Should the Orioles use an opener?

[allquixotic]

I think we should try to get our money's worth from Chris Davis and make him a reliever. He truly was impressive on the mound against the Red Sox in that 18 inning game. He would probably have higher WAR as a pitcher than as a hitter. Besides that, we all know he can catch the baseball, so if something gets hit right up the box, he will snag it.

Right now we're getting less value out of him than a call-up AA or AAA guy making the league minimum. But I think he would have some value above that as a 20 pitch reliever. He can even throw a breaking ball.

He could be an opener. Just add him to the pitching staff and take him off the bench and don't replace him in the position player list. We're nearly to September anyway and we'll have a surplus of players then.

[Thato'sfan]

Just now, allquixotic said:

I think we should try to get our money's worth from Chris Davis and make him a reliever. He truly was impressive on the mound against the Red Sox in that 18 inning game. He would probably have higher WAR as a pitcher than as a hitter. Besides that, we all know he can catch the baseball, so if something gets hit right up the box, he will snag it.

Right now we're getting less value out of him than a call-up AA or AAA guy making the league minimum. But I think he would have some value above that as a 20 pitch reliever. He can even throw a breaking ball.

 

The smart move is to cut him. We are in a sunk cost fallacy situation.

[ScGO's]

13 minutes ago, Thato'sfan said:

I think it doesn't even depend on "aces only." It has to be assessed on a case by case basis.

IMO, Andrew Cashner has been grossly misused. He has show a significant drop off when working into the sixth inning. He is not an innings eater, but he is being used as one. In fact, if he we limited him to five innings per start he would have much better stats.

In our rotation,

I would give Gausman an opener and let everyone else start. Bundy has shown the ability to put up ace-like numbers Cashner pitches like a mid-rotation guy up to the sixth inning, based on analytics, I would bring in a guy like Yacabonis afterwards(Can work through a lineup one, maybe twice without getting tired). Cobb is the closest thing to an innings eater and can put up mid-rotation stats(very pitch efficient, performance drop offs have been inconsistent. Yefry Ramirez would be a great piggyback guy as he does really well twice through a lineup but gets tired around the 80 pitch mark. I would piggyback Ramirez with Wright/Hess/Yac/Castro. If we can't have a homegrown ace, we have to maximize our pitching performance potentials.

Wright, Hess, Castro, and Yacabonis are all flexible options that can probably give us close to 100 innings a piece. 140 innings from Ramirez, 150 from cashner, 170 from Bundy, 180 from Gausman and Cobb. A season without extra innings is around 1460 innings. Those totals give you around 1,220 innings from 9 guys. The bullpen then has a strong backend of power relievers at 60 innings a piece(180 more innings). We would need about 80 extra innings to finish out the season, meaning that options and flexibility are musts.  An eight-man bullpen would be another solution. This would leave your best relievers fairly fresh for postseason, and the same applies to many of the starters.

This would be difficult to manage, but it should theoretically improve the performance of a below average pitching staff.

If we are committing to a rebuild, I think its something to toy with for sure.  This is the best that this concept has been explained to me.  

This could be a revolutionary idea for baseball, but we'll only know after a few trial runs are done.  If I was a team like the O's, Royals, White Sox, and Marlins I would give it a wing for sure. 

My only question with an Opener is (and maybe this gets figured out in those trial runs), would he be most effective going one inning to ensure that the starter's first inning is in the middle or bottom half of the order, or is he expected to go at least 2 innings (or however long it takes to get through the line up once)?

[Can_of_corn]

39 minutes ago, Luke-OH said:

To all pitchers except a handful of ace-level types being flexible multi-inning capable pitchers who only go once through the line-up?

That is what I've been promoting.

[SteveA]

Just now, ScGO's said:

 

My only question with an Opener is (and maybe this gets figured out in those trial runs), would he be most effective going one inning to ensure that the starter's first inning is in the middle or bottom half of the order, or is he expected to go at least 2 innings (or however long it takes to get through the line up once)?

They typically plan to go a set number of batters, so it can wind up being less than an inning, an inning-plus, or two innings depending on how things go.   Also, a team when possible might follow a LH opener with a RH "starter" or vice versa, so depending on which way the #6 and #7 hitters bat the change could be affected.

[Thato'sfan]

2 minutes ago, ScGO's said:

If we are committing to a rebuild, I think its something to toy with for sure.  This is the best that this concept has been explained to me.  

This could be a revolutionary idea for baseball, but we'll only know after a few trial runs are done.  If I was a team like the O's, Royals, White Sox, and Marlins I would give it a wing for sure. 

My only question with an Opener is (and maybe this gets figured out in those trial runs), would he be most effective going one inning to ensure that the starter's first inning is in the middle or bottom half of the order, or is he expected to go at least 2 innings (or however long it takes to get through the line up once)?

IMO, the importance of flexibility makes me think that an opener should go 1 inning. It opens the possibility for the opener to pitch out of the pen in other games in between their starts, keeping the arms fresh.

[Luke-OH]

1 minute ago, Can_of_corn said:

That is what I've been promoting.

And I agree the game is heading in that direction.

[Tx Oriole]

1 hour ago, wildcard said:

Sure, I couple of beers before Kevin pitches might help.

Sure would. Kevin might like a couple before the game. 

[Thato'sfan]

Just now, Luke-OH said:

And I agree the game is heading in that direction.

I think this could be a mistake. Going to the extreme would not result in the maximization of assets, it has to go on a case by case basis.

As I said, Cashner is a starter but he is being misused. He doesn't need an opener and using him as a multi inning reliever would be wasting his actual abilities.

[Just Regular]

Kiley McDaniel with a long piece on the Rays use of this concept, and profiles of the kinds of "flawed" prospects for whom being a middle-distance pitcher might fit.

https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-next-prospects-who-could-pull-a-glasnow/

My biggest takeaways - the bit about most of the org's pitchers not being currently good enough to go 6 every 5th day certainly applies to the near term Orioles too - we won't even have Blake Snell.

I remember Earl resisting a 5-man rotation because it was hard enough to find 4 good ones.  I think in the coming years by allocating more innings to middle-distance pitchers, teams are also going to have the opportunity to effectively get back to 4-man rotations.

I don't think I'll get to see it but if he's still an Oriole in 2020, I'm interested to see how effective 32-year old Alex Cobb could be pitching 40 X 4 innings after whoever out of Carroll, Pop, etc becomes good takes care of the top of opponent's lineup first time through.

[gmelson26]

I don't know how I feel about the concept.  On one hand, purely in the theater of the mind, it makes a lot of sense.  They start with what, in theory, is their best foot forward.. throw a good reliever against them.  On other hand, an opener.. I dunno.

Regardless, if anyone's at all interesting in trying it out, now is the time.  We're done-- historically done-- with a month and a half to play.. nothing to lose.

[spiritof66]

4 minutes ago, gmelson26 said:

I don't know how I feel about the concept.  On one hand, purely in the theater of the mind, it makes a lot of sense.  They start with what, in theory, is their best foot forward.. throw a good reliever against them.  On other hand, an opener.. I dunno.

Regardless, if anyone's at all interesting in trying it out, now is the time.  We're done-- historically done-- with a month and a half to play.. nothing to lose.

To make this work, I would think you need some depth of effective relievers. If they use openers, the Orioles would be likely to find themselves behind early in a lot of games.

The use of openers may help some teams, but to me it makes the game less appealing. IMO, baseball would benefit from a rule that limits either the number of pitchers on a roster or the number that can be used in a game, or requires pitchers to face a minimum number of batters.