The Gradual Spread of the Opener
The thing about the “opener” strategy is even the Rays couldn’t tell you exactly how much it’s helped. It’s hardly intended to make that dramatic a difference in the box score; it’s about slightly shifting the odds in a handful of matchups. If it didn’t affect the name of the starting pitcher, a strategy like this wouldn’t have made many headlines. But, the Rays knew what they were getting into. They knew that, in a way, they were turning baseball on its head when they started Sergio Romo. The Rays have stuck with the opener for a chunk of their starts ever since, and the evidence suggests it’s not not working.
As far as I can tell, the Rays have started 49 games with an opener. It’s not always easy to tell who’s an opener and who’s just a starter with a relatively low pitch count, but I feel reasonably confident about my selections. Over those 49 games, the Rays have gone 29-20. Overall, they’ve allowed 3.95 runs per nine innings in those contests, which would rank them fifth-best in baseball. They have a combined 14.8% K-BB% in those contests, which would rank them 11th-best in baseball. And remember, that’s pretty good, because the Rays don’t use an opener for, say, Blake Snell. This is what would be the back of their rotation, and the numbers are still easily better than average. We don’t know how the Rays would look *without* the opener, but the pitchers have pretty much all bought in. At least in Tampa, the opener doesn’t look like it’s going away.
There’s another place where we can identify what the Rays have been up to. Part of the whole idea is to limit pitcher exposure the third or fourth time through the lineup. Here’s every team’s pitching staff in baseball, with the total number of plate appearances in those situations:
The Rays are at the end, separated from the next-lowest total by more than a hundred. Now, keep in mind this isn’t a great thing on its own. The Angels are the next-closest team to the Rays, and they have a low total because their rotation hasn’t been that good or healthy. The two left-most teams are the Indians and Astros, and they have high totals because their rotations have been terrific. The opener only really came about in the first place because the Rays found themselves woefully short on quality starters. They made do, and they found themselves a signature tactic.
Or maybe it’s not so signature anymore. The Rays, of course, remain the industry leader in using the opener. But the idea has already spread. The Dodgers tried the opener once. They gave the ball to Scott Alexander. The Blue Jays have used the opener, giving the ball to Tyler Clippard. The Rangers are now making repeated use of the opener. The A’s have taken to opening with Liam Hendriks. The Twins have taken to opening with Gabriel Moya. The Twins, in fact, have gone so far as to implement the strategy in the upper minor leagues.
One of the truths about baseball is that competitive advantages can and do exist. Teams all have their own ideas and best practices, and some of those can turn into an edge on the field. But it’s also true that, when promising ideas are exposed or revealed to the world, the competitive advantages can be fleeting. I think the jury is probably still out on whether the opener is even worth the trouble, but it’s no longer an idea that just belongs to the Rays. Other teams have already given it a go, and as for those that haven’t yet, I’m sure virtually all of them have at least had a conversation.
When doing bulk research, there’s no easy way to select for openers or opener-like appearances. Here, though, is one proxy, covering the 30-team era, since 1998. For each season, you’re seeing the rate of games in which the starting pitcher didn’t exceed 40 pitches.
Obviously, this includes a bunch of games where the starter got hurt. There are also games where the starter was removed because of a rain delay, and there are also games where the starter was removed due to ineffectiveness. There’s a whole list of reasons why a starting pitcher would be removed quickly, and the noise doesn’t necessarily even out over the course of a regular season or two. Still, 2018 has led to an obvious spike. And the spike is still present even when you remove the 2018 Rays entirely.
The increase there is more subtle, but remember, even the Rays weren’t using the opener until the second half of May. The league-wide rate in July was 2.5%. In August, it was 3.6%. So far in September, it’s 7.4%. Even with the Rays excluded, the September rate is 5.4%. I know that September roster expansion allows teams to be more creative if they want, but this is still a surge; last September’s rate was 3.2%, and the rate the previous September was 2.1%. The role of the starter is changing. Or, the role of some starters is changing. We’re seeing more openers, and we’re seeing more bullpen games.
