Can't for the life of me understand why they didn't just pull him from the rotation and use him out of the pen a couple of times a week. They could have used him in mostly low-leverage situations just to keep him sharp so they would have had him there for a big inning or two in the playoffs. Not that you would need someone like a Strasburg to drive a wooden stake through the heart of the Cardinals or anything like that.

SHUTUPSHUTUPSHUTUPSHUTUPSHUTUPSHUTUPSHUTUPDIEDIEDIE

Touchy Washington fans introduced to the reality of October baseball................

(a) willingly chose to enter the playoffs with their best pitcher on the bench

How do people get away with this ########?

I don't know any Nats fans who said that the Nationals were good enough to win the World Series without Strasburg; I know I sure as hell never did.

Yes, the haters will have a field day, but most of the nyeah-nyeah crap should be directed at Mike Rizzo. I was never happy with his uncompromising position and shady half-truths on this issue from the get-go.

I don't know any Nats fans who said that the Nationals were good enough to win the World Series without Strasburg; I know I sure as hell never did.

Really? I think there were folks here who thought they could win without him.

I was never happy with his uncompromising position and shady half-truths on this issue from the get-go.

Duly noted. You and Chris were clearly not fans of the shutdown. But some others really bought into In Rizzo We Trust.

It's hilarious that the Nationals - whose fans haven't had a good team in forever - shut down Strasburg as if they were in the middle of a late-90s Yankees run.

Of course, even the Yankees are smart enough to know that when you have a good team that is going to make the playoffs, you ensure that your best pitchers are healthy for the playoffs. The Nationals chose, er, the other way.

Bill James is still saying it was a good move.

(a) willingly chose to enter the playoffs with their best pitcher on the bench


How do people get away with this ########?

? It's true. Strasburg is their best pitcher. It's quite easy to "get away" with the truth.

Really? I think there were folks here who thought they could win without him.

Were they Nats fans? I thought they could win without him, and the only piece of evidence to go counter to that belief in my opinion, was them using Edwin Jackson as a reliever. That is the only thing time I saw in the entire series that Strasburg inclusion could have made a difference.

BTW how is it BS to suggest the Nats willingly chose to enter the playoffs without their best pitcher?

? It's true. Strasburg is their best pitcher. It's quite easy to "get away" with the truth.

He's their most talented pitcher, that doesn't translate into success on the field, he's at best is in a three way tied for best pitcher on the team, but right now Zimmermann and Gonzalez are more refined pitchers.

BTW how is it BS to suggest the Nats willingly chose to enter the playoffs without their best pitcher?

Because Zimmermann was on the roster.

BTW how is it BS to suggest the Nats willingly chose to enter the playoffs without their best pitcher?

He's saying it's BS to call Strasburg their best pitcher, which is true in a "what have you done for me lately" sense, but probably false in the more significant true talent sense.

Of course, even the Yankees are smart enough to know that when you have a good team that is going to make the playoffs, you ensure that your best pitchers are healthy for the playoffs. The Nationals chose, er, the other way.

Why would you waste your best pitcher in the exhibition games, rather than ensuring he's healthy for next season?

He's their most talented pitcher, that doesn't translate into success on the field, he's at best is in a three way tied for best pitcher on the team, but right now Zimmermann and Gonzalez are more refined pitchers.

So it's BS to suggest that he's the best pitcher when he is arguably the best pitcher.

No, Zimmermann and Gonzalez are not better.

So it's BS to suggest that he's the best pitcher when he is arguably the best pitcher.

No, Zimmermann and Gonzalez are not better.

Ray, you pray to the alter that is fip. I'm more inclined to look at results. Strasburg is going to probably be a much better pitcher over the next five years than Zimmermann and Gonzalez, no doubt about that, but as of right now, that isn't the case. Zimmermann and Gonzalez get more innings per start and still put up better results than Strasburg.

#17, I do look at peripherals for pitchers. And he has an 11+ K/9 rate.

