Giants closed out by an opener?

[sharksrog]

The opener hasn't been a popular position here on this board. Last Thursday's sad loss showed the value of the opener. Sadly, it showed the value FOR the Dodgers and at the expense of the Giants.

Brilliant move by Dave Roberts, wasn't it? Actually, according to Davey, it came down from the very highest levels of the organization. Wherever it came from, it affected the game right down to the final strike.

Why does a team use an opener? Obviously it is to limit platoon advantages, an advantage the Giants may have benefited from more than any other team in the majors. Players such as Darin Ruf and Wilmer Flores were acquired because the Giants were struggling against southpaws. One poster here said he had no idea why the Giants picked up Flores. He likely knows now. The Giants also acquired hitters such as Dickerson, Yastzemski, Wade and La Stella who feasted on right-handers. By beginning the game with righty relievers Corey Knebel and then Brusdar Graterol before bringing in bulk pitcher (and 20 game winner) Julio Urias (a pitcher who was panned here when he first came up as a highly promising rookie), Roberts set it up for excellent relievers Blake Treinen and Kenley Jansen, then ace-turned-temporary-closer Max Scherzer to face primarily right-handed hitters.

With the game on the line and the Giants down to one final out, they were forced to leave in Flores against Scherzer, against whom he had gone hitless in 17 career at bats. True, the game ended on a horrendous call, but Flores was likely overmatched from the start -- a situation that was more or less sealed with the Giants' first at bat of the game when they started left-handed hitting Tommy La Stella instead of Donovan Solano, whom they likely would have started had Urias been the starter.

Thus, when the game down to Flores against Scherzer, about as tough a matchup as the Giants could have hoped to avoid, La Stella's bat was no longer available. Certainly it made sense to start Brandon Crawford at shortstop. He was likely the Giants' best player in 2021 and would have started against anyone. The only change I would have recommended would have been to hit him third instead of fourth, possibly giving him an additional at bat against a right-hander and Buster Posey an added plate appearance against Urias. (That wouldn't have been the case, as it turned out, but I think when playing the odds with the starting lineup, it should have been considered.) It probably made sense to start Mike Yastrzemski over Austin Slater. Mike had an excellent season against right-handers, and Slater just couldn't hit them. The Giants still had Wade and Dickerson available, even after using up Mike mini-Yaz.

But wouldn't it have been nice to have La Stella available to pinch hit for the 0-for-his-career-against-Scherzer Flores?

I think Gabe Kapler is even better than Bruce Bochy at putting players in places to succeed, but IMO the opener got him in this game. And that's exactly why the call for the opener came from the highest levels of the Dodgers organization.

I think the Dodgers had an even better team this season than the Giants. Let's not forget that while the Giants also didn't have Brandon Belt, the Dodgers beat the Giants in the playoffs without their own team leader in both home runs and walks (Muncy) and two stud starters in Kershaw and Bauer. I think the Giants have caught up to and perhaps even surpassed the Dodgers organizationally and including their manager and coaches.

But in the critical fifth game, the opener -- a concept heavily criticized here in its early days -- seemed to catch the Giants by surprise. The Dodgers were very, uh, open about their strategy too. Roberts texted Kapler ahead of time that he was going to start Knebel, even though I don't believe he was required to do so. I think Kapler should be and probably will be the Manager of the Year, but this time Roberts -- with the help of the Dodgers front office -- might have gotten a tiny edge on him.

One thing that surprises me is that with the excellent writers the Giants now have is that with Flores making the final out, nothing was said indicating there would have been a way not to have Flores at the plate against a pitcher he had failed to solve in 17 previous at bats. Perhaps that fact was obscured by the controversial manner in which the game ended.

One could also have argued though that when La Stella wasn't available and Flores had to go to bat against arguably the biggest nemesis of his career, the Giants were close to done. Close to done in by a special closer, and by an opener. The Dodgers used five excellent right-handers against the Giants, and yet the Giants had only six of their at bats against them with left-handed hitters. Despite having six good left-handed hitters available. That only three of those lefty at bats against righties came in the game's final seven innings might have been the biggest concern.

One might say, for openers, that the Dodgers had a tactical advantage in the game. Against a Giants team that themselves in tactical play all season long.

[klaiggeb]

Roger, we've disagreed on this a gazillion times, and I'm going to make it a gazillion and 1.

We tried it multiple times this year and were largely unsuccessful.

[sharksrog]

Have you studied the history of the closer, Boly? Not that I have either, but I'm almost certain I've studied it a lot more than you. I think the Rays were the first team to use it a fair amount, and they've had success with it.

The Giants did have success several times this year with a bullpen game, which is what Mark recommended for game 4 of the Dodgers playoff series.

But the main point of my original post was not that the Giants should have used it, but that it hurt the Giants in game 5. I would like to see your arguments against the Dodgers' usage of it in that game. I also thought it showed excellent sportsmanship by Dave Roberts to text his intent to Gabe. In today's world, there are far too many attempts to cover things up rather than shed light on them. I don't think there would have been anything wrong had Roberts not sent the text, but I thought it was going the extra mile for him to do so.

