Return of the 25-game winner

[roger_that]

Using Garrett as the opener the other night reminded me of a way that starting pitchers can again routinely win 20 games in a year, and some years the league leader will win 25 games or more, and that way is to adopt the 1- or 2-inning starter, to be relieved for the next five or six innings by your real starter.

As things stand, starting pitchers get decisions in many fewer games because the lead changes between the time they leave the game and the time the game ends. But since managers, and especially Mendoza, seem more and more committed to hooking starting pitchers from the games after a very low pitch count, or the sixth inning, or the third time through the order, or if he looks cockeyed, why not decide in advance who your first reliever will be, and simply start the game with your most rested, or your best suited, reliever, and bring in your starter for inning #3?

Or better yet, get him warmed up at the start of inning #2, and by the time he’s ready, decide if you want him, rather than the guy who started the game, to face certain batters towards the end of inning #2, particularly if inning #2 has gone on for a while and your starter might be tiring. Even better if your first two pitchers throw from opposite hands, so you can take advantage of lefty/lefty and righty/righty matchups as well.

Since the 1- or 2-inning guy can’t get the win even if he leaves with a lead, that means the 5- or 6-innings guy would get the decision much more of the time if your team wins. Even better for that guy, he can get the win but often, if the first guy leaves on the losing end, he rarely will get a loss. So your rotation starter who now ends the season with an 11-11 W/L record, would end his season with a record more like 14-8.

I’m surprised no team has gone to a consistent “opener” strategy yet.

Another advantage would be if your opener gets roughed up, you could turn that 6-0 game into a bullpen game completely, give 5 or 6 innings to the 14th guy in the bullpen who wants to show the manager what he could do with an extended showing, and save your starter for the next game.

[Edgy MD]

Some teams have gone to a consistent opener strategy for a time. Most notable is The Rays. It tends not to last, and the 20-game winner tends not to emerge.

As with most pitcher-deployment innovations, the team finds they are robbing Peter to pay Paul.

[roger_that]

I think we're sufficiently desperate for a change at this point to give it a whirl. It may not have worked thus far because most things don't work most of the time, and most things aren't sufficient in themselves to turn losing teams into winners. I can't think of a single reason it wouldn't help, and several reasons why it would.

[Edgy MD]

You can ask any Rays as to how it succeeded and how it failed to succeed, depending on whether your goal is to win more or to get more wins credited to your rotation.

I certainly can speculate.

[roger_that]

You can ask any Rays as to how it succeeded and how it failed to succeed, depending on whether your goal is to win more or to get more wins credited to your rotation.

I certainly can speculate.

 

I don't know any Rays fans, so sure, speculate.

Getting more wins credited to my rotation isn't a goal, it's just an easy way to sell the concept to your starters: you'll pitch the same number of innings, you'll get more wins, you'll get fewer losses, you'll face more same-side batters. As to the relievers, their W/L records don't mean a thing in contract negotiations anyway. So selling it to your staff is easy.

[Cowtipper]

Every once in a while a guy gets lucky and gets surprisingly close to 25 victories despite all the modern limitations in the game today. Spencer Strider won 20 games a few years ago, despite pitching just 186 innings.

[Edgy MD]

As demonstrated by the Mets' pre-emptive hook of Montas in that same game, you can turn starters into bulk relievers and hope that pushes them further into the game, but if you continue to ever-shorten their workdays and keep them out of high-leverage mid-to-late-game situations, the real crisis remains.

[roger_that]

Every once in a while a guy gets lucky and gets surprisingly close to 25 victories despite all the modern limitations in the game today. Spencer Strider won 20 games a few years ago, despite pitching just 186 innings.

 

Pretty damned rare.

Impromptu quiz: Who was the last MLB pitcher to win 25 or more?

Part 2: who was the last Met pitcher to do so?

[Cowtipper]

Verlander's the last to win 25 I think. Was gonna say Gooden, but he had 24, so probably Seaver.

Without checking I'm pretty sure I'm right.

EDIT: I cheated, Verlander had 24. Probably gotta go way back to Bob Welch maybe?

[roger_that]

Yeah, Welch in 1990. The other one's kind of a trick question, since Seaver is the first and last Met to win 25.