The innings per start is kind of a deceiving metric because that's manager decision. In the vast majority of games Strasburg could have gone further.

I think Craig is arguing a bit of a strawman here. From what I've read while Nats fans were certainly hopeful they could win without Strasburg that was obviously not the primary motivator of this move. Also, calling Strasburg the Nats best pitcher is a massive oversimplification. Even if you believe that be is the difference between him and Zimmermann or Gio is quite small. This isn't Pedro Martinez followed by Pete Schourek territory.

You can tell me all the numbers you want. Ask 10,000 baseball managers wich Washington Nationals pitcher they would want on the mound for the big game and they would all agree on Stephen Strasburg. All ####### 10,000 of them.

This isn't Pedro Martinez followed by Pete Schourek territory.

Hey, Anglo Pete gave 'em a great start. That was an excellent call by ol' one M.

You can tell me all the numbers you want. Ask 10,000 baseball managers wich Washington Nationals pitcher they would want on the mound for the big game and they would all agree on Stephen Strasburg. All ####### 10,000 of them.

I think they would take Jack Morris in his prime first.

This was always going to be a move that would be second guessed. Nats HAD to go all the way to validate it and they didn't. Not sure how I would have handled it but healthy scratch in the playoffs wasn't it.

Nats fans, the fact is that your team did not advance. They lost, and losers do not get to write the history when it comes to such matters. Believe me. I know from experience.

Wait, is there a Craig Calcaterra to be found on BB-Reference that I don't know about? What "experience" is he referring to?

Not that his general point is wrong, but the personal reference in this context is meaningless.

All I know is tat the Nats got it mind-bendingly assbackwards. Shut him down for awhile in July. Put him in the pen. Use him as a one out guy. Anything but this.

What does it really matter if Strasburg is their best starter or their third-best starter? Bottom line, he is one of their three best starters, and you want three good starters (at least) going into the postseason. Eliminating Strasburg means adding a weaker starter to the rotation and moving up your No. 4 guy to your No. 3 slot. There is no question that not having Strasburg was a major strike against Washington's playoff chances.

I don't blame Washington fans one bit for being upset with Rizzo.

Wait, is there a Craig Calcaterra to be found on BB-Reference that I don't know about? What "experience" is he referring to?

He's a Braves fan. He knows that no matter how much the Sam-He-Am faction want to extol the Braves' greatness thanks to their run of 14 straight division titles, with only one interruption, the rest of the world sees one measly WS title and chuckles.

All I know is tat the Nats got it mind-bendingly assbackwards. Shut him down for awhile in July. Put him in the pen. Use him as a one out guy. Anything but this.

Looking backwards, the better plan was the Medlen plan, but I don't think that the Nats thought they were going to be the team with the best record. I think they felt that getting Strasburg into games early would help keep fan interest up while there was still hope(and the Phillies running away with the division) They probably should have started skipping his starts or something in July, or do something different when it became apparent they were probably going to make the post season, but ultimately they made a decision and stuck with it.

They chose to play the postseason, with a ~100-win team, without their best pitcher, with the obnoxious assumption that they'll be in the playoffs repeatedly in the near future - with no basis to believe that this handling of him was any better than any other reasonable handling of him that would see him available for October.

They probably should have started skipping his starts or something in July, or do something different when it became apparent they were probably going to make the post season, but ultimately they made a decision and stuck with it.

No, they definitely should have started skipping his starts or something in July, or do something different when it became apparent they were probably going to make the postseason, but ultimately they made a poor decision and stubbornly and unnecessarily stuck with it.

It was easily apparent by July 1 that they would at the very least be playing meaningful baseball in September. They had plenty of time to do do something different but chose stubborness. I understand the concern, but I still can't quite believe they actually did it. I kept thinking I would hear that "we have decided to transition Stephen to the bullpen," but no, nothing. Amazing. You play for September and October. Not for July and August.

What Tim said.