I just thought, as I mentioned to Boagie when I found out about the opener that Gabe should NOT do, that he overreacted. As I mentioned, I think he was correct by starting Mike, but wouldn't it have been really, really nice to have Tommy La Stella at the plate instead of the 0-for-17-against-Scherzer-career Flores?

By the way, Roberts would likely have been highly criticized had the opener blown up in his face, and it is certainly possible if not probable the Dodgers would have won the game without using an opener, but if you have an argument how doing so didn't work out well for the Dodgers in this specific game, I'd like to hear it.

When you think about whether overall use of an opener on occasion is good or bad, you might want to examine the situations in which it was used. Usually an opener isn't used unless a team is facing what is already a tough situation. In this case, the Dodgers took advantage of having five very, very good right-handed relievers available with the opportunity to use Scherzer and of the versatility of Urias. How many 20-game winners (21 including his earlier playoff win against the Giants) do you think would have been OK with not starting that game. Isn't it a tribute to Urias and the Dodgers that the major leagues' only 20-game winner?

Also, I think someone questioned Urias' viability as a 19-year-old prospect, but he has overcome a serious arm injury to become this season's only 20-game winner and post a .762 career winning percentage. The dissenter was right in that because of pitchers' propensity for injury there is a concept called TINSTAAPP (There Is No Such Thing as a Pitching Prospect), but Urias appeared to be exceptional with a very high ratio of accomplishment to age, and he has turned out to be good enough to overcome both injury and having a hard time reaching an excellent Dodgers rotation. Urias has made only four starts in his postseason career, yet he already has seven postseason wins.

[sharksrog]

Someone said the Dodgers' World Championship last season was meaningless, but I don't think that person would be making that statement had the Giants won it.

[sharksrog]

The Giants have rarely used an opener or had bullpen games. This year they went 806 in games started by other than their normal starters (Gausman, Webb, Wood, DeSclafani, Sanchez and Cueto). That's certainly not close to how well they fared in the games begun by their starters, but it's also not bad for starting other than a team's normal starters.

If I were a major league starter, I would LOVE to have an opener begin the game before me. If he leaves with the Giants leading but has pitched fewer than five innings, and I and my relievers can hold the lead, I'll get the win. If he leaves with the game tied, I can still get the win if I outpitch my opponent, even if I don't go five innings. And if he leaves with the Giants trailing, it makes it more difficult for me to get the loss.

In 2018, the Rays' Ryan Yarbrough started only six of his 38 outings, yet he finished with a sparkling 16-6 record despite an average-ish 3.91 ERA. In other words, it shouldn't be hard to get buy-in from an intelligent pitcher who realizes if he can put up wins, he'll likely make money.

[sharksrog]

Last night the Braves found themselves without their expected starter, yet they beat baseball's winningest 2021 pitcher with a bullpen game.

My sense is that like many ideas, the use of openers and bullpen games are often successful when they are used properly and in situations with decent chances of success. They're not very successful when they are used improperly and in situations with little chance of success.

In what none other than Vince Scully called the biggest game in Giants/Dodgers history, the use of an opener allowed Dave Roberts to catch Gabe Kapler with one of postseasons' greatest mismatches for the final out. Gabe will likely be named the NL Manager of the Year, in great part because he put his players in positions to succeed so often. But in that particular instance, with so very much on the line, Gabe got caught with his pants down.

It's not like the situation wasn't foreseeable prior to the game. Just ask Boagie.

[rxmeister]

I’m a big fan of the opener myself. I think Boly doesn’t like it because our openers stunk a couple of times, but you have to look at the reasons behind it rather than how it worked out, because the logic is impeccable. Boly, let’s just say we used an opener for game five and brought in Webb later and got two or three scoreless innings out of them. Do you realize Webb could have pitched the rest of the game? We wouldn’t have had to worry about a kid closer, our other closer coming off an injury and our setup man who struggled against the Dodgers this year. Plus you mix and match your relievers according to who’s due up for the Dodgers. And like the Dodgers did with the Giants, you force the manager to make changes in his preferred starting lineup. Webb doesn’t have to face a hitter four times and if he’s on like he was, he won’t even face them a third time! And you still save your top relievers for the eighth and ninth if necessary, plus you still have pitchers like Gausman and Wood to relieve. Dodgers used an opener but notice it wasn’t Treinen or Jansen. Your objection to the concept of opener would probably completely change if the Giants had a better and deeper bullpen, and that’s something Farhan needs to accomplish this off season.

[klaiggeb]

It would not have changed, Mark.

We and this discussion a couple of years ago.

I hated it then and I still hate it now.

Roger, you said if you were a starter you' d love it.

I mean no disrespect, but you were never a starter so honestly you are speaking from an intellectual position, not one that is experiential.

That you like the opener concept, or believe it would work better, is fine.

