And the case is settled

[sfgdood]

For those of you who still were convinced that Bochy was still the manager, the issue got settled today when Fargeek decided to go to the "opener" strategy.

I really did want to give this guy a fair shot but this just shows what a moron he is.

[rog]

Randy, you realize how foolish your comment is, don't you? I mentioned here the Giants have been considering the use of an Opener, and after being outscored in the first inning 37 to 2, can you truly blame them? Just how much worse could the Opener do than give up essentially a run per inning to open the game?

You guys might want to take a look in the mirror.

First, we don't like the opener because it will make a team have 15 pitchers on its roster -- except that it didn't. In fact, while the Rays have been using their Opener -- for about a year now and in something approaching half their gamers -- they've had no more pitchers on their roster than the Giants -- and FEWER pitchers for much of the time. So reason #1 was bogus.

Then, we don't like it because it didn't work. Except that it did for the Rays. In fact, when the Rays began using the Opener a year ago, they had almost the same exact record as the Giants. Since using the Opener, they've been about as many game OVER .500 as the Giants have been below it since then. So reason #2 was bogus.

Now, the Giants give up 37 runs in the first inning of their games in the first quarter of the season, and you can't see why they would at least EXPLORE the use of an Opener? You're suggesting the Ostrich approach?

Let's be honest, guys. We're against the Opener idea not becuase there is anything wrong with the idea, but because it's a sabermetric concept. You know, the kind that come about because of FACTS?

After the first inning, the Giants have been essentially as good as their opponents. But they've been getting KILLED in the first inning, and often haven't been able to battle back. It's kind of tough to get behind when you're not scoring runs yourself.

So why in the world would a team try to correct what might be considered its biggest fault? Makes no sense to me.

[klaiggeb]

His comment is not foolish, Roger, and for the record, I agree with it.


How many times do we have to hear Flannery say that Bochy is old school until we/you get the message?


As Michael Morse said yesterday, the starters get paid a LOT of money to start. They need to start doing their jobs.

[rog]

So again, what are your arguments against the Opener? I haven't seen a single one that has stood the test of reason.

I'll give one possibility. If the players are totally against the Opener, there is certainly risk in implementing it. But it does raise the question as to whether a manager should allow the inmates to run the assylum.

Let's step away from the decision and look at its components, then see where they lead us:

. The Opener has been effective overall in the limited time its been used.

. The Giants have been KILLED in the first inning. From the second inning on, their pitching has been very good, but in the first inning it has been awful. How awful? The team ERA in the first inning has been 8.74. Over the rest of the game, their ERA has been a respectable 3.90. The Giants have given up nearly FIVE more runs per nine innings in the first inning than they have over the rest of the game. And we're not talking about a week; we're talking about a quarter of a season. For anyone to say that trying something new is a mistake is, well, a mistake.

Are you guys truly OK with allowing nearly a run per inning to start the game?

[klaiggeb]

I only see 1 side to the use of an opener; the opposing manager can't set a line up in advance for LH/RH.


For me, that's not enough to consider it.

Not nearly enough.

1-Sooner or later your starter has to come in.

2-If our starters have been so bad in the first inning, now they're bad in the 2nd or 3rd inning or whenever they come in.

So where's the upside.

3-It causes the manager to use a pitcher in a role to which they are NOT accustomed. And make no mistake about it; major leaguers are so finiky, if they hit in a different spot in the order, many of them are thrown off their feed.

4-The potential exists for an over use of bullpen arms.

5-Short relievers are short relievers for a reason. Usually they have one dominating pitch that is better served later in the game then early.



And pleas, Roger, don't argue your case (again). We've already heard it.

I/we don't agree.

Please, please, please stop trying to 'educate' us.

We're big boys, all of us.

[rog]

1-Sooner or later your starter has to come in.

2-If our starters have been so bad in the first inning, now they're bad in the 2nd or 3rd inning or whenever they come in.


Rog -- I'm guessing, Boly, when you got into a slump, you tried to change your pattern. I'll bet you examined each and every little thing you did to try to see if making even small changes might change the result.

I'm sure you noticed the difference between starting a game and entering it as a reliever. Seems like a logical thing to change, especially since it worked well for the Rays last season.





Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/5291/case-settled#ixzz5nv2XHlHH

[rog]

3-It causes the manager to use a pitcher in a role to which they are NOT accustomed. And make no mistake about it; major leaguers are so finiky, if they hit in a different spot in the order, many of them are thrown off their feed.


Rog -- This is a good argument. It wasn't the case or Tampa Bay, but it's something that should be watched.

[rog]

4-The potential exists for an over use of bullpen arms.

5-Short relievers are short relievers for a reason. Usually they have one dominating pitch that is better served later in the game then early.


