Jays @ Rays - Aug 5 - 7 - Bad Meets Good

[vaff87]

LOL, that was quite the double.

[wazabifuzz]

Bichette was quite impressive today.

[Boogie!]

The Jays better not **** up this core. If vlad and Co don't become a contender/vlad doesn't end up a blue Jay for life, they done **** up.

[Looogie]

When did we fire Jackie Redmond and when did MLB Network pick her up? lol

Caroline Szwed > Jackie

[The_Hater]

When did we fire Jackie Redmond and when did MLB Network pick her up? lol

Couple years ago she got reassigned there or something. There were rumours she was sleeping with members of the Jays and their spouses weren’t happy about it.

She only left for MLb before the current season started, probably wanted to expand her pool of potential bed mates to more teams.

[SharoneWright]

That’s a good way to start playing for your new team. Finish an at bat for a teammate.

Watch on YouTube

[Wo1verine]

Starting line up tonight :


Bichette - SS
Biggio - RF
Gurriel Jr - LF
Guerrero Jr - 3B
Smoak - DH
Galvis - 2B
Drury - 1B
Fisher - CF
Jansen - C

[Myth11111]

One of the things I like about Smoak is his ability to dig balls out for our young infielders. I hate when we DH him.

[Wo1verine]

One of the things I like about Smoak is his ability to dig balls out for our young infielders. I hate when we DH him.

Especially for a guy who has played like what 3 games at 1B? lol

[BigLeagueChew]

Read on Twitter

[Schad]

Read on Twitter

Batspeed makes everything easier. Facing 89 doesn't hurt.

[Schad]

It's actually quieter than it once was, but if anyone's wondering how Bichette ended up as a 2nd rounder, it's that first image. Have bat wrap + late and exaggerated leg kick, things that generally bode poorly for adjusting to top-shelf stuff/stuff with a lot of movement, because you have to get into a hitting position and get the bat through the zone really quickly. But when you have elite batspeed/bat control, you can spend the first 30 feet of pitch travel spinning in circles and still get yourself into a spot to swing.

Edit: just as I type that, the late plant results in him actually spinning in a circle on an accidental back-foot slider. I just have that effect.

[gundysmullet]

Can someone explain to me this “opener” role? I mean, what would happen if he actually went three or four innings, would his arm fall off? And although I am being facetious, not really, because sometimes I think that baseball has so many stupid unwritten rules that those in charge micromanage and over regulate everything. It’s like they are too cautious. Thanks

[Schad]

It's hard bordering on impossible to throw 50+ pitches as hard as you can without losing your mechanics or having your elbow fly off to Slovenia. That's the primary difference between relievers today and relievers 30 years ago: then, they were mostly just guys who weren't good enough to be starters that basically pitched like starters, today, they're pitchers that throw with max effort for a finite period.

The result is that relievers are now better than starters on an inning-per-inning basis. It was once the case where you had a real incentive to have the starter go as deep as possible, because the guy behind him was some banjo-picker named Tex with a vague concept of how to throw baseballs, and often an insufficient number of fingers. Now, all of your relievers throw 97 with a 60 breaker, so as much as anything, the starter's job is to prevent the relievers from being overworked, whereas once it was ideally to keep them telling off-colour jokes in the bullpen indefinitely.

The opener is a wrinkle born out of a couple statistical quirks. Namely: because relievers throw fire and have pitches that swerve three counties over, you want good relievers pitching in 'high leverage' situations more than you do at the very end of games. Thus, we now get the Andrew Millers of the world who aren't closers, but actually pitch in higher-leverage situations than the actual closer, because one-on, none-out in a one-run game in the 7th is a much bigger spot than none-on, none-out in a three-run game in the 9th. But a further realization is that the most important bits of the game are the ones where the opposition's best hitters are hitting, and there's one time when you are absolutely guaranteed to face the opposition's best hitters: the first inning. So it makes quite a bit of sense to have a reliever, whose results are better than most starters, dealing with the top of the order at max effort, followed by a 'starter' giving you some innings in between, and then turning it over to people with questionable facial hair who throw 99 and grab their groins every time they strike someone out.

[vaff87]

One thing I would add, I guess, is that it prevents the “starter” from having to face the top of the order three times.

