Joe Nash rolled around in agony. Fake agony. The kind of fake agony a 9-year old boy displays when forced to wear that nerdy winter hat with the ear flaps he hates almost as much as his sister. In his defense, the Seattle Seahawks lineman was simply doing what coach Chuck Knox had asked of him—slow down the Cincinnati Bengals no-huddle offense any way he could. A week later, Buffalo Bills head coach Marv Levy would threaten to do the same.

Imagine Rob Manfred announcing—on the eve of the ALCS no less—a rule change forbidding the Tampa Bay Rays from using the shift against the New York Yankees. Yet, something like that—something anarchical and soul-crushingly wrong—almost occurred in the 1988 AFC Championship game:

“These two guys walk into the room and they say we want to give you TV people a heads up, tomorrow, that the commissioner has gotten a phone call from Marv Levy and Marv is going to fake injuries and the commissioner said that will make a farce of the game, a big marquee game, so the commissioner has ruled that Sam cannot run the no-huddle, which we’ve run for five years, all season long, number one offense in football and that’s all we practiced all week for this game. Then that night they say that. I get a phone call from one of those members of that group I just named and he said sit down, I’m going to tell you’re not going to be happy with this, they’re not going to let you run the no-huddle.”
—Sam Wyche, Bengals HC

Whether rules changes are hastily made during the offseason, or threatened hastily in the moment, it’s clear that those that think outside-the-box in sports threaten the gatekeepers of sport. The Shift is nothing new. By now, everyone knows of Lou Boudreau and his quixotic attempt to diminish Ted Williams with the shift in 1946.

Still, the shift faded from view.

In the early part of the decade, when the shift reappeared courtesy of the Rays, the Reds were one of those teams at the bottom of the list of shift usage, pulling up the analytic rear as they almost always did. Today, most, if not all teams use the shift to their advantage, but that advantage has largely diminished as everyone does it. Like Billy Beane’s MoneyBall exploitation of on base percentage as an undervalued asset, that slice of the pie is filling when a handful of people are at the table; not so much when the pie is sliced into 29 or 30 pieces.

However, I come not to bury the lede, but to praise it. It is the Rays who introduced it. And it’s the Reds who should adopt it now. All hail the Opener.

On May 19, 2018, Sergio Romo ushered in the Opener Era against the Angels, striking out Zack Cozart, Mike Trout and Justin Upton. Other teams looked at the Opener and stuck a toe into shallow end of the experimental pool, but that’s about all they did. Still in its infancy, the Opener has been used in less than 2% of games, the Rays obviously using it the most, with the A’s, Rangers and approximately ten other teams using it a handful of times.

If we break down just how efficient the Opener has been so far, we get mixed results. But that’s not the point. As of now, the sample size is much too small to use current numbers as a meaningful guidepost. Other signposts, however, point the way.

The first inning is the most dangerous inning to a starter. It’s where the most runs are scored. A starting pitcher takes the bump knowing he not only has to face the opposition’s best hitters from the jump, he also knows he needs to pace himself to go six, seven or more innings. If only he could pitch with max effort to begin the game, the odds would favor him. But, he cannot. If you find the idea of the Opener intriguing, this year’s All-Star Game is instructive.

Justin Verlander opened the game for the American League. These days, Verlander—at age 36—throws his fastball a somewhat pedestrian 90-91 mph. Once thought to be in the twilight of his career, the Astros plucked him from the Tigers, walking the trade deadline waiver high-wire, convincing him to ditch his two-seam fastball and in doing so, help reinvent his career. Here’s what he dialed up to leadoff hitter Christian Yelich to begin the Midsummer Classic: 95-95-95 for out number one. Javier Baez was next. He saw 97-96-97-96-97-97 before an 88 mph offering fooled him badly, resulting in a harmless strikeout. Finally, Freddie Freeman looked at 97, 81, 88, 88 for the K. End of inning.

