Giants might use "opener" in 2019

[rog]

Pointing to the Rays, A's and Dodgers as teams that have used the "opener" concept and pointing to the Brewers as a team that has used it even in the postseason, Farhan said the Giants will explore the concept.  Soon after he spoke, the Pirates made the same declaration.

It is hoped that if the Giants use the "opener," the posters here will remain Giants fans.  Here is NBC Sports Bay Area reported:



www.nbcsports.com/bayarea/giants/giants-discussing-using-openers-start-certain-games-2019

[Islandboagie]

Good way to keep any starting pitching free agents from signing here.

I guess I was wrong about giving this guy a shot, he's already started to dictate how Bochy should manage the team. Maybe Boch should now talk openly with the media what free agents the Giants should go after. But Bochy wouldn't do that because he has class.

[rog]

Good way to keep any starting pitching free agents from signing here.

I guess I was wrong about giving this guy a shot, he's already started to dictate how Bochy should manage the team. Maybe Boch should now talk openly with the media what free agents the Giants should go after. But Bochy wouldn't do that because he has class.


Rog -- Wake up, Boagie. Let's examine what you've said here.

Your first paragraph shows you don't have a concept of how the opener is used, even though it has been presented here a few times. The Rays were the team that used the opener, and they had the AL Cy Young Award winner, for crying out loud.

How was Snell able to win the Cy Young? Because he started each and every one of his 31 games. Apparently you missed the part about the opener being used in about half the Rays' games after they began using the strategy May 19th beginning with Sergio Romo. I mentioned Snell as a specific exception.

You probably missed the part about it worked as well for Sergio Romo, who springboarded off the role to become the Rays' closer.

This is just the type of thing that gets me, Boagie. Usually you're pretty good at keeping up with the game, but here you were highly criticial without knowing what you're talking about. It's not simply that I'm having to teach you from the bottom up. No problem there. But it's ridiculous to have to start from the bottom after doing so once or twice before.

How many innings do you think the average starter went last season? It wasn't much more than five. Snell won the Cy Young Award, yet he fell about a fifth of an inning shy of averaging six innings.

I've ask and never received an answer as to what the difference is in wearing out a staff if the starter goes six innings followed by a reliever going one, or the opener goes one inning followed by the the normal starer going six? There IS no difference, which apparently is why no one has been able to come up with one. Yet that is the primary argument that has been used against the opener concept here.

So now you're not going to give Farhan a shot? Read the article before you settle on that ridiculous position. What are you going to do when you stop giving Farhan a shot? Stop being a Giants fan?

Why wouldn't an objective person give ANYONE an objective shot?

The game is changing, guys, and many of us are getting left behind. We can agree with the direction or not agree, but shouldn't we at least be aware of what is going on? Or should we take our position out of ignorance?

[Islandboagie]

From now on I think you should use your final paragraph to begin your post, Rog. It might be more affective.

As for not giving Zaidi a shot...it has nothing to do with the strategy of using a reliever to start the game, it has to do with dictating to Bochy how he should manage through comments in the media. Bochy is a Hall of Famer, he should manage how he wants to, and if Zaidi disagrees then they should have that conversation behind closed doors, not through the media. That's how I expect people to behave.

[rog]

it has to do with dictating to Bochy how he should manage through comments in the media


Rog -- Zaidi has a reputation as a good people person. I suspect if they haven't already, Farhan and Bruce will work this out well. Farhan said with regard to the lineup that he would make suggestions, but that the final say would be Bruce's. Don Mattingly got fired by the Dodgers, but he has said he had no difficulties with Farhan.

My sense would be that Farhan may want to go over how the opener worked for the Rays, and make sure Bruce understands its concepts. I would expect they would have a conversation about its plusses and minuses. The most aggressive I could see Farhan's being is that he might suggest to Bruce that he try it and see how it works.

My guess is that after this season Bruce and Farhan won't be working together. I suspect Bruce will retire. Bruce needs 74 wins to reach 2000, and I think the Giants will be good enough this season to provide that for him. They need 90 wins for him to get to .500, and that will be quite challenging.

Five years from now I think you will be signing Farhan's praises, Boagie. Those in the industry seem to be quite impressed with him. I think we mostly don't know him well enough.

And I guess if we're not going to give him a shot, we never will.

[rog]

I do understand what you're saying, Boagie, but we simply don't know enough about this situation to judge it IMO. We're making judgments based on bits and pieces.

Five years from now you're going to feel differently. I'm confident of that.

[Islandboagie]

You might be right, they may have discussed this already. And I'm not opposed to new fangled ideas, as you know I've long been a fan of the idea of a super reliever, and I knew the importance of OBP when many Giants fans were trying to run Snow and Mueller out of town. But if he did indeed discuss it with Bochy he forgot to mention that in the interview. It makes him sound like he wants all the credit, rather than it being a group effort.

[rog]

I strongly believe that five years from now we'll be happy with Farhan's performance. I don't think he's a glory hog, or he wouldn't be so well-liked by his former employers and more or less throughout baseball.

We're all formulating our knowledge and opinions of Farhan. I think the majority of the board (not necessarily you, Boagie) is coming from a position of pessism, in great part because they aren't big fans of analytics and don't necessarily think an MIT grad and Cal Ph.D. is a good choice to head the ship. I'm coming from a position of optimism given the broad praise I've read about him.

My immediate goals for him were to fortify the Giants' scouting, improve their anaytics and improve their player development. I haven't heard anything about the last, but the Giants have already hired new directors of pro and amateur scouting, and have escalated their increasing usage of analytics.

I realize Boly heard from a close source that Farhan dominated the Dodgers dugout. But we don't know the context, and we do know that former manager Don Mattingly -- who was fired by general management -- says good things about Farhan. We know that the trend in baseball -- as, frankly, it should be here -- is in relying on facts, facts that are provided in great part by the organiztion's analysts. Included in the manager's package is a recommended -- recommended, not dictated -- lineup and the reasons for it. The manager looks at the facts and analysis, perhaps discusses it with his bench or other coach, and has the final say.

The game is changing -- frankly more than I realized. As a board, we're way behind.