[Schad]

Absolutely. It's optimization; if, in an average game, you have a 6 IP starter, 7/8/9 relievers, you get something like this (by order) for the starter:

Starter:

1x3
2x3
3x3
4x3
5x3
6x2
7x2
8x2
9x2

That's 6 IP with five stranded/scored, which is the sort of day that gets you a diamond-encrusted cornea if you can keep it up, but also exposes the starter to the best bits of the lineup a bunch. Having an opener allows someone else to throw missiles at those guys, and then the 'starter' settles in against weaker hitters and finds their stuff, and can throw 5-6 IP without facing good hitters more than twice.

[gundysmullet]

It's hard bordering on impossible to throw 50+ pitches as hard as you can without losing your mechanics or having your elbow fly off to Slovenia. That's the primary difference between relievers today and relievers 30 years ago: then, they were mostly just guys who weren't good enough to be starters that basically pitched like starters, today, they're pitchers that throw with max effort for a finite period.

The result is that relievers are now better than starters on an inning-per-inning basis. It was once the case where you had a real incentive to have the starter go as deep as possible, because the guy behind him was some banjo-picker named Tex with a vague concept of how to throw baseballs, and often an insufficient number of fingers. Now, all of your relievers throw 97 with a 60 breaker, so as much as anything, the starter's job is to prevent the relievers from being overworked, whereas once it was ideally to keep them telling off-colour jokes in the bullpen indefinitely.

The opener is a wrinkle born out of a couple statistical quirks. Namely: because relievers throw fire and have pitches that swerve three counties over, you want good relievers pitching in 'high leverage' situations more than you do at the very end of games. Thus, we now get the Andrew Millers of the world who aren't closers, but actually pitch in higher-leverage situations than the actual closer, because one-on, none-out in a one-run game in the 7th is a much bigger spot than none-on, none-out in a three-run game in the 9th. But a further realization is that the most important bits of the game are the ones where the opposition's best hitters are hitting, and there's one time when you are absolutely guaranteed to face the opposition's best hitters: the first inning. So it makes quite a bit of sense to have a reliever, whose results are better than most starters, dealing with the top of the order at max effort, followed by a 'starter' giving you some innings in between, and then turning it over to people with questionable facial hair who throw 99 and grab their groins every time they strike someone out.

You created a false narrative and then argued against it. No one said anything about "throwing as hard as you can for 50 pitches". Do "openers" not posses a changeup? If not, why are they in the big leagues? I guess, I'm asking for critical thinking and not knee jerk canned responses. Font was pitching well, correct? Would the moon have turned blood red if he actually went another 1 or 2 innings? Why not try and see what happens? Then you would have actual empirical evidence.

[gundysmullet]

I think micromanaging is what has always been the downfall of baseball.

[Schad]

You created a false narrative and then argued against it. No one said anything about "throwing as hard as you can for 50 pitches". Do "openers" not posses a changeup? If not, why are they in the big leagues? I guess, I'm asking for critical thinking and not knee jerk canned responses. Font was pitching well, correct? Would the moon have turned blood red if he actually went another 1 or 2 innings? Why not try and see what happens? Then you would have actual empirical evidence.

Generally, no, openers (and relievers in general) don't have changeups/a third good pitch. That's why they're relievers. Relievers are guys who can throw two pitches really well if they max out, but don't have the feel for anything else.

And maxing out is an important part of the reliever/starter divide here. Look at some of the numbers of guys who go from rotations to relief. Notice that they pretty much all pick up 2-3 mph and increase their spin rate? There's a reason: when you're only throwing 10-30 pitches, you can throw harder than if you're expected to carry a workload of 50-100. Thus, most relievers today are guys that couldn't cut it as starters.

[Schad]

Let's use a real-by-god example here, and one that makes sense given that the Rays really pioneered the opener thing. Ryne Stanek started 50% of his appearances last year. Did well. His mix is a maxed-out FB/SL/SF combo, which is lethal in smaller doses, but if he has to back off the fastball for a longer stint, the FB/SF differential shrinks, and the movement on the slider diminishes. He's much better in shorter appearances, but not a world-beater at the back of a 'pen; he's a 7th/occasional 8th guy. Using an opener has made him a really valuable asset that gets through the toughest hitters an opponent has with enough regularity that he's probably going to 'start' more games than anyone has for several decades, with good numbers. That's a good use of his talents.