Rog -- This is where logic seems to leave the argument. Of course the potential exists to overuse bullpen arms. It almost ALWAYS exists. But we've seen no evidence that the arms are used more by using the opener in the first inning and then the starter in innings 2 through 7 than using the starter in innings 1 though 6 and the set up man in inning 7. When the seventh inning is over, the same number of pitches may have been thrown. In fact, since the idea is to have the starter avoid facing the top of the order a third time, if anything, there may have been fewer pitches thrown -- or by the time the second pitcher is taken out, an out or two more may have been accomplished.

Why would short relievers have a harder time pitching early in the game than late? Earlier you have argued that it takes a special mind set to pitch those late innings.

You're making statements here that aren't logical.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/5291/case-settled?page=1#ixzz5nv3ZjOeg

[sfgdood]

I created this thread not to open another debate about the opener, which has been discussed to death here. I made it to show that Bochy, who is an old school manager, is no longer in charge. Stats geeks will think this is a good thing...people who appreciate good leaders of men will not like it.

[klaiggeb]

Change your pattern to break a slump, yes.

On an INDIVIDUAL level.

The opener does more than change the pattern, it disrupts the flow of the pitching staff.

Again I go back to experience.

If you haven't been one of the guys in the rotation, or in the pen, it's hard to understand.

Krukow has said as much many times.


You want something different, Roger, and that's fine.

But I'm with Randy, I do NOT want to kick this subject around again.

You're NOT going to convince us, and we're not going to convince you

[rog]

I made it to show that Bochy, who is an old school manager, is no longer in charge.


Rog -- But you haven't stopped to think how ridiculous that thought is, Randy.

I agree with Boly that Bruce is an honorable man who barring radical circumstances or health issues will do his best to complete his contract. BUT HE HAS THE FINAL SAY. The worst thing the Giants can do is fire him and give him a paid vacation.

When you come up with an idea, ask yourself: Is this reasonable?




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/5291/case-settled#ixzz5nyX0pwES

[rog]

You're NOT going to convince us, and we're not going to convince you


Rog -- You COULD convince me if you had good evidence. But remember, your first comment was that a team would have to use 15 pitchers. That comment was foolish, and it was wrong. Yet it was the first thing you thought of.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/5291/case-settled?page=1#ixzz5nyXeUN5T

[klaiggeb]

I've given you good evidence; evidence you choose to ignore because you like every new idea that comes floating down the sewer we call a river.

[sfgdood]

I agree with Boly that Bruce is an honorable man who barring radical circumstances or health issues will do his best to complete his contract. BUT HE HAS THE FINAL SAY. The worst thing the Giants can do is fire him and give him a paid vacation.

Dood - He SHOULD have the final say and under previous GMs he did...but this year the final say is running contrary to the way Bruce has ever managed before. Using an opener is just the latest example.
The stats geeks have taken over control.

[rog]

I've given you good evidence; evidence you choose to ignore because you like every new idea that comes floating down the sewer we call a river.


Rog -- You said it would require 15 pitchers, which was at least two too high.

You said it hadn't worked, when it worked quite well for the surprising 2018 Rays.

You said it would burn out a bullpen, when it is obvious that if a starter works six innnings and a set up man the seventh, the team has used two pitchers for the same approximate number of pitches as if the opener instead pitches the first inning and the traditional starter the second through seventh. In each case, at the end of the 7th inning, one pitcher has pitched six innings and the other has pitched one.

You said a reliever should be better late in the game than early, when in fact that wasn't the case for the Rays. In fact, ex-Giant Sergio Romo was so successful in the opener role that he moved on to become the Rays' closer.

It's only one game for the Giants, but the opener was awful yesterday. But you said you believed the traditional starter would simply transfer his bad inning from the first inning to the first inning he pitched, which in this case became the second inning. Yet with a team starters ERA of nearly nine in their first inning, Tyler Beede went out and pitched a scoreless second innning yesterday.



Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/5291/case-settled#ixzz5o0vD60XK

[rog]

but this year the final say is running contrary to the way Bruce has ever managed before.


Rog -- Bruce makes out the lineup card. He has the final say.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/5291/case-settled?page=1#ixzz5o10g73Z0

[klaiggeb]

It worked for one team, Roger, the Rays.

That's like saying money ball was a huge success.

It wasn't and isn't, and neither is the opener concept proven to be a huge success.

[sfgdood]

but this year the final say is running contrary to the way Bruce has ever managed before.


Rog -- Bruce makes out the lineup card. He has the final say.

Dood - How naive can you get? The one whose handwriting is on the lineup card isn't necessarily the one with the final say. Just like if the ballboy takes the card out to the umpires, that doesn't mean he made out the lineup.

[rog]

It worked for one team, Roger, the Rays.