But the fact is you were never 'there.'

I WAS a starter who also relieved.

A starter wants to own the game, not be part of someone else's game.

I have said from the beginning, that using an opener sets up a stronger possibility of using one, two, or three extra pictures in the game, that starting it with a starter might not.

And I contend that managers would still use closes and setup men late in the game. Thus using more pitchers than in a normal starter scenario.

My dislike of the opener has nothing to do with our ineffective openers

[reedonly]

Oct 21, 2021 9:06:16 GMT -5 klaiggeb said:

It would not have changed, Mark.

We and this discussion a couple of years ago.

I hated it then and I still hate it now.

Roger, you said if you were a starter you' d love it.

I mean no disrespect, but you were never a starter so honestly you are speaking from an intellectual position, not one that is experiential.

That you like the opener concept, or believe it would work better, is fine.

But the fact is you were never 'there.'

I WAS a starter who also relieved.

A starter wants to own the game, not be part of someone else's game.

I have said from the beginning, that using an opener sets up a stronger possibility of using one, two, or three extra pictures in the game, that starting it with a starter might not.

And I contend that managers would still use closes and setup men late in the game. Thus using more pitchers than in a normal starter scenario.

My dislike of the opener has nothing to do with our ineffective openers

I'm not sure who I heard it from but the opener concept disrespected Urias.  Many people are looking at the use of Urias in game 2 of the NLDS as a major mistake as he was ineffective in game 2 and game 4.  Also, while using Scherzer in game 5 of the NLDS worked, he was complaining about a dead arm in the NLCS.  Maybe they need to go with a true bullpen game rather than use starters like Urias, Scherzer, and Kersh in roles they are not used to.  I get that some games are important but having all hands in so often can take a toll.  Furthermore, I don't agree that they used the opener to set up a potential Scherzer-Flores matchup.  I'm not so sure anyone is smart enough to have that much foresight and at this point in time, I don't think the Dodgers organization is smarter.  They had the players who executed and outside of a few, the Giants did not.   

[klaiggeb]

Great point, Reed! If I had been Urias, I'd have been ticked beyond belief!

To me, what Roberts did, on orders from the front office I think I heard Roberts say, was incredibly disrespectful to a guy who won 20 games AND, bested the Giants almost every time he faced them!

What a slap in the face!

And if I was Roberts, no way on God's Green Earth I let the front office dictate strategy.

No freaking way.

I would walk first, and in Robert's case, he'd get another job mosh scosh.

[reedonly]

I think that this is the way that these games are managed now. Its more by committee, especially the more statistically driven teams. Maybe that's why Dusty is doing so well.

[reedonly]

Oct 20, 2021 20:28:57 GMT -5 sharksrog said:

Someone said the Dodgers' World Championship last season was meaningless, but I don't think that person would be making that statement had the Giants won it.

[

Parade?

[Islandboagie]

Rog- Someone said the Dodgers' World Championship last season was meaningless, but I don't think that person would be making that statement had the Giants won it.

Boagie- That someone was me, although I don't know if I used the term "meaningless" but it certainly shouldn't be considered equal to a normal year with fans and a 162 game season. I would have been happy if the Giants had won the World Series* in 2020, but it wouldn't be anywhere close to the accomplishment of winning in 2010, '12 or '14.

[sharksrog]

I agree with you, Boly, that most starters want to own the game. They want to pitch all nine innings, and if the game goes into extra innings, they want to complete those too. I have been a starter, and even if I hadn't been, I realize what you say is spot on. That is the mentality of starters.

But the object is to win the game -- not for a starter to pitch as many innings as possible. It's another sport, but a player who might make the Hall of Fame despite not being an exceptional talent in basketball is the Warriors' Andre Igoudola. The Warriors became one of the greatest NBA teams of all time in part because Andre agreed to come off the bench despite being a former All-Star who was still in his prime. Would Andre have preferred to start? I'm virtually certain he would have. But he realized the Warriors were a better team if he came off the bench.

That's precisely the type of sacrifice a bulk pitcher should be willing to make -- to help his team win more games. And while I agree with you that a starter wants simply to start the game and finish it, I said that an intelligent major league starter would be willing to become a bulk pitcher -- assuming he could overcome his false pride -- because the scoring rules of baseball make it possible for a starter turned bulk pitcher to build an exceptional won-loss record.

If I start the game, and the Giants fall behind and don't catch up, I get the loss (darn). But if an opener begins the game, falls behind even 1-0, and then I come in and we don't catch up, the loss goes to the opener. Here's the really cool part for me. If the opener gets a 5-0 lead and I come in in the second or third inning and we are able to hold that 5-0 lead, I -- not the opener -- receive the win.

I mentioned how the Rays' Ryan Yarbrough put together a 16-6 record in 2018 with only 8 of his games coming as the true starter, and most coming after the opener. Think the opener approach has the opportunity to give a normal starter the chance to build a better won-loss record?