The two aren’t the same. They begin the same — a reliever comes out to throw an inning or two. In an opener start, the ball is shortly turned over to the primary pitcher, or the so-called “bulk guy.” In a bullpen game, it’s just a steady stream of one- or two-inning relievers. The Rays didn’t invent the bullpen game concept, and they didn’t even really invent the opener concept, but you can think of the Rays as having granted permission. Because the Rays volunteered to go first, and because the Rays have been successful, other teams are more motivated and willing to play around with the starting-pitcher role. It’s less about designating some kind of traditional starter at all costs. If a starter isn’t available, so be it. And if a starter is willing to enter in the second or third, the Rays have effectively dismantled the wall. Teams are more willing to see what happens for themselves.
Once more, it’s not an obviously good thing. It’s just a different thing, a thing worth trying out. Most pitchers seem to be pretty open-minded about it. Which isn’t to suggest it always goes over smoothly. The A’s have experienced a bit of clubhouse grumbling related to the Hendriks games. It’s important for teams to clearly communicate the benefits and risks of toying around with the starter role. And you can see some of the caution in how the strategy has been implemented. It’s not so weird for the designated starter. That’s just a reliever entering very, very early. But the list of “bulk guys” reads something like: Ryan Yarbrough, Yonny Chirinos, Austin Pruitt, Jalen Beeks, Daniel Mengden, Kohl Stewart, Zack Littell, Stephen Gonsalves, Chris Bassitt, Yohander Mendez, Ariel Jurado, Dennis Santana, and Mike Hauschild. Maybe I’ve left off a few, but that’s not a group with a lot of service time. There’s nary a proven veteran in the bunch. The younger and more inexperienced the pitcher, the less likely he is to complain, and the more likely he is to be open-minded, if only out of necessity. All these pitchers want to make sure they have jobs. And so they’ve been willing to do what their teams have asked.
Nothing here has to be permanent. Even the Rays might one day end up with five good, traditional starters. There’s a lot left to learn about the opener, there’s a lot left to learn about moving away from normal starts, and some teams might now just be messing around for the hell of it. Every team wants to have a great rotation, one through five. But every team also knows that’s unrealistic, and every team increasingly understands that the traditional way of handling a pitching staff isn’t necessarily the best way. The Rays gave the rest of baseball permission to explore their own space. It’s hard to imagine it’s all just going to go back to how it was.
Jeff made Lookout Landing a thing, but he does not still write there about the Mariners. He does write here, sometimes about the Mariners, but usually not.



It will be interesting to see what effect being an opener will have on pitchers’ salaries in arbitration. Arbitrators often take into account W/L, saves, ERA, and things like that. Openers will have no wins. They will have no saves, or any of the counting stats that could be used to bolster their arguments. If teams are willing to pay a premium for openers, pitchers will be more open to it, but if it gets used to suppress salaries, you can be sure that players will NOT like it in the long run
Arbitration is virtually hopeless to keep up with the opener. In theory money just gets redistributed around, favoring the pitchers who have the most important roles, whatever those are, but of course all roads eventually lead to: pay younger players more.
I think we have to hope that Arbitrators will step out of the prehistoric age and start rewarding pitchers for their abilities – not for stats that are largely out of their control like wins and losses.
Openers were generally non-closer relievers to begin with, so they would not have had many wins or saves anyway. The bulk guys get more wins because they are no longer tied to the 5IP minimum to qualify for a win. So it should only help them in arbitration.
And a guy like Stanek can always argue the fact that he’s started almost 30 games this year and can probably better argue to an arbitrator that those innings are somehow more “valuable” than had he put those up as generic late-game innings (although obviously less valuable than saves).