My youngest kid was born in 1990, turning 35 this year. Long time.

[Frayed Knot]

Of course if the starters keep pitching the way they've been pitching then it's not going to matter When they pitch, only that they pitched.

Last 12 NYM games (of which they've lost 11 as I'm sure you're aware), looking at just the combined stats of starters*: 55 IP; 44 RA; 7.20 ERA; 1.60 WHIP

88 baserunners allowed of 254 batters faced (34.6%); they lasted an average of 4-1/2 innings and threw 18.1 Pitches/IP (20+% higher than you'd like).

Looked at another way, it's 12 games and in that time they threw just shy of 1,000 pitches (995) which is essentially 1,000 pitches thrown to get through

just six games seeing as how they ate up almost exactly half the innings.

I know there's a desire to see pitchers go deeper into games but it's not like any of them are making a case for it.

* ignoring the 'opener' and treating Frankie Montas and his three run/72 pitch outing -- 72! ... in Three Innings!! -- as the starter in his last game

[SheaStadiumPornRoom]

Do they even still track pitcher wins? I wouldn't even wager I could get within like 3 of any major league starter. Except maybe Gerrit Cole. 0 right?

[stevejrogers]

Current MLB leader has 14, then there is one 13-game winner, three 12-gamers, a scrum of ten 11-game winners, and oddly ten 10-gamers

[roger_that]

I'm all for greater stability of records. One of the strengths of MLB has been the comparability of stats across eras.

[Frayed Knot]

From the dead ball era of the early 20th century, to the Ruthian rise of the HR in the '20s, the hitting dominated '30s, the pitching dominated '60s, introduction of the DH in the '70s, back to the steroid-aided hitting surge of the '90s, and into into the high-velo/high-K 21st century, baseball stats have always varied over time and so any comparison needs to be viewed through that lens anyway.

Your 'fix' is merely a manipulation for the sole purpose of driving a particular counting stat towards an artificial (by today's norms) level that you think is correct because that was more or less the norm when you were growing up. Why not jigger things so as to match the early 20th century when league leaders often topped 30? After all, wouldn't that be the 'true' correct level since that one was first and the game you and I were watching was being played the wrong way? Five man pitching staffs? ... Two different pitchers just to cover a double header? ... what are these young whippersnappers doing to MY game?!?!?

And if we're going to manipulate how you play the game just so the stats 'work out' then the comparisons fall apart anyway because the conditions that created them aren't the same.

[roger_that]

I wrote "far greater stability" not "etched in stone." You do what you can to maintain and prolong standards, and explain away whatever needs to be explained.

Besides which, the records are only a part of my post. A more important part is that I think as long as you're willing to assume that almost no starter will pitch a complete game, you get greater flexibility by putting them in in inning #3 than in inning #1.

[Frayed Knot]

If you're doing it because you think it'll win more games, as in Team games, then, fine. Although there's a dearth of evidence indicating that would be the result.

But doing it simply so the 'Gilded W' shifts more towards one set of pitchers, those designated as 'Starters' even though, under your plan, they're not actually starting, and away from the set we call 'Relievers', some of whom are now starting, then I don't see the point.

[roger_that]

doing it simply so the 'Gilded W' shifts more towards one set of pitchers,

 

Didn't I just finish writing that the more important part is that the team gets greater flexibility? I thought I was clear enough. Apparently not.

[Frayed Knot]

Teams are free to use pitchers in whatever fashion they choose now, and some do. If one or more of them hit upon a better mousetrap in doing so then more power to them.

But that's a concept totally divorced from the goal of saying, 'Hey, we've got 20+ game winners again!' (even though we, y'know, manipulated what we call and how we use 'starters' just so we could artificially achieve that goal).

[Edgy MD]

The name of the thread is "Return of the 25-game winner."

I do not object to this course of action, as the later innings are higher-leverage than the earlier ones, so there is a motive for pushing Jacob deGrom deeper into the game.

It has been used, and while sometimes it is used effectively, it is also found to be unwieldy. You have to find three or more relief pitchers who (a) are regularly effective; ( are willing to put throw 100 innings or more; and © are happy to never earn a win, save, or hold, but still accrue losses. You have to be figure out how to maneuver if you have scheduled a quality starter a week in advance, but then don't want to use him if your opener has you in a hole. You have to do that every day.

