The Tampa pitching as a model

[wildcard]

Tampa's use of relievers is interesting and something the O's may want to follow.

Tampa led the ML in relief innings with 703.  They were third in relief ERA with a 3.24.   They led the Majors in relief strikeout with 739. They were 2nd in relief WHIP. Tampa had 12 relievers that pitched at least 20 relief innings and had an ERA of under 4.00.

Tampa was 28th in starter innings with 752.2.  14th in starter ERA with a 4.08.  27th in quality starts with 33.  29th in innings pitched per start with 4.6. Tampa had only 4 starters that made at least 10 starts and had an ERA under 4.00

Rasmussen   10 S,  42 IP,  1.93 ERA

Glasgow   14 S,  88 IP,  2.66 ERA

McClanahan  25 S,  123 IP, 3.43 ERA

Hill   19 S,  95.1  IP, 3.87 ERA

Tampa appears to focus more on the quality and number of good relievers than starters. Considering what good starters cost, good relievers are much cheaper.

[JR Oriole]

I was thinking about this last week, when massively overpaid Chris Sale and Gerrit Cole gave their respective teams 3 total innings across 2 games.  Then reliever Houck of the 577K salary comes in and pitches 5 extremely impressive innings to help the Red Sox come back and win that critical game. 

I do not think starting pitchers should command the salaries they have gotten in the past.  The game has changed, and starters are not going nearly as deep in games.  You just get a parade of relievers that come into games now, which makes the role of starting pitcher far less relevant than it has been in the past.  Even a "starter" like Pivetta comes in for relief and almost nobody can hit him.  At this point, it almost seems like there is no point in defining a starter versus middle reliever versus late inning reliever versus closer.  You are just a pitcher.  Period.  

Although watching the Brewers, I am not sure how any of their top starters even have ERAs.  

[OriolesMagic83]

I would like to see the O's adopt TB's opener model.  An opener makes just as much sense if not more than a closer.  A team's first 3 hitters, are likely to be the 3 best or at least 3 of 4 best hitters.  If a flame throwing starter can mow down those first 3 hitters, it gives your "starter" a relatively easy 2nd inning. 

[Can_of_corn]

8 minutes ago, OriolesMagic83 said:

I would like to see the O's adopt TB's opener model.  An opener makes just as much sense if not more than a closer.  A team's first 3 hitters, are likely to be the 3 best or at least 3 of 4 best hitters.  If a flame throwing starter can mow down those first 3 hitters, it gives your "starter" a relatively easy 2nd inning. 

I have zero idea why the Orioles haven't tried that, or anything innovative really, in this span of non-competitiveness.

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

19 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

I have zero idea why the Orioles haven't tried that, or anything innovative really, in this span of non-competitiveness.

Jorge Lopez seems like a pitcher who might excel as an opener, and I thought there was talk about the Orioles experimenting with the opener concept before last year.

With this mess of a pitching staff, you have every excuse in the world to try and see what works. Or does the wizard Chris Holt not agree with the role of an opener on a pitching staff?

[OriolesMagic83]

I thought Tampa used high volume relievers but was surprised none of their relievers even threw 80 innings.  High volume relievers was one of Buck's good ideas.  I would rather throw 2 relievers in a game the O's are losing by 7 runs in the 3rd inning than 5 relievers.  Yes, you 98% lost the game, but why ruin your bullpen.

[Frobby]

43 minutes ago, OsFanSinceThe80s said:

Jorge Lopez seems like a pitcher who might excel as an opener, and I thought there was talk about the Orioles experimenting with the opener concept before last year.

With this mess of a pitching staff, you have every excuse in the world to try and see what works. Or does the wizard Chris Holt not agree with the role of an opener on a pitching staff?

I doubt Holt is the one who decides whether to employ an opener strategy.   There’s other things I might blame on him, but not this.  

[SilverRocket]

2 hours ago, OsFanSinceThe80s said:

Jorge Lopez seems like a pitcher who might excel as an opener, and I thought there was talk about the Orioles experimenting with the opener concept before last year.

With this mess of a pitching staff, you have every excuse in the world to try and see what works. Or does the wizard Chris Holt not agree with the role of an opener on a pitching staff?

It might just be that the Orioles weren't trying to win games this year. If you just care about developing/evaluating, then might as well see if Lopez can fix his starter problems. If he doesn't, then make him an opener when we're ready to go for it.

[Can_of_corn]

Just now, SilverRocket said:

It might just be that the Orioles weren't trying to win games this year. If you just care about developing/evaluating, then might as well see if Lopez can fix his starter problems. If he doesn't, then make him an opener when we're ready to go for it.

I'd rather see if he can be an effective opener before they are go for it.

[RZNJ]

Is there some magic formula for being an opener?  Either you can pitch or you can't.   I just want to see if Jorge Lopez can be an effective pitcher for 1-2 innings.   If he can, I'm pretty sure he could be an opener.   

[hutchead]

3 hours ago, Can_of_corn said:

I have zero idea why the Orioles haven't tried that, or anything innovative really, in this span of non-competitiveness.

You have zero idea? I can spell it out for you. The name of the game right now for Elias is tanking. So why in the world would you be trying something innovative while you're trying to tank? Now when they start trying to win, whether that's 2022 or 2023, then you can expect them to start trying innovative things.

[RZNJ]

3 minutes ago, hutchead said:

You have zero idea? I can spell it out for you. The name of the game right now for Elias is tanking. So why in the world would you be trying something innovative while you're trying to tank? Now when they start trying to win, whether that's 2022 or 2023, then you can expect them to start trying innovative things.

You think things would be any different if Connor Greene, and most of the terrible relievers we had this year, were pitching inning 1 instead of inning 6 and 7?    An opener is only as good as the pitcher who opens.   Just because some random pitcher opens for you doesn't mean it's going to end up well.   The opener is just a gimmick but if you got pitchers who get the job done it looks good.

[Can_of_corn]

10 minutes ago, hutchead said:

You have zero idea? I can spell it out for you. The name of the game right now for Elias is tanking. So why in the world would you be trying something innovative while you're trying to tank? Now when they start trying to win, whether that's 2022 or 2023, then you can expect them to start trying innovative things.

Because when you try and innovate it often doesn't work.

[Can_of_corn]

5 minutes ago, RZNJ said:

You think things would be any different if Connor Greene, and most of the terrible relievers we had this year, were pitching inning 1 instead of inning 6 and 7?    An opener is only as good as the pitcher who opens.   Just because some random pitcher opens for you doesn't mean it's going to end up well.   The opener is just a gimmick but if you got pitchers who get the job done it looks good.

I don't agree that the opener is a gimmick but yea, the rest is spot on.

Teams are more likely to score in the first inning, it makes sense to try and suppress that tendency.

[Jagwar]

I would think this the first way to emulate the Tampa model would be to actually draft pitchers, but that might just be me.