You would think the “followers” might get most penalized by it, as they’ll show up with a lot of innings but few starts. But then again, they’ll vulture a lot of wins. Yarbrough is 15-5 on the season with 140 innings – how will those numbers play in arbitration? Does he get treated essentially like a starter, even though he pitched innings 2-7 instead of 1-6?
Openers are usually otherwise relief pitchers though, who don’t expect to get many wins anyway. The real questions is whether pitchers frequently used as the “bulk guy”, (pitchers who would otherwise be starters) get more or fewer wins than they would as traditional starters. The fact that Ryan Yarbrough has 15 wins suggests that bulk guys might not be at any disadvantage when it comes to getting wins and hence larger arbitration salaries.
I think the bulk guy will get more wins and fewer losses as a result. If the opener gives up a run in the first, the bulk guy can give up 10 runs and not get a loss, but if he pitches well enough for his team to score a few runs, he gets the win.
Also, I believe if the starter doesn’t go 5 innings, the W is given at the discretion of the official scorekeeper. As the opener becomes more common, I think the W statistic will become less meaningful to those who still find value it in.
Exactly — I think your 3-4-5 guys in the rotation should LOVE this idea: they have a better chance to get a win than if they started. If they started, a progressive team is going to pull them before they go through the opposing order a 3rd time — which means it’s a toss-up if they get the 5 innings they would need for a win. With another pitcher facing the first 3 to 6 guys, they can come in, fact the BOTTOM of the order the 3rd time, and even if they don’t get their 5 innings in, it doesn’t matter: as long as they leave with the lead, they have a good chance to get a win.
I still don’t totally get the point of the opener. It would be no different, of course, to put the reliever in after the starter if the discussion is about times-through-the-order. Is it just to throw off the other team regarding handedness/batting order planning? If so, is there any burden on the opener-ing team to disclose who the ‘bulk’ pitcher will be? And the bulk pitcher generally doesn’t come in mid-inning, so that is another burden on the team if the opener gets into some trouble.
It works best against teams like the Angels and Astros, who have righties at the top of the lineup. Then you open with a righty reliever, and when you get to your bulk guy, his third (or second) time through the order doesn’t begin with the leadoff hitter.
Also the first inning is when the opposing team has its best hitters up so using relievers, who are more effective in short bursts, makes sense.
Not just with lefty-righty patterns. The idea can also be to have the ‘bridge’ pitcher go like 2 and a half times though the other team’s order but starting with like the other team’s #5 hitter and ending with the #9 hitter so that he’ll pitch an extra time to the other team’s weaker hitters.
Another point can be if there is a starter who often takes an inning to settle down, it can be better if his first inning is against relatively weak hitters who’ll be less likely to be able to capitalize on his shakiness.
Those are very good points, John. I remember you getting a lot of downvotes once or twice, but you just got my upvotes this time.
This. The lesser quality “SP” gets to face the mid-bottom of the order 3 times and top only twice in a 5 IP game.
Also, as mentioned the 1st is the only inning where 1-2-3 is guaranteed and run probability is highest.
If I were a lesser-quality SP, I would be all for this idea which would pad my stats.
To wit, Yarbrough has 15 wins on the season. Very unlikely he would have that as a pure starter.
the goal is so that the top 1/3 of the opponents lineup (the good ones) sees a different pitcher every at bat
In a National League game, if the opener can get through two innings (or even just one inning sometimes in a road game), the team can pinch-hit for the opener with a real batter the first time through the lineup. That is one extra at-bat from a guy with, say,, a .310 OBP rather than one with, say, a .150 OBP. There is value in that.
As mentioned by others, your best hitters are GUARANTEED to hit in that first inning (unless your best hitter is batting 4th, which is not the case in today’s modern lineup construction). So you’re “bulk” pitcher gets the advantage of being able to “settle in”, before facing the best hitters.
