this with Ray Ray in a the other thread, and it’s a fascinating discussion. You’re not wrong in anything you are saying, and your strategy is solid. But there can be arguments made for this strategy as well. Heck, it led to two wins. Nobody knows if we would have won those games if Taylor was saved for later. We very well could have won them anyway.

I forgot Alonso is on the O's now

That was close

I hope Taylor starts 80 games this year.

2 minutes ago, SoxBlanco said:

Both sides of the argument are using “ifs”. There’s no way around that. With your strategy, there’s a chance Taylor doesn’t even pitch because the starter got rocked in the first inning and there was never a high leverage situation for him. But maybe with Taylor starting, the starter who comes in pitches well and that domino effect allows us to cruise to victory.

I was discussing this with Ray Ray in a the other thread, and it’s a fascinating discussion. You’re not wrong in anything you are saying, and your strategy is solid. But there can be arguments made for this strategy as well. Heck, it led to two wins. Nobody knows if we would have won those games if Taylor was saved for later. We very well could have won them anyway.

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

2 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Not trying to come off as a dick, but everything you're arguing is subjective 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 started everyone.

I know we discussed this already, so we don’t need to go over everything again. I just want to point out that I’m not defending this strategy as optimal. I’m just saying it’s not as crazy as you made it sound.

1 minute ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

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

Yeah, “led” might have been a poor choice of words. I simply meant we won both games where we used Taylor as the opener. And it’s possible we would have lost one of them if we didn’t use that strategy.

35 minutes ago, Autumn Dreamin said:

But regardless of what you think the chances are of it happening, is it a waste to use Taylor in a game that another pitcher subsequently loses? What if using Taylor as an opener reduces the chances of your starter getting bombed? And what if that in turn reduces strain on the remaining pen arms in a way that improves their performance?

A scoreless first inning in a game is worth ~5% win probability for the home team. A scoreless 7th with a one run lead is worth ~9%. So sure, the latter leverage inning is "better" in a vacuum...

But the first situation is guaranteed and the second is not. The first also comes against a known set of batters, while the second does not. The impact of the extra WPA from the later leverage situation becomes more marginal the less reliably you are able to get to it.

So how likely are the Sox to be in late innings with a lead, and does opening with Taylor improve those odds? How much more valuable is going from 69% to 78% win probability once in a series compared to going from 50% to 55% twice in a series? I think those are interesting questions to consider for this particular roster at this particular time, so I kind of dig the experiment.

I already gave most of my thoughts on this in the other thread, but think it's at least feasible that Taylor as opener both 1. decreases the odds of your starter getting lit up and 2. simplifies later bullpen deployment, both in ways that are potentially more impactful to winning than waiting for the team to already be in a late lead situation to begin with.

Also, if they want to increase his workload, he'll be pitching some "waste" innings either way. This isn't exactly a team with 70+ save opportunities up for grabs right now. Having him open a game certainly seems like less of a "waste" than him coming in down 4 because "he just needs work" while team is in a skid.

They want to get Taylor innings, one way or the other, so his innings aren't wasted. Venable has already explained his reasoning - avoid a third time through the order penalty for the top of the order - (in theory, the best hitters in the lineup). When the actual starter's day is winding up, the end of their day will wind up against the bottom of the order, again, in theory. I understand that you want to use the better pitchers in higher leverage situations, but they have 7 other guys on the team who should be able to handle those situations.

For people to be saying that it makes absolutely no sense or argue that there is only one way to think about this is silly. Taylor might have the best "stuff" right now, but he's pretty inexperienced in high leverage situations. He wasn't exactly lights out last season. So as they plan to move him to starting, this helps him learn to prepare to start, while still getting him innings.

And really, everyone complained that it was a waste to use Taylor in relief. Now it's a waste to use him as an opener. I'm sure when he moves to the rotation next year, that will be a waste, too.

1 minute ago, SoxBlanco said:

I know we discussed this already, so we don’t need to go over everything again. I just want to point out that I’m not defending this strategy as optimal. I’m just saying it’s not as crazy as you made it sound.

Yeah, “led” might have been a poor choice of words. I simply meant we won both games where we used Taylor as the opener. And it’s possible we would have lost one of them if we didn’t use that strategy.

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.