It can be done, and has been done, but it comes at a cost and the cost-benefit ratio has not paid off for any team or manager.

Still, the real issues are not being addressed.

[Benjamin Grimm]

If we really care about wins, we can reduce the starting pitcher requirement from five innings to four. Or three. It wouldn't be even close to being the stupidest innovation we've seen in recent years.

I really think the win should be more at the discretion of the official scorer. If a starter goes eight scoreless innings, and the reliever allows the game to be tied and then is still in the game when the winning run scores, he gets the win. The scorer should have the ability to override that.

[Edgy MD]

We also have every opportunity, and all the data we need, to assign wins and losses on a partial basis to multiple pitchers. It is also quite easy to divide up the responsibility for earned runs among two (or more!) pitchers. But dogma has a way of persisting.

[MFS62]

I really think the win should be more at the discretion of the official scorer. If a starter goes eight scoreless innings, and the reliever allows the game to be tied and then is still in the game when the winning run scores, he gets the win. The scorer should have the ability to override that.

 

I was more descriptive in my letter to the Rules Committee about 20 years ago, saying the reliever threw one pitch, which was hit for a double. It drives in the tying run, but the hitter is out trying to stretch it to a triple.

The rules state that a pitcher can be deprived of a win if he pitches "briefly and ineffectively" and I asked - "what could be more briefer and ineffective that that" and why, based on that EXISTING RULE the official scorer couldn't award the win to the starter?

I got a curt response that said it would conflict with another rule that said the win is awarded to the pitcher of record when the wining run is scored(if the starter pitched at least five innings)

They did not offer a path to change the rule, and I gave up.

Maybe someone should try again.

They could call it the DeGrom Rule.

Later

[roger_that]

unwieldy.

 

Meaning what? You don't like it? We knew that already.

 

You have to find three or more relief pitchers who (a) are regularly effective;

 

Yeah, you have to do this if they throw inning 1 or inning 7. It's a basic requirement of the game.

 

( are willing to put throw 100 innings or more;

"put throw? Whatever. Let's see: they throw 1 or 1 and 1/3 or 1 and 2/3rds or 2 innings every third game, so that's maybe 1 and 1/2 innings in 54 games, less the times they're injured. How is that "100 innings or more"? Do the math.

 

and © are happy to never earn a win, save, or hold, but still accrue losses.

I think some of the brighter relievers understand that their W/L records don't mean **** right now, especially if you pay them accordingly. Not too hard to explain to the less-bright ones with dumb agents either if you're patient and avoid big words.

 

Still, the real issues are not being addressed.

Enumerate, please.

Probably won't happen, unless starters start getting even fewer innings than they do now, but it makes a lot of sense. Managers, though, are notoriously reluctant to think outside the box, so somebody would have to do this and have remarkable success with it before it gets adopted more generally.

[Edgy MD]

unwieldy.

 

Meaning what? You don't like it? We knew that already.

 

Please don't ask a question and then answer it yourself. It's inherently dishonest.

You know nothing of me, and I can represent my own thoughts fine.

 

Do the math.

 

Also, please don't presume to tell me what to do. My math is fine.

[Cowtipper]