Rog -- Come on, Boly. Working for one team most certainly doesn't show that the opener is a great idea. What it does show, though, is that you were wrong when you said it didn't work. Your statement was incorrect, and while the Rays' success doesn't prove the opener will be a great success overall, it disproves the statement you made. To be honest, I can't believe you made it, given that if flew in the face of the available evidence.

As did your statement that a team would need 15 pitchers to make it work. That wasn't the case for the Rays. You said it would burn out the pitching staff. That didn't happen with the Rays, who instead turned around a horrible start to their pitching season and wound up with one of the best pitching staffs in the AL last season.

I really don't like to disagree with you, Boly. You're a great guy. But your comments on the opener have been wrong, and even the slightest bit of examination on your part should have shown that to you.

Will the opener work in the long run? I don't know. I think it likely will. It's just one more tool in the arsenal, like LOOGY's and ROOGY's and set up men and closers. It's designed to try to take advantage of platoon splits and to allow the normal starter to pitch six innings without having to face the top of the order three times.

The problem is that the arguments you have used against it are fallacious arguments. All I've done is suggest it might work and that it made sense to give it a try. Why are you so oppposed to seeing how new ideas play out?

It's kind of like back in 2012 or 2014, whichever it was, when the Giants went to closer by committee, and people like Randy said that had never worked out and would doom the Giants. In fact, it generally hadn't worked well, but when one looked at the strategy, it was being used only under very difficult circumstances. The primary reason it hadn't worked was because the pitchers it had been used with were awful. I mentioned at the time that the Giants had several good relievers and that it might work out. And it did work out pretty well, leading I believe to Sergio Romo's becoming the closer.

And the Giants weren't doomed.

Now this seaason as they try to use the opener, they ARE doomed. The pitching may work out OK, but they don't seem to have the hitting to field a winning team this season. I believe over the winter I said that it appeared they had about a 76-win team. That was probably a little optimistic, but the point was that it was unlikely that they would be competitive. And it still is.

The good news though is that there are a few Giants who have rebuilt their trade value a bit, and the Giants will likely be an active seller, which clearly they need to be. I think because we don't fully understand the limitations of team control, we tend to overvalue what the Giants can expect to receive, but they almost certainly will come out of this with a few things of value.

As for the use of the opener, if it can help a few pitchers get more out of what they've got, so much the better. If not, how much will have been lost?

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/5291/case-settled#ixzz5o2YvucvL

[rog]

The one whose handwriting is on the lineup card isn't necessarily the one with the final say.


Rog -- It's kind of like when Sharon Stone asked the police in Basic Instinct: "What are you going to do; charge me with smoking?" (When they were questioning her with the intent of charging her with murder).

Bruce Bochy is a man of honor, and unless he feels he simply can't violate his ethical standards, he's going to do his best to fulfill his contract. But if he believes in a lineup, he's the one who makes out the lineup card. The worst thing the Giants can do is fire him and give him a paid vacation. Bruce is in control.

Your comparison to the ballboy's not having made out the lineup if he takes it out to the umpire is ridiculous. I can't believe you don't see that.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/5291/case-settled?page=1#ixzz5o2dEC6LY

[sfgdood]

The media thought it was ridiculous when Trump said Obama had spied on his campaign. Not so ridiculous now

[rog]

I've noticed that when someone titles a thread something like "The Case Is Settled," the case usually isn't settled at all; it's just that the poster has closed his mind.

[klaiggeb]

Roger,



Rog -- Come on, Boly. Working for one team most certainly doesn't show that the opener is a great idea. What it does show, though, is that you were wrong when you said it didn't work. Your statement was incorrect, and while the Rays' success doesn't prove the opener will be a great success overall, it disproves the statement you made. To be honest, I can't believe you made it, given that if flew in the face of the available evidence.

As did your statement that a team would need 15 pitchers to make it work. That wasn't the case for the Rays. You said it would burn out the pitching staff. That didn't happen with the Rays, who instead turned around a horrible start to their pitching season and wound up with one of the best pitching staffs in the AL last season.

I really don't like to disagree with you, Boly. You're a great guy. But your comments on the opener have been wrong, and even the slightest bit of examination on your part should have shown that to you.



Roger, please feel free to disagree with me any time. But I think you've confused Randy's comments with mine.

I can't remember saying a team would need 15 pitchers.

If you can find it, I could not, please tell me where.

I think it was Randy who said that, not me, and I'd bet that he was speaking as I often do: in hyperbole.


But my point on the potential for burning out a pitching staff still stands.

I contend the Rays got lucky.

Didn't we go through 5 pitchers in our game?

The potential for that to happen every game increases, IMHO, by using an opener.

Krukow pointed this out a couple months back.

I agree with him.

You don't.

You're all into gadgets and new ideas.

I am not.

[rog]

Stats geeks will think this is a good thing...people who appreciate good leaders of men will not like it.