But also, if you have a hard-throwing / nasty reliever that maybe doesn’t have the best command when making longer appearances, or maybe has trouble in late-inning high-leverage situations. He can open the game and let it all fly. He’s only asked to throw 15 pitches or so. Those first 1 – 5 hitters will be on there heels that first inning, then the that next AB will be a sudden change (expecially if your “bulk” guy is a guy that maybe pitches with less velo). It’s essentially the same advantage for the defense, when in the 7th or 8th inning the relievers start coming into the game. The only difference, is that the defensive advantage is happening immediately when the game starts, not in the more “traditional” seven-through-nine-inning bullpen usage.
It’s pretty common for the Rays to bring in the “bulk pitcher” in the middle of an inning, especially when they can exploit the platoon advantage by doing so.
“the evidence suggests it’s not not working.”
Tell me one way this sentence is improved by the double negative. This isn’t style, its an abomination. Not only that, its happening a lot.
If I wanted that quality of writing, I would go read reddit. I come to fangraphs, I PAY for fangraphs, because I want professional quality writing infused with solid baseball analysis. What you are delivering here is something else, something cringeworthy and sad. The most important tool you have to deliver your message is your language.
Please, stop this.
This IS Jeff’s style and it does NOT mean the same thing as “it’s working.”
Did you choose your screenname, or did your screenname choose you
It didn’t not choose him.
i would take much less issue with bits of quirky grammar playfulness and more with the buzzfeed type clickbaity headlines that treat us like were ‘gen-y’-ers looking up personal vlogs on youtube, or life hacks or some other inane lifestyle blog post
FYI it’s not particularly grammar (syntactic) playfulness, it’s semantic playfulness. It uses that “not not X” does not have the same meaning as “X”, outside of a purely binary world.
In English, “it’s working” often means something like “I’m confident it’s working”, and the “it’s not working” means “I’m confident it’s not working.”
not surely X = maybe not X, so
“it’s not not working” can mean
not(surely(not(working)), which =
maybe(not(not(working)))
= maybe(working)
Which is different than “it’s working.”
Is math!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_logic
tl,dr in English “not not working” is semantically a weaker property than “working”.
Its semantically equivalent to ¯\_(?)_/¯. There is no such thing as evidence that shows something is not “not working” and is not “working”. That evidence is actually just inconclusive.
This is exactly the kind of sentence that makes me “hear” Jeff Sullivan, where I can actually imagine him saying these words on an Effectively Wild episode.
This, I think, is one of the things that makes him one of the best writers around.
Of course, this becomes problematic when you try to picture Jeff Sullivan and Grant Brisbee talking and it’s basically Anomalisa: Baseball Edition.
If you can’t understand the difference between ‘it’s working’ and ‘it’s not not working,’ you better go back to school.
School is where people have two-valued logic beaten *into* them sadly.
it’s working = i expected it to from the start
it’s not not working = wow, i expected to not work and somehow that’s not the case!
Cf. https://comb.io/Njqdj2
I read that sentence as “the evidence suggests it’s not working.” Then I continued reading the article becoming more confused as to what the author was trying to communicate.
You can re-read it, there’s no “second time through the order” penalty here 🙂
Same here. “Evidence suggests it’s not failing,” would be clearer.
Point of order: “Not Failing” is…
*SPOILERS*
a double negative.
George Orwell’s ashes are perambulating in his urn
Oh man, and you thought today’s hitting irritated John Smoltz
Ok. I think it’s time that we try and settle on what to call the primary pitcher. This matters. Maybe it’s an article in its own right? Or a poll?
Jeff, you used “bulk guy”. Is that something you heard from a real baseball person? Or are you passing on coming up with a better name?
I’ve seen “follower” used in a couple of places on this site. This is, IMHO, a horrible idea. No one likes being called a follower, let alone testosterone-laden professional athletes. Besides, followers come after leaders … not openers.
They aren’t really the “long man”. Maybe technically they are, but that role generally is referring to a middle reliever who has come on to take the place of a starter who has left early due to injury or ineffectiveness … not one who has left by design after an inning or two.