What Verlander did was pitch like a high-leverage relief ace, giving max effort with a limited assortment of offerings, knowing he was out there for the briefest summer moment. This, of course, is what the entire All-Star Game looks like—a parade of starting pitchers doing their best Aroldis Chapman impersonations, leveraging their arms to maximum effect.

Follow me down the rabbit hole. Robert Stephenson takes the hill to begin the game. The mound is smooth and unsullied, devoid of the usual ruts and ravines that greet relievers when they stride to center stage. It feels like a high-leverage situation, but it’s really not. After all, like the mound, it’s a clean beginning; no one on base. BobSteve knows his endpoint. He’s here for two innings—or when his turn at the plate comes up. It’s an optimum beginning for him and the Reds. Stephenson can let it fly, challenging the other team’s best hitters in a manner a traditional starter cannot. His arsenal is limited in scope—he is a reliever, after all—but his skill set is a perfect match for the task at hand, keeping the top of the order back on their heels in what is the most opportunistic inning of the game statistically for hitters.

Michael Lorenzen will bat for Stephenson when his turn in the order arrives. And tomorrow, when he takes his turn as the Opener, Lorenzen will stay in the game and bat for himself, pitching another inning, providing more rest for what once was our erstwhile “Starter,’ but who is now renamed our “Anchor.”

Sonny Gray, our newly christened Anchor, pitches for five innings, giving way to Amir Garrett in the eighth, then Raisel Iglesias in the ninth. If we’re down on the Ohio River, the fireworks light up the Kentucky hillside. If we’re away, the hometown fans mournfully fold up their tattered Jolly Roger or W flags before trudging bitterly up the aisle and out into the lonely night.

What the Reds accomplish, besides the prospect of stifling the other team’s hitters at the one moment in the game when they are stacked to cause the most damage, is to push back the third-time-thru-the-lineup conundrum two innings, and pressure the opposing pitching staff by removing the automatic out that is the pitcher’s spot the first time through the lineup.

There will, of course, be nights when things don’t go smoothly, when the Opener flops. But, if we are being honest, we know this already happens on a not un-regular basis, as it did the other night when Tyler Mahle couldn’t master his pitches early and inclement leather combined to put the Reds into an early 4-0 hole.

Interstate 71 is the answer to the obvious question of enough bullpen arms. You bring them up, use them up, then shuttle them back down to Louisville and bring up the next guy. Matt Bowman, Cody Reed (when he’s healthy), Jimmy Herget, Lucas Sims, Sal Romano. The Yankees and Dodgers have been doing this for years, using nearly 30 pitchers in 2015 before 13 man staffs became the fashion.

If you’re not enamored with a parade of AAA pitchers, just remember they are there to ease the load, eat less meaningful innings, saving others for the high-leverage moments.

Today, 4.4 pitchers are used per team, per game. I would posit that by leveraging pitcher strengths, the Opener philosophy may actually suppress reliever usage by sheer efficiency and by preemptively slowing the up-and-down in the bullpen as players warm-up and sit, warm-up and sit.

Would more pinch-hitters be used? Sure. Is that a bad thing? Every time you pinch-hit for a pitcher you gain a nearly .400 OPS advantage. One national league team effectively gets the benefit of the DH to begin the game. That’s meaningful.

When all the arguments against have been exhausted, we are left with a simple question: are baseball teams maximizing their pitching assets by continuing to use a pitching model that harkens back an era of wool uniforms and dead balls?

The year I was born—a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away—relief pitchers began showing ERAs lower than starting pitchers. That trend has continued in the same direction with all the relentless force of a river rushing out to sea. Relievers currently bear approximately 40% of the pitching burden in baseball. That percentage has increased steadily from about 30% beginning twenty-five years ago. It’s only a matter of time until pitching specialists cross the 50% threshold and render starters obsolete.

Meanwhile, the pool of pitchers who have a command of 4 pitches, the ability to sequence those pitches and adjust inning-after-inning continues to dwindle. Yet, we roll imposters out start-after-start, letting them pitch until they put the game in jeopardy, only then addressing the smoke that’s been building, often waiting until the inning is aflame.