Rog -- That's kind of a generalization, isn't it? What is a person who like me understands stats and appreciates good leaders to do?




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/5291/case-settled#ixzz5o6kDKZDr

[rog]

Didn't we go through 5 pitchers in our game?

The potential for that to happen every game increases, IMHO, by using an opener.


Rog -- On the one hand, I agree with you. With an opener that goes only one inning, by the second inning two pitchers -- not just one -- have been used. Certainly the chances of a complete game have been reduced from say 1% to no chance at all. And a team is already one pitcher close to the number five.

On the other hand, the chances that pitcher -- especially those normal starters for whom an opener is usually used -- will pitch a complete game are at best 1%, and in reality, almost non-existent. Most games teams are happy if their starter can pitch six full innings. One of the ideas of the opener is to have the opener face the top of the order the first time so that the normal starter has a better chance of getting in his six full innings without facing the top of the order for a third time.

In order to go six full innings without facing the top of the order a third time, the starter has to retire all 18 hitters he faces. if the opener pitches a perfect first inning, he can give up a more normal six base runners without having to face the top of the order a third time. The chances of the normal starter's pitching six full innings are increased if his first inning is the second rather than the first.

In addition, by having the opener begin the game instead of coming in in relief, his team can know in advance the first batters he will face, and can take advantage of any platoon splits.

If by using these methods, the team can get even an extra out or two from its first two pitchers, it can reduce the strain on its bullpen. You don't use the opener with a starter like Max Scherzer. You use it with a much lesser starter who will make you HAPPY if he can make it through six innings.

Boly mentioned the idea of teaching pitchers to throw deeper into games. I like that idea as well, and went so far as to recommend yesterday's starter Shaun Anderson as a pitcher who by virtue of his build and delivery might be a candidate. I think any ideas a pitching coach, manager, scouts or analytic staff can come up with is worth of discussion and perhaps trial.

Just as in other sports it is wise for a coach to come up with a system and a game plan that takes advantages of his particular team's strengths, I think it is wise for a baseball team to put together its own unique pitching plan.

It's usually not a one-size-fits-all-situation. Be prepared to use every trick in the tool bag -- from starters going deeper into games, to LOOGY's and ROOGY's, to set up men, to closers, to openers. To putting your right-handed closer in left field so you can bring in a southpaw to face a dangerous lefty hitter. The Pirates did that with Kent Tekulve against Willie McCovey, and Tekulve caught Willie's fly ball for the final out of the game and didn't have to re-enter as the closer.

Hitters are re-working their swings. Tommy La Stella has a career slugging percentage under .400, but he's re-worked his swing to where this season he has more home runs (11) than strikeouts (8). Not surprisingly with all that contact, he's now hitting over .300, as well. Pitchers are compensating these days by pitching more and more in short bursts, but doesn't it make sense to use not only the short-spurt strategy but any other effective strategy a pitching staff can come up with?

We like the idea of pitchers stretching themselves out, since that's the way it USED to be, and we're comfortable with it. We don't complain too much about pitchers working single innings, since it's been crammed down our throats to the point where it too has become mainstream baseball.

But talk about using the first set up man in the first inning instead of the seventh, and one would think we were changing baseball to cricket. Or maybe that it just isn't cricket!

An idea isn't good simply because it's new. But it isn't predetermined to be bad, either. And that's pretty much what those who can't abide openers have done: They've closer their minds to the opener. Thank goodness they now have an open mind to the closer. Otherwise we might worry that they are simply setting us up.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/5291/case-settled?page=1#ixzz5o6kjM8wS

[rog]

I can't remember saying a team would need 15 pitchers.

If you can find it, I could not, please tell me where.

I think it was Randy who said that, not me


Rog -- I'm sorry about that. I have indeed mixed you two up on occasion, and you are indeed different people.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/5291/case-settled?page=1#ixzz5o6vyXWvz

[rog]

You're all into gadgets and new ideas.

I am not.


Rog -- What I'm into is keeping an open mind -- to both new ideas and old.




Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/5291/case-settled?page=1#ixzz5o6wH1tPS

[klaiggeb]

It doesn't come across as you being merely "interested" in new ideas, Roger.

In the time that I've known you, virtually EVERY new idea that has come up, you have supported.

And that's okay.

That's what makes you who you are.

Me? Captain Hyperbole, of course!

[rog]

In the time that I've known you, virtually EVERY new idea that has come up, you have supported.


Rog -- Hopefully only the good ones. Wouldn't it be nice if this means that there have been a lot of good ideas discussed here?


Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/5291/case-settled#ixzz5o8ZvAegI

[klaiggeb]

I can think of only three that have come down the pipe, Rog, and you've liked them all.

1-Money ball

2-Pitcher hitting 8th

3-The use of an opener.

All of them you supported my friend.