I’m fan of “headliner”, myself.
I’ve seen ‘bridge’
Nah. The “bridge” is from the starter to the closer, and basically is made up of the middle relievers that the manager actually trusts. Like long man, it may be technically accurate but doesn’t really capture the situation.
I think the idea is that he’s a ‘bridge’ between the reliever in the first inning and the relievers (normally more than one) after him.
this may be the case up to now, but in that sense i think “bridge” applies generally to “all the middle relievers”, rather than one guy. like “the dodgers have been having trouble finding their bridge to jansen”.
this would be a new sense of the term, but when you’re dealing with a new situation sometimes you need to change your language. i think “bridge” makes a lot of sense – the “bridge guy” who spans the gap between the opener and the rest of the one-inning short guys.
“headliner” is a little too jokey for me, being a pun based on concerts, especially considering that these are often the pitchers who aren’t quite good enough to be traditional starting pitchers.
but the debate rages on, as it should
Personally I don’t like long man, follower, or headliner (is Ryan Yarbrough a “headliner”?) and the guys isn’t a “starter” by the plain meaning of the word. Bulk guy is better but cumbersome and I don’t think just plain “bulk” works.
I like bridge the best.
“Tonight we’ve got Stanek as the opener, then Yarbrough is the bridge, we’ll fill in middle relief with Kittredge and Alvarado and then Romo is the closer”
From my recollection, the Rays pitchers coined the term bulk. Can’t find the article right now but I’ve read that detail several times now.
The terminology should address the function. Back in the old days of last year, there were starters, who would start, and were expected to pitch the majority of the game, and relievers, who would come in as a replacement, to hopefully provide relief. Those assumptions no longer apply.
Now, it seems the meaningful distinction is how many innings the pitcher will in fact pitch (whether or not they make the first pitch). What is good terminology for that? Seems like “long man” and “short man” captures that very well.
I started with multi-inning guy and up-to-one-inning guy, but those didn’t focus group well.
So there it is. Long man and short man.
It’s not a term for the pitcher himself, but I like Nick Pollack from PitcherList’s term “false start” for a game that features an opener.
Cis-starter?
The Twins dubbed the long guys the “primary pitcher” and it seems to be catching on.
What about the primary pitcher?
Another idea could be to combine the opener idea with the tandem starter idea. The first pitcher pitches to like 4 batters, the second goes through to #5-#9 hitters and then once more through the whole order. Then you repeat the process. The closer can take care of an inning at the end if necessary. This is if your starting staff is really in ruins.
I wonder if teams will respond by dramatically shifting their orders around when they see an opener posted. Like shift the whole order down by 5 spots? Could backfire too.
I think anyone trying this strategy would be thrilled if their opponents willingly give their best hitters fewer PA.
I get slightly different numbers. Here’s what I did – throw out all starts by Snell, Archer, Eovaldi, Chirinos, Glasnow and the single start for Banda. Those guys were clearly traditional starters (though Chirinos has transitioned to being the bridge). I threw out all of Faria’s early season starts since he was being used as a traditional starter then, but I left in his Aug 15th start as he was used more as an opener there. I also threw out 1 of Kittredge’s starts on 3/31 since threw 3.1 IP. Not clear what the intent was at that time. Finally I threw out all but one of Font’s starts since he was being used for 4-5 IP, but left in the June 8th start since they were ramping his IP up and he only went 2.1 IP
That leaves 57 games started by Kittredge, Castillo, Wood, Faria, Venters, Andriese, Stanek, Romo and Font. Totals are 509.1 IP with 210 ER for an ERA of 3.71.