All that stops this madness is tradition, unwritten rules about player roles and the not-so-simple act of buy-in by front offices, coaches and players. Make no mistake, though: some forward-thinking organization is going to blow this whole paradigm up and the rest of baseball will follow with it, just like football did with the no huddle and baseball did with the shift. And when the strategic dominos fall, they will fall fast.

Following journeyman Robel Garcia’s shocking home run off Anthony DeSclafani on July 16th at Wrigley Field, Fox Sports analyst Chris Welsh laid some wisdom down on the dilemma facing the modern-day starter:

“It’s harder to pitch now than it’s ever been. Strike zones are smaller. You don’t get that off the edge strike that certain umpires used to give you. The seams are lower. It’s harder to get a feel of the baseball. The bats are much harder. Players are stronger. Ballparks are playing smaller. And you’re mentally worn out.”

As the Rays have already shown, the teams most likely to embrace the radical are the desperate teams, the teams with nothing to lose. Are the Reds desperate? Maybe the better question is, ARE THE REDS READY TO BE OPPORTUNISTIC?

This thing’s to do if only someone has the strength and will to do it. It works. It only requires the verve and the nerve to buck the system. To say fie on the fear of being too saucy with the baseball gods. To grab the flag and say follow me, making mouths at the invisible event for all the fortune that awaits.

Talk about savvy trades and free agent signings. Pitching is the coin of the realm. This is where the war will be won.

27 Responses

  1. RojoBenjy

    I’d have no problem with it.

    1977 was a good year.

    • Colorado Red

      88-74, and 10 games behind the Dodgers.
      Not such a good year.
      Did get the Drivers License, so that was good.

  2. TR

    It’s working for the Rays, and pitch hitting is not a factor with the DH. Will it work with the tradition bound Redlegs? I doubt it.

  3. lost11found

    Chris’ comment isn’t a ringing endorsement of the opener concept. It’s more of an critique of MLB’s helping hand to hitters going back to the late 60’s.

    The ASG model works because you have and entire staff of pitchers on hand for one game. No game tomorrow or the next day, or the next.

    With the min time a person has to be in the minors now, how does a team keep enough fresh arms to make this work. The AAA shuttle is harder to manipulate than the timeframe referred to by Richard.

    I could envision where you have a 3 or 4 pitcher opener rotation where they are pitching more frequently but on a certain schedule to alleviate the downstream effects. But I think there will have to be an expansion in roster sizes to make this work reliably.

    • Doc

      Roster expands to 26 next year, does it not?

      I would rather see adjustments made to even the balance between starting pitching and hitting. Raise the mound a bit, partially offsetting the eight inches it was lowered after Bob Gibson’s great year. Call the strike zone as it was originally defined, knees to letters, over the plate. All these pitching changes are boring.

  4. Steve Mancuso

    The season when Reds pitching has improved from among the worst to among the best seems like a strange time to propose radical change. And if pitching was the coin of the realm, the Reds would be rich, indeed. They’d be in first place, not last.

    • Big Ed

      The Yankees are doing “bullpen” games now, which is a bit different than an “opener,” but I agree that starting pitching (so far) has not this year been a weakness for the Reds.

      I could see it for Desclafani or Mahle, maybe. Desclafani last night gave up the homer to Bryant in the third time through the order. If they had used an opener, and if the opener had pitched effectively for an inning or so (a big “if”), then Bryant would have faced Disco for the second time in that situation. The best argument for an opener is to face the 6-7-8 hitters for the third time, not 2-3-4 hitters like Yelich or Bryant.

      It would make no sense for an opponent to use an opener against the Reds, who will score 3 runs off whoever pitches the first inning, including Koufax in his prime, then hit like the ’62 Mets for the next 6 innings.

      • Steve Mancuso

        An opener makes sense in certain circumstances. I praised the Rays for their open-minded (pun intended) thinking about it more than a year ago. https://redlegnation.com/2018/05/21/now-more-than-ever-reds-cant-afford-knee-jerk-opposition-to-forward-thinking-steve-mancuso/. I’d be surprised if this Reds coaching staff hasn’t considered it.