The real beauty of starting with a short-stint guy is that it’s not about gimmicks, it’s about reshaping the flow of the game from the first pitch. You’re taking control of matchups immediately, forcing the opposing manager into decisions before he’s even settled into his seat. The traditional starter role is already eroding thanks to strict pitch counts, third-time-through-the-order concerns, and a general fear of letting pitchers work deep, so this simply formalizes a trend that’s already happening. By planning your bulk pitcher for the third inning, you’re handing him a cleaner slate, fewer mismatches, and often the advantage of beginning against the bottom of the order. The opener can also bait the opponent into stacking for one hand, only to be flipped in the early innings with the opposite hand — it’s small, but it matters. From there, the bulk guy’s win probability jumps, because he’s more likely to leave with a lead, and less likely to be around when a blown save ruins his line. And yes, while wins aren’t the analytical darling they once were, they still matter for certain contracts, certain agents, and a lot of fan perception. If your opener melts down, you have the flexibility to just turn it into a bullpen game, using fringe arms to eat innings and preserving your main starter for tomorrow. Critics call it “unwieldy,” but every bullpen plan is unwieldy — this one just shifts where the uncertainty lives. The Rays already showed it works in short bursts; the real challenge is not bailing on it after the first ugly series. In fact, part of the resistance is just cultural — managers tend to fear deviating from the script unless someone else proves it successful first. Baseball has always been about adaptation, and the death of the complete game makes new adaptations inevitable. In this system, your “starter” still throws the same innings, but with fresher leverage and better matchups. The opener isn’t meant to be a stat-chaser’s tool, but if the side effect is a few more 20+ win seasons, so be it. In truth, the model shifts the focus from labels to results — a starter is just a guy who throws the most innings that day. And when the real starter gets used this way, you also control fatigue better across the season. If anything, this is less radical than it sounds; it’s just sequencing the same resources differently. The traditionalists may scoff, but then again, they once scoffed at five-man rotations, pitch framing, and defensive shifts. And somewhere in the middle of all this, someone’s going to make it work and look like a genius.

[Frayed Knot]

You folks do realize that this discussion is coming a decade-plus into the era where 'Openers' / 'Bulk Starters' have been used and that pct of starter Wins has continued to go down all along, right? The only thing being proposed here is the slight adjustment that openers should go two to three innings instead of just one to two and selling that on the assumption that results are going to be suddenly different.

But a longer stint for the opener -- a guy who is, essentially by definition, a lesser pitcher than the eventual starter -- is also a longer time for him to give up more runs and handing the starter not a lead but a deficit. And if it's the day for your Ace when the opener gets bombed are we going to still hand him the ball down multiple runs (potentially wasting his turn) or sit him down until the net game thereby both upsetting his regimen and reducing the the number of games he'll get into that season?

This isn't a 'traditionalist'* vs modern argument. If openers were the key to both wins for 'starters' and for team wins then all teams would use them and the ones who have been using them all along would be using them for longer stretches. And, again, this whole (already too long) thread was proposed on the concept of finding out a way to get traditional starters (who would no longer be starting) more 'W's - as if that is, by itself, a goal worth pursuing.

* I HATE that term!

[Jadewi]

Openers can work short term. I coached a summer team and we tried it for a few weeks when our rotation was gassed. The bulk guy was fine, but once the opener got hit the pen wore it for days. You might goose a starter’s W/L, but that stat is noisy. If the goal is wins, I’d rather use the ace in the 6th–8th where leverage spikes.Side note, this debate over which stats matter makes me think of skins. I checked https://skinsmonkey.com/blog/best-csgo-stattrak-skins and ended up choosing a budget AWP StatTrak instead of a pricier AK. Edited September 11, 2025 by Jadewi

[roger_that]

And if it's the day for your Ace when the opener gets bombed are we going to still hand him the ball down multiple runs (potentially wasting his turn) or sit him down until the net game thereby both upsetting his regimen and reducing the the number of games he'll get into that season?

 

Look at it this way: if you make the not-unreasonable assumption that (let's say) Ryan Stanek is going to get destroyed by the St. Louis Cardinals on this day, whether he starts the seventh inning or the first, do you really want (let's say) Nolan McLean to throw (and waste) six shutout innings, leave the game with a nice 3-0 lead only to see Stanek give up seven hits, two homeruns, three walks, and end the game losing 9-3?

Me, I'd rather tell McLean "Let's take another day off, and start fresh tomorrow, okay?" and I'm pretty sure McLean would prefer that to seeing his good work wasted because the bullpen couldn't hold a lead.

[MFS62]

And if it's the day for your Ace when the opener gets bombed are we going to still hand him the ball down multiple runs (potentially wasting his turn) or sit him down until the net game thereby both upsetting his regimen and reducing the the number of games he'll get into that season?

 

Also, what does it do to your actual Ace?

In Sproat's next-to-last start in the minors, he came in after the "opener" and got his ass kicked (7ER). I'm not sure whether he, their Ace, prepared the same way he would have for an actual start and that's what impacted his performance.

BTW - welcome Jadewi - good first post.

Later