BTW, know how deGrom is being toasted for his 27 consecutive starts without giving up more than 3 runs? Major league record? Ryne Stanek goes for number 27 in a row tonight 🙂
2018: the year the Rays broke pitching
It seems to me that the opener should be more popular with road teams in the NL. You could have a reliever throw 1-2 innings and be lifted for a pinch hitter. Then the starter likely comes in facing the bottom of the order. I think someone may have written about this in the last few years on FanGraphs…
I would think it would be harder for road teams in the NL. You’d have to hope that you time the opener’s spot in the order right so that he makes it through 1 or 2 IP and then his spot comes up the next inning. Makes it much harder to pull that guy mid-inning then. So if you put him 6th in the order say and your team goes down 1-2-3 in the top of the 1st and he gets through the bottom of the 1st, then you can pinch-hit for him then. But what if you get to the 6th spot in the top of the 1st? Now you either have your relief pitcher hitting in a likely high leverage spot or you’re burning a PH before your guy even throws a pitch. If you put him below 6th, then you run the risk of needing him to get through 2 IP so you can pinch-hit for him the next half inning and what happens if he puts a couple guys on and now you want to bring in the bridge/bulk guy? No opportunity to PH there.
I would think it would be better for the home team in the NL. Put your opener at the top of the lineup, let him go out and do his 1 inning thing and then pinch-hit for him in the bottom of the 1st. However, this probably has practical effects since you are burning a PH in the 1st inning.
I do note that so far this has been almost exclusively an AL thing which probably makes more sense because then you can make the pitching decisions solely based on pitching needs and not hitting.
OPENER BILLY HAMILTON MASHUP DO IT
An acquaintance suggested the “bulk” pitcher be labeled the “Headliner”, akin to a concert where there is an opening act before the headline attraction. It is a sexier label and might lend some panache to the role in people’s minds.
Bob Gibson could have used an opener
The thing about openers is it makes a lot of sense. I remember writing it here in 2015ish. I’m glad to see it is finally happening.
Also I know this isn’t about fantasy, but my goodness do I love having openers. It just prints money for us guys who spend a lot time researching when the Y’s are gonna be coming in (Yonny and Yarbrough)
Playing almost 600 ball with what is in effect the back end of your rotation (openers) is phenomenal. Whether thats SSS or not I cant say. If you eliminate the hiccups in the first 17 games its probably even better. Cash should get manager of the year although it probably goes to Oakland or Bostons manager
The Rockies have been the worst team in baseball BY FAR at allowing first inning runs. I am shocked they have not tried this at least a few times.
Factually correct. Also have BY FAR the highest BABIP allowed in the first inning and are in a dog fight for the lowest LOB%, so they are more competing with the Orioles for second worst by FIP and they are closer to the median xFIP than the worst xFIP.
Fangraphs doesn’t have FIP-/xFIP- in the splits tool, so you’d have to do some guesswork, but given their extreme park, I have to imagine they scoot decently towards the middle with such an adjustment.
We can test this by taking the 57 or 59 times the Rays have used an opener and looking at something like xFIP or some stats on TBF for JUST the openers to compare with other teams 4-5 starters throughout the league. The idea being…are the openers relatively better in the 1st 5 batters vs. traditional 4-5 starters. The rest of the piece stands.
The Rays announced the concept of “bullpen games” before the season started and used it immediately, not late May. Andrew Kittredge opened in Game 3 and in game 9 of the season. In both games it was made clear that he was not a true starter and would only go a few innings at most. In game 9 he went only two despite being reasonably effective. The Rays refined this approach as the year progressed but I wonder of these games were recognized as “opener” games and included in the statistics used to draw the conclusions.
Great article! Love the analysis of starter pitch count as a proxy for opener ylusage.
I am surprised this hasn’t been used against the Dbacks more, since they have scored the most first inning runs of any team in baseball (at least that’s what the stats showed a couple weeks ago). I don’t recall this tactic employed against them at all this year. But they’ve also altered the top of their order quite a bit during the season, and have a pretty good L-R mix that can’t be exploited.
I’ve never read an article in which the author went to such great pains NOT to compliment an innovation which succeeded over the better part of a season.