Igoudala's stats suffered when he agreed to come off the bench. His minutes went down slightly, and he lost the prestige of being a starter. But the Warriors became one of the greatest teams ever and changed the game of basketball. Igoudala's sacrifice cost him stats, but won the Warriors games. And when he did start in one championship series (to guard LeBron James), he was voted the Championship MVP.

Igoudala's selflessness helped build the Warriors' legacy and ultimately added to his own (and he's back with them this year, a year that I have believed since the first preseason game would be better than most think -- perhaps even much better).

So, yeah, if I were a major league pitcher, I would be won over by both the opportunity to improve my team's chances to win and to build an exceptional personal won-loss record. I might even be interested in making a career of it, hoping to become well known in the sport as the guy who first built a successful career as a bulk pitcher.

In fact, that would fit my persona. Right now I don't have to work, but work 21 hours a week on Saturday, Sunday and Monday. It keeps me out of mischief, provides me the opportunity meet a lot of people (including running into a guy last weekend that I worked with for 15 years), and gives me plenty of time to work on my fantasy baseball teams. I love my three-day schedule, which gives my wife and me the opportunity to have four days off during the week, when we can take trips that are less expensive and less crowded. But I also love helping out when people take vacations. If I can help them, I feel happy.

Now, one thing a team using an opener has to get is buy in from the players. But if a player isn't willing to sacrifice to make the team better, is he really the type of player we want on our winning team to begin with? And the Giants have one of the most pro-active coaching staffs in sports. It's young enough to relate to the players, and informed enough to help them improve.

I am disappointed that Ron Wotus is retiring from the coaching staff. I've long liked him and wish he had gotten a chance to manage. The Giants will likely also lose a few more coaches over the winter. But I'll bet too that they have become one of the favored destinations for progressive coaches.

Some of you may remember over a decade ago when I spoke about pitcher Brian Bannister (son of Floyd Bannister, a former first overall draft pick). Bannister was one of the first major leaguers to be intrigued by analytics. Now he's a Giants coach who has helped a lot of pitchers to, well, pitch. Can you think of any team in baseball that has helped its players improve the past three seasons more than the Giants?

[sharksrog]

Boly, would you mind tell us what your dislike of the opener DOES stem from? I believe a few years ago I showed how well it had worked for the Rays. It certainly worked well in game 5 of the Giants/Dodgers series. The Giants went 8-6 this season when they had opener/bullpen-type games. That's not a great record for a team that won 107 games, but we shouldn't forget that the Giants used that format almost exclusively when their top pitchers weren't available. Going over .500 in games at which you're at a disadvantage is pretty good for almost any team.

Is it possible, Boly, that you dislike the closer not because it isn't a tactic that can help teams on occasion, but simply because it is different from the baseball you grew up with?

Here's the thing about baseball. It's constantly evolving, particularly when it comes to starting pitchers. Originally, teams used two or three pitchers, and they combined to pitch almost every inning of every game. But since the beginning of the game, complete games have become fewer and fewer, and the innings pitched by starters have become less and less.

Did you know, for instance, that in August and September, when the Giants played .699 ball, their starting pitchers averaged only 4.7 innings per game?

[sharksrog]

That if you had been Urias, you would have been ticked off by having an opener and that he was fine with making the "sacrifice" to help his team tells us what about your character and Julio's characters, Boly? To me, it says that Julio is a better teammate than you might have been.

By the way, the more progressive organizations have their executives and manager work closely together. That means that the executives have input into lineups, and the manager has input into roster construction. Seems to me that cooperating is better than hardheadedness. And that two heads are often better than one.

[sharksrog]

Your comment about a championship in a shortened 2020 season not meaning as much as a championship in a full season, Boagie, actually shows how important a full season is in showing which team is the best. You're saying that the 2020 championship was less meaningful, yet it involved winning 11 games just like full season championships do.

If a championship in a shortened 2020 season was less meaningful than in full seasons, with no reduction in the requirements to win the championship of the playoffs, that means that the regular season may be more important than you have traditionally given it credit for.

While it's great to win any tournament, I believe that a 162 game season is a far better barometer of how good a team is than an 11 to 20 game tournament. Your comment seems to go along with that.

[reedonly]

Oct 21, 2021 15:24:14 GMT -5 klaiggeb said:

Great point, Reed! If I had been Urias, I'd have been ticked beyond belief!

To me, what Roberts did, on orders from the front office I think I heard Roberts say, was incredibly disrespectful to a guy who won 20 games AND, bested the Giants almost every time he faced them!

What a slap in the face!

And if I was Roberts, no way on God's Green Earth I let the front office dictate strategy.

No freaking way.

I would walk first, and in Robert's case, he'd get another job mosh scosh.