Edited Monday at 11:57 PM5 days by Look at Ray Ray Run

can't leave the leadoff walk stranded

Fegan's pre-game notes

Pregame notes: A day when .500 is possible - Sox Machine

SunTimes' pregame notes

White Sox still tuning their ABS approach after rough start under new challenge system - Chicago Sun-Times

SouthSideSox preview and game thread

Game Thread: Orioles (3-6) at White Sox (4-5) | South Side Sox

Fansided rankings listicle

MLB Power Rankings: Where all 30 teams sit as dust settles after opening week

Edited Tuesday at 12:04 AM5 days by WestEddy

13 minutes ago, Buehrle>Wood said:

I hope Taylor starts 80 games this year.

Obviously not a real comparison because IP but would be cool to break this record

9 minutes ago, SoxBlanco said:

Both sides of the argument are using “ifs”. There’s no way around that. With your strategy, there’s a chance Taylor doesn’t even pitch because the starter got rocked in the first inning and there was never a high leverage situation for him. But maybe with Taylor starting, the starter who comes in pitches well and that domino effect allows us to cruise to victory.

I was discussing this with Ray Ray in a the other thread, and it’s a fascinating discussion. You’re not wrong in anything you are saying, and your strategy is solid. But there can be arguments made for this strategy as well. Heck, it led to two wins. Nobody knows if we would have won those games if Taylor was saved for later. We very well could have won them anyway.

But if the starter comes in and doesn't get rocked, you now have inferior pitchers in the highest pressure situations. If the starter gets rocked after Taylor, you have now used him up, and might not be able to use him in a subsequent game because he was wasted in a meaningless game or two. Heck looking backwards, maybe if you run into high leverage and letting Burke start, you now have Taylor for late innings and you don’t go to extras, instead of the BS.

1 minute ago, southsider2k5 said:

But if the starter comes in and doesn't get rocked, you now have inferior pitchers in the highest pressure situations. If the starter gets rocked after Taylor, you have now used him up, and might not be able to use him in a subsequent game because he was wasted in a meaningless game or two. Heck looking backwards, maybe if you run into high leverage and letting Burke start, you now have Taylor for late innings and you don’t go to extras, instead of the BS.

I would feel better if they would allow him to go more than one inning every time. If we can give him 2 or 3 innings then I feel like the trade off is more worth it

4 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

But if the starter comes in and doesn't get rocked, you now have inferior pitchers in the highest pressure situations. If the starter gets rocked after Taylor, you have now used him up, and might not be able to use him in a subsequent game because he was wasted in a meaningless game or two. Heck looking backwards, maybe if you run into high leverage and letting Burke start, you now have Taylor for late innings and you don’t go to extras, instead of the BS.

They're only throwing him one inning so they can use him the next day.

5 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

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.

Yeah, I hear ya. The other piece that isn’t measurable is the mental side of it. Going up early because of this strategy could lead to less pressured at bats and more runs for the Sox. Like I’d tried saying in the other thread, the butterfly effect is just not measurable. And yes, like you pointed it, that butterfly effect could be a net negative also.

Just now, WestEddy said:

They're only throwing him one inning so they can use him the next day.

They did it back to back "starts"

walks at all time high since 1950

but runs scored per game down

this past weekend set an all time walk record in fact

Man, I thought he got that one

Damn if it was a little warmer thats gone

5 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

But if the starter comes in and doesn't get rocked, you now have inferior pitchers in the highest pressure situations. If the starter gets rocked after Taylor, you have now used him up, and might not be able to use him in a subsequent game because he was wasted in a meaningless game or two. Heck looking backwards, maybe if you run into high leverage and letting Burke start, you now have Taylor for late innings and you don’t go to extras, instead of the BS.

I’m saying that you might not ever even experience those high pressure situations because of runs you avoided giving up in the first inning. “Might” baking the key word. It’s impossible to measure how the butterfly effect changes things.

2 minutes ago, SoxBlanco said:

Yeah, I hear ya. The other piece that isn’t measurable is the mental side of it. Going up early because of this strategy could lead to less pressured at bats and more runs for the Sox. Like I’d tried saying in the other thread, the butterfly effect is just not measurable. And yes, like you pointed it, that butterfly effect could be a net negative also.

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...