Was Wednesday the Start of a Long-Term Piggybacking Plan for Brewers Pitching?

2 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Since the opener was "invented" 6-ish years ago, I've wanted to see this exact scenario: one pitcher go through the lineup approximately once, then hand it over to the "starter" who tries to go through the ninth inning.

The one-inning opener never made sense to me. Sure, you get through the top of the lineup once but how is that markedly different than pulling the starter in the fifth and using that same reliever to pitch to the top of the lineup then? I think the opener concept kinda died because it was a solution looking for a problem.

Whereas letting one good pitcher face 10-11 batters, then using an entirely different pitcher for the rest of the game can cause all sorts of lineup disruption.

The whole point of the 1 inning opener is so that the order starts at 5 for the starter instead of 1. Facing the top of the order a 3rd time instead of coming at batter 19 would come at batter 24 which gives your starter a better chance at going 6 innings.

1 hour ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

I get it, I just disagree. I think there's more to be gained by giving one guy a full run through the lineup, then following that up with another, very different guy going through the lineup 2+ times. It causes the opposing manager to make difficult lineup decisions either before the game or very early in the game.

Okay nobody said the 1 inning opener was superior to the 3 inning opener. You're changing the subject. I was just explaining the pretty clear logic in using a 1 inning opener and how it's different than starting a guy and pulling him when the top of the order comes up a 3rd time. 

Starting a guy and pulling him for same reliever once top of the order comes up a 3rd time - 18 hitters

Opening for a guy and pulling him for relievers once top of order comes up a 3rd time - 22/23 hitters

Using the 1 inning opener gives you much more leeway to get 5+/6 innings from your starter. There's the logic. It's pretty clear.

3 minutes ago, Jake McKibbin said:

There's logic to Bricks intrigue too, especially when considering the specifics of the Brewers and their beleaguered bullpen. Priester's heavy platoon splits and Halls ability to go 50 ISH pitches allows Hall to attempt to get to 11/12 batters and let Priester still go the distance from there.

Best of both worlds occuring in yesterday's game, but it's a tactic that's now turned a completely shattered bullpen into an incredibly fresh one over the last week

I'll reiterate once again. I was not comparing the two. My comment has nothing to do with debating 1 inning vs 3 inning opener. I was responding to Brock saying this:

4 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

The one-inning opener never made sense to me. Sure, you get through the top of the lineup once but how is that markedly different than pulling the starter in the fifth and using that same reliever to pitch to the top of the lineup then?

8 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

I see your point and the confusion, I did a piss-poor job of explaining my line of thought. I've never been enamored of the one-inning opener, that's my point. But I quite like the idea of a 2-4 inning opener in some situations.

Again they are very different things and I'm not trying to debate the two. I'm just showing you there's pretty clear logic to a one inning opener especially in terms of trying to get a few more outs from your SP.

Chad Patrick is a pretty good example of someone who could be benefiting from a 1 inning opener. He's been pulled in the 5th inning or after 5 innings to avoid the top of the order a 3rd time multiple times this season because Murphy doesn't trust him to face the top of the order a 3rd time. Give Patrick an opener so he comes in facing the 5 hitter in the 2nd and he'd probably have given you 5-10 more outs this season which is 5-10 fewer outs the bullpen would have needed. 

The piggyback concept seems great and is obviously working with Hall/Priester.  However, it is still going to require someone going to AAA or being DFA, the latter which I don't see whatsoever. 

Uribe has options but has been lights out, stays. Mears does not have an option. Both long lefty's, Hall and Ashby have options but that defeats the purpose.  I'm not sure if Rob Z as an option, Koenig does.

In short, either Koenig or Patrick have to be optioned to AAA when Woodruff comes back, possibly Rob Z if he has an option.  Of course, someone might get injured, sore arm, something to the IL for 15 days.

I love the idea of an 8 man piggyback rotation on a 4 day run for next year. If we trade Freddy this offseason I could see it making a lot of sense. Each pitcher goes around 60-70 pitches for an average of 4 innings each. That leaves a 5 man bullpen to soak up 1-2 innings a night and you could make a bullpen game easy if we have a couple taxi AAA starters. You could also switch to a tradional 5/6 man rotation easily if/when injuries happen.

1)Misi/Gasser 2)Patrick/Ashby 3)Hall/Priester 4)Henderson/Myers 

That would leave our deep underrated AA staff, CarRod, and any other prospect (from Freddy deal) or other cheap veteran additions as depth. 

I certainly hope they continue with this piggyback arrangement. I would even expand it with an Ashby/Patrick combo. I would set it up as Freddy, piggyback, Quintana, piggyback and Civale   
 

When Woody comes back, option Patrick and move the least effective of Woody and Civale into the piggyback with Ashby. 
 

A true RP crew of Megill Uribe Koenig Anderson Mears and Z with the ability to move Patrick Mis and Henderson as desired seems pretty stout to me.