I believe all the lineup manipulation bothered Kiki and Joc.  A large part of why they are not back with the Dodgers is because they had a desire to play every day and LA front office did not want to pay them or use them as starters.  Even though they were "champs" in 2020, the desire to play on a daily basis outweighed playing for a team that had the best chance to repeat.   Also, note that they did not sign huge contracts Kiki got $14m/2 and JOc got $7m/1.  Boly is right that sometimes the need to be "the man" may be more important.  Giants have a similar system and do a lot o the same things in many ways and I'm not sure why they seem to buy in more. 

[reedonly]

Oct 20, 2021 20:28:57 GMT -5 sharksrog said:

Someone said the Dodgers' World Championship last season was meaningless, but I don't think that person would be making that statement had the Giants won it.

Their 2020 isn't meaningless but very much diminished.  There was talk of a parade to celebrate the Lakers and Dodgers by the Los Angeles mayor but since the Lakers did not win the championship in 2021 the last mention of a parade was January of this year and to be honest, everyone has moved on.  Frankly, the only way the 2020 team will get a parade is if Lebron throws one for himself or the Dodgers manage to win the 2021 WS 

[reedonly]

I'm sorry, my error, there were parades at Dodger Stadium after their thrilling World Series win. 

[sharksrog]

And that parade was more important than any World Series parade.

[sharksrog]

Am I right that despite having three of the top starters in baseball, the Dodgers are 4-4 this postseason in games begun by their rotation and 2-1 in games that featured an opener or a bullpen game?

You didn't respond, did you Boly, to my question as to why you oppose the opener? I had forgotten it, but I did do at least a little bit of a study of how the opener worked out for the Rays when they began its usage, and the results were rather positive. We should be predisposed toward ideas developed by the Rays, who have rather consistently been competitive despite being a low-budget team.

Remember over a decade ago when we were talking about the advantages or wrapping up players early, as the Giants then did with Madison Bumgarner and Buster Posey? The Rays began that trend, and two of the players they wrapped up later became Giants -- Matt Moore and Evan Longoria.

Let's look at those situations.

I believe the first player the Rays wrapped up was Evan. Got him for a heck of a bargain. Longoria began his career like a Hall of Famer, but he dropped off to a more normal level, and they traded him -- along with $14.5 million in contract assistance -- to the Giants. The Rays got some great years from Evan and then unloaded his contract (although they no doubt absorbed more of it than they hoped).

Later they wrapped up Moore on the really cheap. When he got injured and fell off, they traded him also to the Giants for prospects and Matt Duffy.

The signings of Longoria and Moore were somewhat successful, but even as the two players faded, the Rays were able to unload them. The idea of wrapping up good players early is to make a little mistake as opposed to making a much more expensive mistake later if things don't work out. The strategy worked exceptionally well for the Giants with Bumgarner and decently with Posey.

Speaking of Bumgarner, is anyone still sad the Giants didn't re-sign him? The handwriting had been on the wall for a while with Madison, a great Giants but clearly not one they should have re-signed in free agency. They offered him more than he was worth, but the Diamondbacks offered him even more. The Giants chose North Carolina University southpaw Nick Swiney with the compensation pick they received for Bumgarner. I believe Swiney ran into some arm issues in his first minor league season of 2021, but he pitched to an 0.74 ERA in 32 innings.

[reedonly]

Oct 20, 2021 20:28:57 GMT -5 sharksrog said:

Someone said the Dodgers' World Championship last season was meaningless, but I don't think that person would be making that statement had the Giants won it.

I believe some of the Dodgers players themselves have voiced that 2020 was tainted.  They treated 2021 as unfinished business because they received no parade, no chance to celebrate together, and so forth.  Buehler and Seager had complained of a lack of closure and Kershw felt he didn't have a chance to celebrate with family and friends.   They would be the first to tell you it wasn't like a normal season.

[klaiggeb]

Oct 22, 2021 12:53:21 GMT -5 sharksrog said:

Am I right that despite having three of the top starters in baseball, the Dodgers are 4-4 this postseason in games begun by their rotation and 2-1 in games that featured an opener or a bullpen game?

You didn't respond, did you Boly, to my question as to why you oppose the opener? I had forgotten it, but I did do at least a little bit of a study of how the opener worked out for the Rays when they began its usage, and the results were rather positive. We should be predisposed toward ideas developed by the Rays, who have rather consistently been competitive despite being a low-budget team.

Remember over a decade ago when we were talking about the advantages or wrapping up players early, as the Giants then did with Madison Bumgarner and Buster Posey? The Rays began that trend, and two of the players they wrapped up later became Giants -- Matt Moore and Evan Longoria.

Let's look at those situations.

I believe the first player the Rays wrapped up was Evan. Got him for a heck of a bargain. Longoria began his career like a Hall of Famer, but he dropped off to a more normal level, and they traded him -- along with $14.5 million in contract assistance -- to the Giants. The Rays got some great years from Evan and then unloaded his contract (although they no doubt absorbed more of it than they hoped).

Later they wrapped up Moore on the really cheap. When he got injured and fell off, they traded him also to the Giants for prospects and Matt Duffy.