        But given how well things have gone with the pitching this year (and as the win-loss record shows, pitching is less than half the equation), I’d be reluctant to change things up now. The Yankees are bullpenning because of injuries to starters and the quality of their bullpen. That’s not the situation the Reds are in.

    • Pete

      Have you ever considered putting an application in with the Reds? I’m serious, they could use your measured, knowledgeable and no-nonsense approach. If not, take the plunge -what do you have to lose?

    • Richard Fitch

      I would say that if it is indeed a more efficient use of pitching resources, that fact that the pitching has been solid this season is a poor reason not to want to get better. And as July turns to August, we may well begin to see cracks in in the staff’s performance. As an organization, the Reds will never challenge the Dodgers or Cubs with this mindset. They’ll always be just another step further behind, IMO.

      You’d think after watching the Reds pound the ball last year, while still watching game-after-game appear un-winnable, the improvement in run prevention on the mound and the concurrent feeling that almost every game this season has been winnable, would convince people the importance of pitching relative to offense.

      As always, our preconceptions live on long after the evidence comes in.

      • Steve Mancuso

        You’d think people could understand the simple equation that half the game is run prevention and half is run scoring. Two halves of the *same* coin of the realm, which is winning. Pitching is just part of the run prevention half, with defense the rest. As always, our preconceptions live on long after the clichés have been exposed.

    • Aaron B.

      Steve, we were talking about this last year. Iglesias would go 6 days with out a save opportunity, the opener would have made so much sense for him to get his work in.

      • Steve Mancuso

        The Reds have a bullpen that is well suited to different roles. Iglesias, Lorenzen and Garrett, all being former starters, would seem to be naturals for pitching at the beginning of the game. As I mentioned last year, you could tweak the opener concept and have the first pitcher assigned to go through the lineup once (or two innings). That’s a little different in what it’s trying to accomplish, but again, if you told a pitcher like Lorenzen he was in there to face the lineup once and to pitch as hard as he can, I think he’d be great at it.

        That said, the Reds pitching is on such a strong roll right now with the way they are being managed, I’d be reluctant to tamper with it, let alone a radical change. If a trade or injury enters into it, that might be a time to reconsider.

  5. Bill J

    For the Reds to do something revolutionary would be to trade a player who still has some value. We don’t know if they tried or not but over the winter Iggy (pitcher) had value now I don’t believe he does. Same for Scooter. As for Votto, I think of Jim Brown who retired when he was on top.

  6. Mason Red

    How about improving the team and the entire franchise first? This would be just another addition to the stop gap measures called a “rebuild” including castoffs,veterans who were finished,so so players “developed” in the farm system,ect,ect,ect. This team struggles with the very basics of the game such as running the bases,hitting,catching and relievers actually bringing relief in the late innings which btw the suggestion is to actually have them START the game. But I guess it could work since that’s the only time this team scores runs. So bring in a starting pitcher in the 2nd inning when the score is 3-3 or 4-4. Hmmmm maybe it would work after all…..

    • Armo21

      I would suggest that the Reds are addressing exactly what you are calling for “improving the team and the entire franchise”. IMO this organization has turned the page on the Walt Jocketty era and has moved on to being more progressive and analytically driven. The changes in the FO, Farm system, manager & coaches, scouting and investments being made are all geared to this new process. It has put people and processes in place to change the way this organization does business. On the MLB team they have improved the pitching, the outfield and infield talent. It may not have translated to winning the WS yet, but at least they have committed to change the process . IMO, if they want to win WS and compete with the NYY, Philly, LA, Boston, Houston, Chicago, St. Louis they are going to have to increase payroll as well to get better talent on the field as well. While the Reds maybe in a small market, the team is worth in excess of $1.1 Billion dollars with new revenue streams like advertising on uniforms and legalized gambling on the horizon. The model of tearing down the franchise for 3-5 years or tanking to get higher draft picks already is becoming antiquated (see KC Royals). Drafting and development is very important but the new collective bargaining deal will probably change how players are compensated. We have seen a shift in the last two off-seasons veteran players not getting long term big $ deals, so chances are the model we see today is going to be different in a couple of years. Smarter use of the data and how it is interrupted will be paramount to the Reds’ success as the game evolves.

