Is there more in the link? Cuz this seems to entirely miss the point. The limit is not about Strasburg wearing down this season, the concern is about his future. That concern may be off-base but showing that similar pitchers didn't wear down in-season doesn't address it.

Some of the group:

Brett Anderson at 21, 195 IP in 3 years after that
Armas at 23, hurt at 25
Billingsley at 23, solid but unspectacular since
Bonderman at 20, solid but unspectacular
Buehrle at 22, woo-hoo!
Bumgarner at 21 in 2001, so far so good
Cahill at 21, 3 good years since
Cain at 21, jackpot
Cecil at 23, seems healthy majors/minors
Joba at 23, this didn't end well
Cueto at 22, slightly fragile jackpot

OK, too many, I'm getting bored. There are many happy endings (King Felix, Verlander, Kershaw) and sad endings (Prior, Harden, Kazmir). I suspect there's no magic to the 150 innings at <=23 in the aggregate other than standard "pitchers get hurt." Also, almost by definition, anybody we recognize as a stud in his prime survived his early usage. Still, at least it's on point.

• It was the pitcher’s first season throwing 150 innings.

• The pitcher had not previously thrown 150 innings in his pro career.

How do you expect to find guys who met both of these critera?

The excerpt doesn't mention Tommy John surgery, but TFA mentions it with regard to a couple other pitchers, then goes on to conclude that there is no conclusion to be drawn despite the headline. This whole thing centers around Strasburg's T.J. surgery, not just that he's 23 or whatever else is mentioned.

That's my take, although it's too late/early to be reading this stuff and I'm over the whole discussion since Rizzo's mind is (supposedly) made up; this article won't change it. We shall see come September.

The FA was written by two interns. Two, because analysis this deep is just too much work for one person.

I loved the sample size for their dismissal of the Tommy John surgery -- two. One of whom was AJ Burnett, who returned in June, pitched 120 innings and was several years older than Strasburg. The other was Jordan Zimmermann -- who Rizzo and Johnson have stated is the blueprint for what they're doing.

What an astoundingly bad piece of analysis.

It seems to me that referring to what pitchers do in general neglects that Strasburg is an individual, not a pitcher in general. Now, granted, using past evidence to determine what a pitcher could take physically is a reasonable thing to do, but it's also reasonable to account for individual variance in Strasburg's case in a fashion that the Nationals training and medical staff is far better equipped to do than anyone else possibly could be. I don't know that the Nationals have the best possible blueprint for this, but they seem to be a "smart organization" and I'm more inclined to trust them than an analysis that relies purely on what pitchers do on average.

I still don't want Strasburg shut down, but I think the author of this piece makes a really poor argument, especially for the reason Walt lays out in post #1.

Joba at 23, this didn't end well

Though, of course, that had a lot more to do with Pudge Rodriguez than innings pitched.

Joba at 23, this didn't end well

KEEP STRASBURG AWAY FROM TRAMPOLINES!

...and bugs

Instead of making the test be first year over 150IP, maybe some study of number of IP increased over prior seasons. Something like < 100 IP previously and > 150 IP this season.

I hate to think this, but they should just get their '2003-Mark-Prior year out of him while they have the chance.

I hate to think this, but they should just get their '2003-Mark-Prior year out of him while they have the chance.

I am with you on this. Shutting him down seems like an implicit acceptance that he is likely to get hurt again (unless there is some reason to believe that he is more likely to get hurt late in a season than early in a season, which this crappy article seems to refute). If he's going to break down, why would you shelve him during a pennant race so you can reallocate those innings to the middle of another season when the team might not be in contention? This year is pennant race bird in hand.

I hate to think this, but they should just get their '2003-Mark-Prior year out of him while they have the chance.

Remind me never to let you watch my marshmallows for me.

I am with you on this.

You neither.

Shutting him down seems like an implicit acceptance that he is likely to get hurt again (unless there is some reason to believe that he is more likely to get hurt late in a season than early in a season, which this crappy article seems to refute). If he's going to break down, why would you shelve him during a pennant race so you can reallocate those innings to the middle of another season when the team might not be in contention? This year is pennant race bird in hand.

While I agree that having a shot at the postseason is something you need to weigh, I think you're missing something fundamental here: the innings limit this year, if enforced, is because they have reason to believe that a higher workload *this year* is an unacceptable risk.

In other words, no it isn't "an implicit acceptance that he is likely to get hurt again" in general terms, but is specifically meant to mitigate what they deem higher risk to his career right now as he continues to recover from surgery and the resultant time off.

Edit: And I should add, I'm not entirely sold that the limit they chose still makes sense, I'm just arguing the premise that the limit means they see him as inherently fragile.

Can someone explain how Ivan Rodriguez injured Joba Chamberlain? Suddenly this is what everyone says about Joba Chamberlain. I have no memory at all of whatever incident this is referring to.

Since retiring, Ivan Rodriguez has gone into the trampoline selling biz. The company is called Acme.

Can someone explain how Ivan Rodriguez injured Joba Chamberlain? Suddenly this is what everyone says about Joba Chamberlain. I have no memory at all of whatever incident this is referring to.

I've noticed the same thing. And #16 doesn't really explain it.

It's a reference to Joba's shoulder injury in 2008. From bronx banter:

Rangers third baseman Ramon Vazquez singled on Chamberlain’s first pitch of the fifth inning. Ian Kinsler then worked the count full. Chamberlain’s 3-2 pitch was a slider low and away. Kinsler checked his swing and drilled the pitch straight down into the dirt in front of home plate. The ball bounced once, then rolled forward just enough to enter fair territory. Ivan Rodriguez pounced on the ball and fired it to second base, where Robinson Cano turned an apparent double play.