The signings of Longoria and Moore were somewhat successful, but even as the two players faded, the Rays were able to unload them. The idea of wrapping up good players early is to make a little mistake as opposed to making a much more expensive mistake later if things don't work out. The strategy worked exceptionally well for the Giants with Bumgarner and decently with Posey.

Speaking of Bumgarner, is anyone still sad the Giants didn't re-sign him? The handwriting had been on the wall for a while with Madison, a great Giants but clearly not one they should have re-signed in free agency. They offered him more than he was worth, but the Diamondbacks offered him even more. The Giants chose North Carolina University southpaw Nick Swiney with the compensation pick they received for Bumgarner. I believe Swiney ran into some arm issues in his first minor league season of 2021, but he pitched to an 0.74 ERA in 32 innings.

I did respond, Rog.

I'll paraphrase here;

1-An opener opens up the door for more pitchers to be used instead of less.

i.e. IF the opener pulls a Leone, and needs to be replaced after 1, or during that 1, likely 2 pitchers minimum come in and then you get to the starter.

2-Even with an opener, Managers are STILL going to use set up men and closers, thus the OPPORTUNITY for using more pitchers arises.

3-Openers more than once in a while, burn up your pen. The LAST thing I want to see are 15 and 16 man pitching staffs UNLESS they expand the roster to 28 or 30 players.

That's it in a nut shell.

I'm not trying to change your mind, just explain my position, so please don't try to change mine.

[sharksrog]

The issue, Boly, is that not all your points are logical.

You say an opener opens the door for more pitchers instead of fewer. Certainly the potential is there, but the Rays, who have used the opener the most, didn't experience much of an increase in pitcher usage. The number of pitchers is determined primarily by the how far the starter (or bulk pitcher) can go and by how the game develops. If a pitcher goes five innings, it makes little difference if he does so in between two other pitchers going an inning each or before four other pitchers going an inning each. Your comment that an opener opens up the door for more pitchers to be used instead of fewer would have far more meaning if you could show how that has actually been the case.

I appreciate your making the effort to once again explain your reasoning, but I see hypothetical situations, not reasons.

Do you agree that in game 5 if Urias were able to go only four innings as the starter, the Dodgers likely would have used the same pitchers? If anything, I think had they used Knebel and Graterol later, there might have been a bigger chance that they would have used one of their lefties as well -- especially since the Giants likely would have been using their left-handed pinch hitters against the string of Knebel, Graterol, Treinen, Jansen and Scherzer.

The Dodgers started Urias against the Braves, and used four pitchers despite losing 9-2. I wonder how many they would have used if the game went down to the wire as game 5 did.

I agree with you that there is a chance a team will use more relievers if they use openers, but based on the little study I've done, that hasn't particularly been the case. One thing the Giants excelled at in managing their pitching staff this season was in having pitchers who could be brought up and down, taking some of the pressure off a stressed staff. And indeed after the trade deadline, when the starters were going fewer innings and the Giants had some opener and bullpen games, the bullpen performed better than it had earlier in the season.

And in the Dodgers series, the Giants' bigger problem was their .513 OPS, not their 3.48 ERA -- just as the Dodgers were more limited by their .639 OPS than their 2.05 ERA.

Incidentally, I'm NOT truly trying to change your mind. I doubt it can be changed. But I do think it was important to point out that you had few if any facts backing up your position. I pointed out potential advantages from using the opener -- advantages that have been illustrated as recently as game 5 of the Dodgers series The disadvantages you pointed to were hypothetical, not backed up empirically.

I agree with you there are potential difficulties with the opener. I agree with you that it doesn't always make sense to use an opener. But as with most other tactics in baseball, the opener is a tactic that when used judiciously, can and has provided benefits.

Sometimes a person merely needs to have vision. As an example, some here had it when Farhan was hired, and some did not. I'll just bet it stuck in somebody's (or somebodies') craw when the Giants hired a lot of coaches with little big league experience. And it probably REALLY stuck in somebody's craw when they hired a woman.

Yet somehow it has all worked out -- fabulously.

A side question: How many 15- or 16-man pitching staffs have we seen? In truth, the answer is that we HAVE seen some -- but the last two or three on the "staff" were in the minors or on the injury list. Last season the Giants used 27 non-position player pitchers in relief, but the only one who was heavily used was Trevor Rogers, who made 80 appearances. Tyler might have tired a bit.

I know too that Tyler isn't particularly popular here. But Gabe Kapler has said Tyler is one of the best. Tyler probably isn't quite as good as Gabe makes him out to be, but he's certainly not bad. And I believe it was Boly who suggested getting his brother, which if Taylor is healthy, makes sense to me. I'm all for getting Trevor Rogers too, although that almost certainly isn't happening.

And why, oh why, did the 49ers not draft Aaron Rodgers when they could have drafted anyone they wanted? I have a theory on that, by the way. Cal's coach Jeff Tedford was viewed as a quarterback guru and had a few QB's drafted very high in the draft and then not panned out. I'll bet there was some concern that Rodgers was mostly a Tedford creation. If that was the case, I wasn't smart enough to see it.