I don't think that the Nats thought they were going to be the team with the best record. I think they felt that getting Strasburg into games early would help keep fan interest up while there was still hope

I don't remember anyone this pre-season thinking that the Nats had zero chance at the postseason. Even if they were worse than the Phillies and Braves there was still the 2nd WC to aim for. And if for whatever reason they had missed the playoffs, the only negative consequence is that Strasburg would have pitched 125 innings instead of 160 or whatever. Is that really a big deal? All that being said, when you have a 7-5 lead with Storen on the mound against Descalso and Kozma you're supposed to win.

I think Craig is arguing a bit of a strawman here. From what I've read while Nats fans were certainly hopeful they could win without Strasburg that was obviously not the primary motivator of this move.

I would agree with that, but for all of the people saying that Strasburg wouldn't be a significant loss.

The Nats shot themselves in the foot.

Also, calling Strasburg the Nats best pitcher is a massive oversimplification. Even if you believe that be is the difference between him and Zimmermann or Gio is quite small. This isn't Pedro Martinez followed by Pete Schourek territory.

But it's not like one pitcher is pitching all of the postseason innings, or all 50 innings in the NLDS. They need several pitchers for that. So this "Who is their best pitcher?" inquiry is a fool's game. And he is their best pitcher anyway.

I'm perfectly willing to reserve judgment for a few years to see how the Nats' Strasburg plan works out, but I am having a hard time deciding what criteria to judge it by in the long run …

It's hilarious that the Nationals - whose fans haven't had a good team in forever - shut down Strasburg as if they were in the middle of a late-90s Yankees run.

I think the implication that it's not a big deal because they'll have opportunities in the future is the thing that bothers me the most. It sure looks like that now, but nothing is guaranteed. It's not hard to imagine them just missing the playoffs for whatever reason, or even just ending up in the coin flip game.

Ask the 2007 Indians what it's like to be sure you'll have another crack at it. Obviously there are huge differences (there always are), but this was one hell of an opportunity they put on the line by sitting Strasburg.

Sorry Nats fans, but history is not written by the losers

...unless they're the Cubs.

Yeah, they look loaded for many years to come. But hubris is not a good attribute in a front office. All these young studs are going to be really expensive in 2-3 years and if they haven't won by then and their attendance hasn't picked up........

I love how Ray just ignores it in people call him on his bullshit.

Even though I totally agree with him re: Strasburg.

Wait, is there a Craig Calcaterra to be found on BB-Reference that I don't know about? What "experience" is he referring to?

He's a Braves fan. He knows that no matter how much the Sam-He-Am faction want to extol the Braves' greatness thanks to their run of 14 straight division titles, with only one interruption, the rest of the world sees one measly WS title and chuckles.

Okay, I was wondering just what his "experience" was, but that makes perfect sense. I've read his stuff here from time to time but I guess I zoned out the Braves fanboy part.

Sorry, but history can be written by the losers. I refer of course to all the Southern Confederacy "Lost Cause" apologists.

Of course, the Nats could easily have lost this series in five even if Strassburg had started one or two games. Getting shut out makes it kinda hard to win. Having two starters get bombed makes it kinda hard to win (and those are guys who were going to start whether Strassburg was active or not). OTOH, I am pretty damned sure that Strassburg pitching the last two or three innings of game five would have led to a different outcome, so I wholeheartedly endorse post #1.

Ooh, a Civil War hijack. That never happens around here.

Strassburg can't pitch worth a damn. That Strasburg fellow is pretty good at the baseballs.

I like this "Strassburg" thing. I want Strassburg shut down ever year in May. Nobody will complain, because, frankly, Strassburg is a terrible pitcher.

Sorry, but history can be written by the losers. I refer of course to all the Southern Confederacy "Lost Cause" apologists.

Given that it took about a dozen years for the former slaveowners to regain control over their state and local governments, and given that it took nearly 100 years for its caste system even to begin to be dismantled, I'm not so sure you can say that the South lost the Civil War.

