A reader named Tony Trout, a 40-something data analyst in Madison, Wisc., wrote us a while back with a proposal for a fundamental change in how baseball is played. His lifelong interest in baseball actually predates his birth: “I am named for Tony Oliva, who was voted AL rookie of the year a few days before my birth.”
If you have a hot reliever who is not your closer and can pitch two innings consistently (as in Mariano Rivera in 1995), why not start the game with that pitcher? If you could get two solid innings out of a reliever at the start of the game, your actual starter would only need to pitch seven innings to finish the game. Or, that actual starter could pitch just six innings and hand it over to the closer for the ninth.
I would suggest calling the new relief position “The Opener.”
Photo: Stephen J. Dubner The opener? Joba Chamberlain firing the last pitch in a recent Yankees victory over the Texas Rangers. Should he be pitching the first two innings instead?The idea is hatched from a few observations:
First, there are almost no complete games by starters anymore. Number of complete games that are not also near no-hitters or shutouts? Very few. With the high number of pitches necessary to retire modern hitters, starters inevitably flag. Because they want to delay the use of the bullpen as much as possible, managers tend to leave the starters in until they’re tired and ineffective.
They pitch until they fail. I can’t help thinking this is psychologically suboptimal for the large-ego starting pitchers.
So, why ask starters to pitch until they fail? Why not ask them to pitch for just six innings, the third through the eighth? Most starters would be delighted by this “light” load and pace themselves accordingly. I’m not a pitcher or even a baseball player, but I just think there’s a lot of weakness in not knowing how long you’re going to be out there.
The second observation is that hitters are thrown off by a change of pace. Aside from being tired in the seventh inning, the starting pitcher is also facing the same line-up for the third time. The hitters may be getting accustomed to that pitcher’s rhythm. If you could actually start the game with a pitcher who has a phenomenally different pitching style, you could help the “starter” to be successful when they appear in the third inning.
Ideal candidates for this “opener” would be fireballers, side-arm specialists, odd lefties, and knuckleballers.
The third observation is strictly anecdotal: hitters love the first inning. I think hitters really get geared up for the top of the game. How many times does a game start with the starter getting shelled? I think starters are also pacing themselves early on, hoping to get through the first with an “easy inning.” If an opener knew they only had to pitch two innings, he could pace himself and be successful.
Look at closers: one of the benefits of being a closer is that you only need to go out there and collect three outs. Let’s just give another pitcher that same assignment, only double it and put it at the top of the game.
The fourth observation is the effectiveness of pitchers in the All-Star game. Admittedly, they really want to perform well. But so do the hitters. What is known is that they’re going to pitch two innings and two innings only. There is a benefit there.
Finally, if a third-inning starting pitcher had good stuff, he could pitch a mere seven innings and close out the game. On a regular basis you could get through the game using only two pitchers.
The ultimate pitcher for this assignment would be a knuckleballer. Hitters hate them in their own right, but also hate them because they throw off their timing. The third-inning pitcher would benefit from this. Also, knuckleballers are really only playing catch: a knuckleballer could practically pitch two innings every day. Two knuckleballers could cover you for the whole season. The pitching staff would be two knucks, five starters, four long men/set-up men and a closer. Cinch.
There will be institutional resistance to this idea:
1. Starters apparently have this elaborate warm-up routine that would be thrown off by not knowing when they are actually going to start throwing. I think this is crap. The home starting pitcher knows he’s going to throw the first pitch at 7:05 p.m., but the visiting pitcher can start anywhere from 7:08 to 7:45.
2. Starters could get fewer decisions. If the winning team scored all their runs in the first two innings, it would be really hard for the scorer to deprive the opener of the win. He was “the pitcher of record.” On the other hand, according the scoring rules, the pitcher who starts the game can’t get the win unless they pitch five innings. So, I guess the opener would lose out on that one. Problem solved!
3. Starters would be deprived of the opportunity of complete games, shut-outs and no-hitters. To that, I say, boo hoo. Those are three antiquated statistics. We’ve moved on. The No. 1 starters could still start their games. You’d probably want them to. This concept would work great with a fifth starter (and probably a fourth and third starter too).
4. Starters take great pride in starting. They’re probably contractually entitled to X number of starts a season. If you manage to get around the ego, you probably can’t get around the contract.
5. Everybody who wears a uniform hates knuckleballers. Hitters hate them. Managers, many of whom were catchers, hate them. I think fans would tire of them too. The knuckleball is underused in baseball. Considering the ratio of their effectiveness to their cost, there should be at least one knuckleballer on every staff. There’s not because of an institutional dislike for the pitch. It’s not real baseball, apparently.