Incidentally, if Rodgers hadn't been able to play football (He almost quit after high school), his next desire was to play baseball. (He had a 94 mph fastball in high school.) And then becoming a lawyer. It turned out his wish to play football ultimately wasn't in jeopardy.

But if not for the Butte College coach talking him out of quitting football and tight end Eric Cross of Oroville, it might have been. The Butte College coach convinced Rodgers he could thrive in the Butte offense, and Cross became a good enough tight end that it was he, not Rodgers, who first drew the attention of the Cal coaching staff. The guy who scouted Cross told Tedford that he should take a look at Rodgers, and the rest is history.

Of course, had none of that happened, that would have been history too. Just not nearly as exciting -- unless Aaron could truly throw a baseball as effectively as he throws the pigskin now that it is made of leather.

Back in Rodgers' Cal days, I sat with the family of another Cal player and saw a lot of Aaron. I hadn't seen a college quarterback I considered to be as accurate, and I was also impressed with his ability to buy time in the pocket with very small moves. Kind of like the proverbial hockey player who can stick handle in a phone booth. Perhaps that comes in happy if one is bored while making a call.

And can, of course, actually find a phone booth!

[sharksrog]

I don't have time to do a full study of the opener, but I thought it might be worth some time to look at Ryan Yarbrough's 2018 season. That's the year the Rays made the opener more than just an oddball thing. That season Yarbrough started 6 games, and 21 times he followed an opener (or occasionally two).

In Yarbrough's starts, the Rays averaged 3.50 relievers, who pitched 4.22 innings per game. When he followed the opener, the Rays used 3.52 relievers per game, and they pitched 4.08 frames. The average number of relievers was virtually identical, and the average innings pitched by relievers was actually less with the opener. Four of the 21 opener games went only 8 innings, so if we add back four innings, the opener game average increases to 4.22, which is identical to the average innings pitched by relievers when Yarbrough started. (In one start by Yarbrough, the game went 16 innings, but I cut the count off after nine frames to equalize.)

I'm certainly open to anyone's study which shows that using the opener greatly increases the use of relievers, but I haven't been able to find anything supporting Boly's argument.

Here's one reason I think Boly's opinion differs. He still thinks of the game the way it was when we were growing up. Pitchers often pitched complete games, and obviously if a opener is used, that's one more pitcher than in a complete game, even if the normal starter is able to go the rest of the way. But in today's game, starters average five or six innings, and there are very, very few complete games. Remember, after the trade deadline, the Giants' starters averaged only 4.7 innings per outing, yet they played within one tick of .700 ball.

Boly's point is a good one. It is simply mostly mitigated by the game that is played in the major leagues today.

My point isn't that openers should be used each and every game -- any more than defensive replacements should be used in every game, or pinch hitters or pinch runners should be used in every game or that fielders should change defensive positions every game. But the opener is just one more tactic that is available to managers.

I'm not trying to change Boly's mind. He's asked that I don't, and I don't believe it is possible at this point. But for the benefit of those with open minds, I have presented as many facts and as much logic as I can find. The one comment I'll make is that the use of openers begins with the opening of one's mind.

I view this board as a chance to discuss ideas and learn about the Giants, their players and staff, baseball, sports and to a small extent, life. The discussions and learning are much more fruitful when minds are kept open. I was hoping that minds would be more open after my absence, and I'm happy that Reedonly is here now. I get the feeling his mind is an open one.

[reedonly]

Well, by the numbers, the average number of pitchers used in 2021 games was 8.8 (both teams). The number of times in the playoffs that they used 5 pitchers was 42. the number of times a pitcher went 7 innings was 4 (Logan Webb had 2). Buehler, Urias, and Scherzer were ineffective in the NLCS and Scherzer complained of a dead arm incurred as a direct result of pitching as a closer in game 5. Guy couldn't even throw a ball 60 feet until yesterday.  Dave Roberts said it was a necessary move to get them past the Giants and face the Braves.  We don't have the information about who was ready or not and I assume this was their best guess. Roberts admitted how costly the move was yesterday.  I wouldnt say Roberts is a bad manager but I would say "you're welcome, Atlanta."

[sharksrog]

The playoffs are simply a different beast. The Dodgers' pitching would have been even more taxed if it were the regular season and the staff didn't get as much rest. The Dodgers are likely the best team in baseball, but they have been badly hurt by the loss of Muncy, Kershaw and Bauer. Even with all the money the Dodgers spent, they didn't have enough depth to survive the loss of pitching in particular.

If all five Dodgers starters had been available, it's likely that Urias -- merely baseball's only 21-game winner -- would have pitched in relief. Instead, their rotation got overtaxed with relief appearances and short rest.