[...]

Chamberlain saw the home plate ump rule the ball foul and came forward off the mound pointing to both Kinsler and the umpire. Ivan Rodriguez didn’t hear him, and Rodriguez’s throw to second base came directly at Chamberlain’s head. In ducking that throw, Chamberlain lept backwards off his feet and landed on his rump before tumbling over in a backwards somersault. Before Chamberlain’s body hit the ground, however, his right arm reached back and attempted to brace his fall.

Chamberlain denied that the fall had anything to do with his injury.

Isn't Acme the same company that Wylie Coyote gets all his neat Roadrunner capture supplies from?

And I should add, I'm not entirely sold that the limit they chose still makes sense, I'm just arguing the premise that the limit means they see him as inherently fragile

That's exactly the problem I have with it. If there was a scientific reason to believe that going above 160 IP this year was more of a risk than 180, 200, 120, or limits in the offseason, or limits in the future, or whatever else, then I'd be on board with it. But I have seen nothing to suggest that it is much more than an arbitrary number, and that is not enough to outweigh the shot at winning the division, at least to me.

[20] BING BING BING. That's what's driving me crazy about the "shut him down" arguments -- it's as if there's something scientific or empirical about the choices they're making when it's nothing of the sort.

I have a few suspicions that the team's looking at it more closely than counting innings. There are certainly ways to go about it: values for pitches under stress, types of pitches, etc. As well as some type of pitchfx-based analysis to try to id any change in mechanics or delivery.

But this isn't the case where anyone can say, "if we shut him down after 180 innings, we've reduced the chances for injury by 47% in 2014".

I think arm fatigue can be a factor in injury. If it isn't why do they limit minor league pitcher innings? By that logic, as long as a pitcher is effective, keep pitching him. Managers have no problems doing that generally. Rizzo has never set a specific limit, he's just said it won't be as much as a normal workload for a more experienced pitcher. It seems to be more in keeping with a developmental constraint, as they're still developing a young pitcher where you don't want to add too many innings from year to year when they are a prized prospect. He hasn't had the advantage of even a full professional healthy year yet. The interruption caused by the injury set back the timetable, so going past 180 would be odd unless you just ignore it totally. Then you still have to consider the the mechanics issue that may have brought some of this on, and there's reason to be careful. At every little step they are careful with this guy, too hot, too much Ben Gay, too many pitches, too many reporters asking him questions, etc. This guy is worth as much to them as the playoffs.

This guy is worth as much to them as the playoffs.

You're probably right, but that presents it as a dichotomy where there probably isn't one. I also think you are hitting on the right point that there is a lot more art than science to this process. They have many experienced people around who understand pitcher usage, mechanics, repeated motion, fatigue, pitch type, etc much better than most of us do. If they see red flags in those factors that trumps the IP line, then there's not much I can criticize.

On the other hand, what do we actually KNOW about pitcher usage? I don't mean what Tom Verducci believes, or what many teams seem to apply. What do we actually know?

-Pitchers who started and pitched deep into games every day over 100 years ago did not last very long.

-For a long stretch of time, pitchers started about every 4th day and threw lots of innings (many over 300 annually, with fewer pitches per inning). Some stayed mostly healthy with less developed training/medical care, others got hurt. We do not know much about their mechanics, we know more about many of their body types.

-Some pitchers cannot stay healthy for more than a few starts at a time no matter what kind of pitch count restriction they are on.

Am I missing anything big?

These premises have led me to believe that the main factor in pitcher injuries is mechanics. There will be guys who get hurt from over-exerting on an individual pitch or outing (especially with longer ABs and longer outings now). There will also be guys who wear down over a very long period of heavy use (I think Roy Halladay is an instance of a durable guy who has worn down over time. Blyleven eventually had arm surgery, so did many other work horses). Nonetheless, I believe that mechanics- and to an extent, body type- drive pitcher health. That makes me pessimistic about Strasburg, though there are certainly guys who looked to be injury prone early and overcame it with time.

Remind me to never let you watch my marshmallows for me.

That's child abuse!

Thanks for #18. I also had no idea what the heck you were all talking about.

#23 Even today the best study on the matter is still probably Craig Wright's in The Diamond Appraised. And his conclusion was nowhere near as strong as most people make it out to be. Basically, be risk adverse with pitchers under 25. He suggested an IP limit of around 170 and also suggested that you limit the workload in any given game (his recommendations are expressed in batters faced rather than pitches)

It's not that this eliminates the risk of injury, it's just that pitchers who are worked hard under the age of 25 don't tend to have great careers no matter how good they looked when starting out.

Earl Weaver had his own way of handling young pitchers. He liked to give them a year of long relief and then after that, they were pretty much treated as any other pitcher. Even then, when Jim Palmer was coming back from injury in 1969 he handled him pretty carefully. In an odd sort of way it helped that Jim Hardin was also having arm problems. Cuellar and McNally went every 4th day and Palmer, Hardin and Phoebus split the other spots. (With Palmer rarely going on 3 days rest)

Can someone explain how Ivan Rodriguez injured Joba Chamberlain? Suddenly this is what everyone says about Joba Chamberlain. I have no memory at all of whatever incident this is referring to.

I've noticed the same thing. And #16 doesn't really explain it.

I've noticed the same thing, and it's a silly thing to say, since IRod's throw to second (causing Chamberlain to fall awkwardly) had nothing to do with any shoulder injury.