They had plenty of time to do do something different but chose stubborness. I understand the concern, but I still can't quite believe they actually did it. I kept thinking I would hear that "we have decided to transition Stephen to the bullpen," but no, nothing. Amazing. You play for September and October. Not for July and August.

Ahh, the joys of rhetoric.

Are you sure they chose stubbornness? Is it possible that they took this new information into account and decided that it still didn't shift the tradeoff between short- and long-term sufficiently to change their minds? Is it possible they were not just weighing the benefits of Sept and Oct 2012 vs July and August 2012 but also the benefits of 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 vs. 2-4 months?

Many here assume that Strasburg wouldn't have worn down over the last month. This is a guy with a total of about 160 innings over 2 years under his belt but you're certain that a 200-210 IP load (including playoffs) would not have been a problem. You're certain that shifting him from starting to relieving would not have been a problem. You're certain that shutting him down for 4-6 weeks midseason then restarting him wouldn't have been a problem. It's funny how Rizzo is accused of being stubborn without evidence.

Of course we'll never know. But in 3 of Strasburg's last 8 starts (or 4 of 10 to your taste) he got shelled. Of course in 5 of his last 8 starts (or 6 of 10) he was pretty much lights out. His last 60 innings were worse than his first 100 from both an outcome standpoint (ERA+ around 105) and peripherals (still excellent but worse than the 1st half and his career rates). That's probably just random bumping around but if you had already started with the plan that his long-term future would be better served limiting his workload, his second half performance is prima facie evidence he was wearing down.

Using our 20/20 hindsight, we can comfortably say that even a healthy and rested Strasburg would not have made a huge difference in the last series. Sure, maybe he'd have turned up with the heroic performance at the right time, but chances are he wouldn't have. The main takeaway is that 2 starters got hit hard and the bullpen (if I added up right) gave up 16 ER in 19 IP while the offense scored 3 runs a game with a sub-300 OBP. That's right, the Nats bullpen gave up as many runs as their team scored. Using our 40/30 foresight, we can project that he (like any single player) wouldn't have changed their chances much in the next two rounds had they advanced. And we really don't have a clue whether Strasburg was wearing down over the second half of the season and possibly would have gotten shelled anyway. Or he might have pulled a Verlander.

It is interesting that all the time folks around here excoriate a GM for trading a good prospect for a small improvement in a team's playoff chances. We ridicule Ned Colletti for trading the potential of Carlos Santana to fill a hole at 3B with Casey Blake, thereby helping his chances of making the playoffs (which they did) and winning the WS (which they didn't but they did win a round of the playoffs). Heck, Colletti gets ripped for trading a mediocrity like James McDonald for Octavio Dotel. But the GM who's trying to trade a small improvement now for a bigger improvement down the road is also raked over the coals for not going for it. One might almost think some of you folks like to have it both ways.

Finally, of course the Nats could have won the WS without Strasburg. Teams worse than the Nats sans Strasburg have won the WS. They were in the crapshoot and they just needed to get hot.

EDIT: Corresponding Cardinal bullpen numbers appear to be 24.1 IP and 6 ER.

If Strasburg is in the bullpen, obviously that's a great weapon for the Nats and could have swung the series, even knowing what we know about their other struggles.

Or conversely, Strasburg starting moves Detwiler to the bullpen, which would have also come in quite handy.

I've said this once before and was pretty much dismissed as a dummy ... but I'll say it again because I think it's correct:

If he was going to be on a hard 160 IP limit, then delay the start of his season. Give him a few more weeks in his off-season regimen (ya know, to really be careful with his recovery). Then let him debut around mid-May. He's pitching a partial season either way you go; I'd rather get some innings in September/October than March/April.

Using our 20/20 hindsight, we can comfortably say that even a healthy and rested Strasburg would not have made a huge difference in the last series.

No we don't. Stop being ridiculous. He would have been very valuable last night.