6. If you have a pitcher good enough to go out and pitch two scoreless innings reliably, they’re probably one of your best starters or your closer already. In the zero-sum game of available talent, are you going to want to use up a good pitcher early? This is probably the biggest hurdle.
7. Baseball people are pretty conservative. Notice how long it takes stylish facial hair to appear? And then how long it takes for it to disappear? They don’t like change. If it didn’t work the first few times, it would be disdained and discarded.
Still, I would expect some teams would toy around with it. There should be pitchers who would excel in two innings of work. Thanks for your consideration.
You may think Tony’s idea is absurd — and I’m sure you will let him know what you think in the comments: not all flamethrowers are baseball people, but it seems all baseball people are flamethrowers. If nothing else, I bet you will think of “the opener” the next time your team falls behind 6-0 by the third inning, yanks the starting pitcher (and renders him useless for the next four days), then brings in a reliever who proceeds to shut down the other team.
and 
. You can also watch it on 
I think this would be a great idea for some teams, if they don’t have a “star” pitcher, or maybe have a below average bullpen, this would let them organize the talents they do have in the most productive way.
Here’s the scenario of why this will never happen:
Opening pitcher: 2 IP, 0 ER
“Starting” pitcher: 2.2 IP, 7 ER
Long Relief: 3 IP, 0 ER
Worst reliever: 1.1 IP, 0ER
So now you “used up” one of your best pitchers in a game he normally wouldn’t have entered due to poor “starting” pitching. By having the starting pitcher start, you can selectively use your strong relievers in games that are close and where their skills are needed.
I would not be surprised if this starts at the High-School level by a risk-taking coach, similar to the football coach in Arkansas that hasn’t punted in two years.
It might work better, but losing the drama of a no-hitter and a complete game would really kill the TV ratings. Many people are apt to tune in when there’s a no hitter going, especially in the era of on demand television where almost any game is available to any fan anywhere. No hitters might happen infrequently, but no-hitters through 6, 7 or 8 innings happen frequently enough that it gets fan’s hearts pounding and attracts eyeballs to the relatively mundane affair of a baseball game.
The job of professional baseball teams isn’t to win games, its to make money and the system of two starting pitchers duking it out put buts in seats and eyes on screens.
I disagree with two points here. First, I think the comment that knuckleballers are merely “playing catch” is absurd. They are still throwing 70-80 mph which puts strain on their arm, albeit less strain than a pitcher throwing 100+ mph. I highly doubt any knuckleball pitcher could pitch 2 innings every game without breaking down before the middle of the season. Secondly, the no-hitter and perfect game are two of the most difficult feats in all of sports. These events are always headline news, showing they are not “antiquated statistics” and that nobody has lost interest or “moved on.” It would be an incredible loss to the game of baseball if there was never a perfect game or no-hitter again.
I’ve been thinking about this for a while. The only two possible issues, as I see it, are as follows:
1) Whereas your closer only came in for close games, your “starter” would come in for every game, increasing the load from 75 / year to 162 / year. Thus, it would probably only work with knuckleballers and other soft throwers, or you’d need a few of them.
2) In theory, one reason a closer is good at his job is because he loves to be “the guy” during the crucial moments. This reversal takes that away from him. It could be a good use of his physical talents but a mismatch for his mental ones.
Still, intriguing for all the reasons noted, and it would be fun for some team to try.
It all depends on the reliability of your pitching staff. If you have a bunch of good pitchers that can last 8 innings but one reliever who always blows it that would affect how you use the rotation. Maybe have everybody pitch only a few innings but play more games. It might save their arms in the long run. The other team won’t be able to get used to one pitcher.
Don’t forget the concept of momentum. Maybe you statisticians can figure out if it’s harder to score runs if you’re behind early in a game. That would affect who you want to be your starter.
There’s no “institutional dislike” of knuckleballers, there’s a derth of effective knuckleball pitchers. It’s hard to find a pitcher who can not only throw the ball without spin *and* still have enough control to throw strikes. You open two innings with a knuckler and you’ll have plenty of those games where your “opener” leaves you behind 6-0 in the first inning or two, and an otherwise effective starter is wasted.
It’s also a question of risk management and leverage – you want the guy who will pitch the most innings and therefore have the largest effect on the game to go first. If he blows up, you can throw your worst relievers. If he does well, you throw your best relievers, or possibly get to rest the bullpen entirely.