As Reed asks, was it smart to use Scherzer? As it turned out, it wasn't. Could or even should that have been foreseen? No way for us to know. But Scherzer is 37 years old, and this could impact his future seasons with the Dodgers if they re-sign him. It might impact his free agency. He's overcome a dead arm before -- but he wasn't 37 years old either.

I've never considered Dave Roberts a great manager, but I don't really have enough information to know. I don't follow the Dodgers very closely. The Dodgers are a very smart organization though, so he's probably a good manager, or he likely wouldn't be there.

[klaiggeb]

Oct 24, 2021 14:10:50 GMT -5 sharksrog said:

The playoffs are simply a different beast. The Dodgers' pitching would have been even more taxed if it were the regular season and the staff didn't get as much rest. The Dodgers are likely the best team in baseball, but they have been badly hurt by the loss of Muncy, Chokeshaw and Bauer. Even with all the money the Dodgers spent, they didn't have enough depth to survive the loss of pitching in particular.

If all five Dodgers starters had been available, it's likely that Urias -- merely baseball's only 21-game winner -- would have pitched in relief. Instead, their rotation got overtaxed with relief appearances and short rest.

As Reed asks, was it smart to use Scherzer? As it turned out, it wasn't. Could or even should that have been foreseen? No way for us to know. But Scherzer is 37 years old, and this could impact his future seasons with the Dodgers if they re-sign him. It might impact his free agency. He's overcome a dead arm before -- but he wasn't 37 years old either.

I've never considered Dave Roberts a great manager, but I don't really have enough information to know. I don't follow the Dodgers very closely. The Dodgers are a very smart organization though, so he's probably a good manager, or he likely wouldn't be there.

I agree, Rog, I don't consider him a particularly a good manager either.

He's...okay.

But honestly, when he admitted, I don't think he was joking, that he was ordered by the front office to use an opener in our game 5, if he doesn't walk, I will have lost a ton of respect for him.

I've said this before, I'll say it again:

1-Front offices should suggest, not dictate. When they think they are smarter than people who played the game, that's the time to walk out the door.

No stats, front office geek who NEVER played at the ML level should EVER think that just because he can crunch numbers he knows more about the game than the on field manager.

We saw that in the Movie Major League.

That was fantasy but the principal holds true; they have no clue what they are doing when it comes to in game/line up management.

2-If I were Roberts, I would walk. And I'd bet the farm I'd have a number of job offers within a week.

When a manager rolls over and takes it up the wally-wally like that, he's unfit to run the team from the dugout because he ISN'T running the team.

Let them get away with it once and they think they can always move their fingers, pull the strings attached and make you dance like the puppet you are.

[reedonly]

Oct 24, 2021 14:10:50 GMT -5 sharksrog said:

The playoffs are simply a different beast. The Dodgers' pitching would have been even more taxed if it were the regular season and the staff didn't get as much rest. The Dodgers are likely the best team in baseball, but they have been badly hurt by the loss of Muncy, Chokeshaw and Bauer. Even with all the money the Dodgers spent, they didn't have enough depth to survive the loss of pitching in particular.

If all five Dodgers starters had been available, it's likely that Urias -- merely baseball's only 21-game winner -- would have pitched in relief. Instead, their rotation got overtaxed with relief appearances and short rest.

As Reed asks, was it smart to use Scherzer? As it turned out, it wasn't. Could or even should that have been foreseen? No way for us to know. But Scherzer is 37 years old, and this could impact his future seasons with the Dodgers if they re-sign him. It might impact his free agency. He's overcome a dead arm before -- but he wasn't 37 years old either.

I've never considered Dave Roberts a great manager, but I don't really have enough information to know. I don't follow the Dodgers very closely. The Dodgers are a very smart organization though, so he's probably a good manager, or he likely wouldn't be there.

Roberts is a good man and I think a lot of Dodger fans are raking him over the coals today.  Based on the information they had at the time, they did what they had to do and it didn't work out and it was a costly decision.  The report is that Scherzer's arm locked up and was actually bad three days later that he could not throw a ball 60 feet.  He might have been able to go in a possible game 7.  He could throw the ball 90 feet but I suspect not with any movement or velocity.  The real decision that hurt them more was the way they used Julio Urias.  If they used him more conventionally and not in relief in game 2 of nlcs, they might have withstood the loss of Scherzer.  They also rushed back Kershw when they didn't really need to. 

Mostly, I'm not sorry they signed Bauer and he got suspended.  The organization did not do their due diligence and even if he is not found guilty in court, he is a guy who beat a woman to the point of unconciousness, black eyes, and bruised genital area.   Money they used on him could have been used on Kiki and Joc.  If their fans want to rip someone, they should be talking about Bauer, who might end up helping the Giants cause in the long term.  Its already cost them Josiah Gray and Keibert Ruiz to obtain Scherzer (to replace Bauer) and Turner.   At the very least, they knew Bauer was a guy who had harrassed a teenage girl on social media over something minor and that should have raised at least a few eyebrows.  The Dodgers' FO probably was saying "appeals to our hip, modern fans, PERFECT FIT."