  7. matthew hendley

    First of the Rays are notoriously cheap, more so then almost any other team in baseball.

    While I understand the need for the an occasional bullpen game, planning ahead for the opener just shows the rest of the league that your ability to create starting pitching internally is non existent. Therefore you devaluate every minor league pitching prospect.

    Instead how about the idea of hiring some people who can effectively take high schoolers and college students and turn them into effective major league pitchers, Hum, maybe if that can be done there wont be a need for an opener.

    • Mason Red

      The Rays are cheap,much like the A’s too,however both of those franchises find ways to be competitive. They actually want to win even though both franchises don’t draw very well and have bad stadiums. You’re right about the Reds needing to hire knowledgeable people who can scout and develop players. There was a lengthy discussion here yesterday about the playing time of a rookie who is 27. Yes that happens but its no surprise it happened here. Either this is a franchise where management is totally clueless or they’re just not interested in winning.

  8. Matthew Habel

    I like the idea but think Stephenson is too valuable to be used in the first inning. Not sure if the Reds have a perfect candidate but I would lean towards guys like Bowman, Hughes or Peralta.

    • Joe Farfsing

      So use the least talented guys in the inning where scoring is the highest? That’s not wise. 3 outs in the first are 1/9th the total you need as 3 in the 7th and the best hitters lead off the lineup. Stephenson, Lorenzen, and Reed are perfectly suited to to go 2 innings, letting it fly.

      • Richard Fitch

        I said nothing about using the least talented, Joe. The premise of using an Opener is quite the opposite.

      • Joe Farfsing

        Sorry Richard, I was referring to Matthew. I agree with the opener completely but he suggested Peralta, Hughes etc

      • Richard Fitch

        Whoops. Guilty of of not reading carefully. Sorry.

  9. KYPodman

    It would also put a damper on the platoon situation for the other team. I think this could work especially if you have adequate balance between left and right handed pitching. You are handcuffing the opposing manager on how to fill out his lineup card.

  10. David

    Sounds like an interesting concept.

    Bob Castelini would not permit it.

    If David Bell tried it, he would likely get a phone call from somebody upstairs.

    The Reds? Innovative? Who have you been watching the last few decades?

  11. Mike

    I love the idea and think the Reds have the optimal relievers to make an “Opener” rotation work. Especially when healthy, Reed/Lorenzen/Stephenson all have no problem going 2 innings which I think is one key to making this work. If the Opener can only go 1 inning(or has to be bailed out in the middle of the 2nd inning) I think it would lose some effectiveness.
    One scenario I’m envisioning is if the Reds had maybe 2 starter/anchors head and shoulders above the rest, would a manager be bold enough to pull his “anchor” before he even starts if a game has gotten away in the first two innings.

  12. Michael E

    Verlander has NEVER thrown in the low 90s, at least not his four seem fastball. So the “opener” story stating he throws 90 or 91 and ramped up to 96 and 97 because he could go all out is based on incorrect data. He ramps up to 96 or 97 every inning of every game in 2019 and years past. His struggles with Detroit were depression which he was clear about, he just didn’t have his head in the game.

    2018 – Four-Seamer
    61.6% Thrown
    95.0 MPH (average)

    Slider
    22.4% Thrown
    86.4 MPH

    Changeup
    1.5% Thrown
    87.4 MPH

    I did see Hector Rondon opened and got absolutely shelled, so there are two sides to this and we know if sample size grows it won’t show any real gain or loss. For every 1 perfect inning, there will be 1 multiple runner inning and 1 multiple runs given up inning, much like a normal starting pitcher’s results.