Agreed. We seem to be in a bit of a transition period where injuries are forcing teams to think outside the box, but not enough for real innovation.
The Opener strategy is a diluted form of what I think is going to happen more broadly. It always struck me that the Opener was limited in intent - a way to optimize the standard rotation by getting through the first 3 batters and extending the outing of the starter deeper into the game. What I think must be approached is something more radical - scheduling say 3 short inning pitchers of various styles (lefty, rights, fastball, then slider etc.) each game every 4th day. The so called 3-3-3 rotation (proposed by Dave Flemming in 2009) using a total of 12 pitchers. You can configure it several ways that are not relevant to the overall strategy.
You gain a lot of effectiveness from variance in pitching styles to disrupt the offense, and each pitcher is slated to go around 120 innings in a season. This should reduce stress on arms by lowering innings and game level pitch counts and allowing pitchers to know going in how many innings are expected for pacing.
The economics of the game are almost demanding something new at this point. I mentioned earlier this year that I would like to see an accounting of how much money teams are spending each year on starting pitchers on the IL with arm problems. I've never seen that reported, but it must be jaw dropping.
Consider the Dodgers with $241MM in payroll having to cobble together enough junk drawer pitchers for the postseason run...before you get to pitchers not coming back as effective (Buehler), not able to work as deeply into games and wearing out the bullpen or the luxury tax impacts.
GM Andrew Friedman has said they need answers to the rash of injuries to their starters. Well, they should start by thinking broadly about leaning reflexively on the traditional rotation that just hasn't worked for them...particularly, if they get eliminated again. If Friedman is being moderately observant, yesterday was a glimpse of a much better future where even Ohtani's arm ins 2025 can be preserved.
How effective could it be? It was so effective that when the Opener was hot, agents and the MLBPA complained that using relievers in this way was a devious method to lower paying starting pitchers.
Predictably, the baseball Luddites argued that it "won't work" because you can't depend on getting 3 innings out of pitcher. However, injuries are changing the calculus. The people you are bringing in to replace injured starters repeatedly throughout the year are not effective yet get more innings as a starter. It's not about which strategy is theoretically optimal, but which strategy available to you is best.
Necessity is the mother of invention. Encouragingly, people are starting to catch on:
This will likely start with bottom level teams but quickly expand as other teams realize the upsides in effectiveness, injury reduction and lower costs.
Postseason...each game realky matters...Tigers and Dodgers...two staffs racked with multiple pitchers recovering from arm surgery...Tommy John surgeries now happening to pitchers used in the Postseason...LA and Detroit use 14 pitchers in two critical games, for two shutouts, no starter records more than 4 outs. Historic.
Can you feel it?
There is a paradigm shift coming to baseball pitching where the standard "starter on pitch count goes 5 or 6 followed by a reliever then closer" is dying in favor of using multiple relievers going all out on cheap contracts going once through the lineup at most.
Once known as the "3-3-3" or "3-3-2-1" rotation, this is coming to a successful team near you. Cheaper and replaceable with less arm strain and avoidance of the 3rd time through the lineup penalty or platooning strategies.
Feels like something ripe that you could be out front on in examining.
(Dodgers' 3-man rotation looks positively deep by comparison, haha)
The really interesting thing is that teams have flirted with a version of this via the Opener in the past handful of years, but the Opener has sort of died down. I meant to do a post on it earlier in the season, but at the time, it was WAY down from a few years ago in its heyday with Tampa Bay and others using it a lot (LAD used it in a playoff game). It seems like teams are moving to a weird middle ground between regular starters (especially the Blake Snell style 5-inning model) and Openers + Bulk Relievers, as you say.
Agreed. We seem to be in a bit of a transition period where injuries are forcing teams to think outside the box, but not enough for real innovation.
The Opener strategy is a diluted form of what I think is going to happen more broadly. It always struck me that the Opener was limited in intent - a way to optimize the standard rotation by getting through the first 3 batters and extending the outing of the starter deeper into the game. What I think must be approached is something more radical - scheduling say 3 short inning pitchers of various styles (lefty, rights, fastball, then slider etc.) each game every 4th day. The so called 3-3-3 rotation (proposed by Dave Flemming in 2009) using a total of 12 pitchers. You can configure it several ways that are not relevant to the overall strategy.
You gain a lot of effectiveness from variance in pitching styles to disrupt the offense, and each pitcher is slated to go around 120 innings in a season. This should reduce stress on arms by lowering innings and game level pitch counts and allowing pitchers to know going in how many innings are expected for pacing.
The economics of the game are almost demanding something new at this point. I mentioned earlier this year that I would like to see an accounting of how much money teams are spending each year on starting pitchers on the IL with arm problems. I've never seen that reported, but it must be jaw dropping.
Consider the Dodgers with $241MM in payroll having to cobble together enough junk drawer pitchers for the postseason run...before you get to pitchers not coming back as effective (Buehler), not able to work as deeply into games and wearing out the bullpen or the luxury tax impacts.
GM Andrew Friedman has said they need answers to the rash of injuries to their starters. Well, they should start by thinking broadly about leaning reflexively on the traditional rotation that just hasn't worked for them...particularly, if they get eliminated again. If Friedman is being moderately observant, yesterday was a glimpse of a much better future where even Ohtani's arm ins 2025 can be preserved.
How effective could it be? It was so effective that when the Opener was hot, agents and the MLBPA complained that using relievers in this way was a devious method to lower paying starting pitchers.
Predictably, the baseball Luddites argued that it "won't work" because you can't depend on getting 3 innings out of pitcher. However, injuries are changing the calculus. The people you are bringing in to replace injured starters repeatedly throughout the year are not effective yet get more innings as a starter. It's not about which strategy is theoretically optimal, but which strategy available to you is best.
Necessity is the mother of invention. Encouragingly, people are starting to catch on:
https://www.southsidesox.com/2024/3/17/24102376/lets-beat-that-dead-horse-for-3-3-3-pitching-rotation-for-the-chicago-white-sox-once-again
This will likely start with bottom level teams but quickly expand as other teams realize the upsides in effectiveness, injury reduction and lower costs.
Postseason...each game realky matters...Tigers and Dodgers...two staffs racked with multiple pitchers recovering from arm surgery...Tommy John surgeries now happening to pitchers used in the Postseason...LA and Detroit use 14 pitchers in two critical games, for two shutouts, no starter records more than 4 outs. Historic.
Can you feel it?
There is a paradigm shift coming to baseball pitching where the standard "starter on pitch count goes 5 or 6 followed by a reliever then closer" is dying in favor of using multiple relievers going all out on cheap contracts going once through the lineup at most.
Once known as the "3-3-3" or "3-3-2-1" rotation, this is coming to a successful team near you. Cheaper and replaceable with less arm strain and avoidance of the 3rd time through the lineup penalty or platooning strategies.
Feels like something ripe that you could be out front on in examining.
Just a thought...
Definitely, I've been struck by the fact that the Tigers literally have a 1-man rotation (Skubal) right now:
https://www.fangraphs.com/roster-resource/depth-charts/tigers#:~:text=(2)-,Starting%20Rotation,-%E2%96%BC
(Dodgers' 3-man rotation looks positively deep by comparison, haha)
The really interesting thing is that teams have flirted with a version of this via the Opener in the past handful of years, but the Opener has sort of died down. I meant to do a post on it earlier in the season, but at the time, it was WAY down from a few years ago in its heyday with Tampa Bay and others using it a lot (LAD used it in a playoff game). It seems like teams are moving to a weird middle ground between regular starters (especially the Blake Snell style 5-inning model) and Openers + Bulk Relievers, as you say.