Tuesday, May 21, 2013
WaPo | Ryan Mattheus breaks throwing hand punching a locker, adds to bullpen disarray
(www.washingtonpost.com)
posted 4 days ago by Coot Veal and Cot Deal make $486 every day to dumbness, nationals
|
15 comment(s)
The disarray in the Nationals’ bullpen reached a bizarre and self-inflicted new height Monday night. After the Nationals’ 8-0 loss to the Giants, Manager Davey Johnson revealed that set-up man Ryan Mattheus had broken his right hand Sunday when he punched his locker after a dreadful performance, landing him on the disabled list and leaving the Nationals scrambling for fresh arms.
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 1 of 2 pages
1 2 >For single seasons, From 1983 to 2012, For age 23, (requiring IP>=230), sorted by greatest Innings Pitched
Tell it to Harvey Haddix.
I Split ERA G HBP WP BF WHIP SO/9 SO/BB April/March 1.13 5 3 1 124 0.875 9.6 5.67 May 4.50 5 0 0 110 1.385 12.5 3.27 June 3.09 6 1 1 139 1.029 13.4 5.20 July 4.13 5 0 2 122 1.412 10.2 5.33 August 2.79 5 0 0 118 1.103 9.9 2.91I actually paid for good seats to his last start (in Miami) to see him stink up the field. His pitches didn't look that bad to me from the 1B side of home plate, but the batters tell you how the pitcher is doing and he looked a bit out of it and kind of distracted or slightly unfocused. Who knows about these things? Maybe his next start will be lights-out?
Bottom line, if Strasburg isn't lights-out then why pitch him anyway? If John Lannan can come close to his recent success in AAA we won't miss Strasburg as the Nats cruise to the NL East pennant. That's all I care about, everything beyond that is gravy.
Jamie Moyer should have a job. A pitcher who can give you 490 innings has to have some value.
Did Murray ever source his "expert" opinion on Piazza's back acne?
From the excerpt above:
See? Since we know that elbows are "supposed to be stronger" after TJS, it's already "accounted for".
Funny part is he is supposed to source the experts who think the Strasburg rules are a good idea, but he doesn't need to cite a source for this really silly "10 times age" rule?
He sourced it right there in that sentence -- Chuck Armstrong's "rule of thumb." What he didn't source was the claim "elbows are supposed to be stronger after TJS".
Maybe things really have changed but isn't Strasburg in fact having one of the all-time best seasons immediately following TJS? The old rule of thumb I recalled was that you could expect it to take about a half-season before a guy was back to his usual self. Strasburg might not quite qualify given he did have his brief bit of "rehab" pitching at the end of last season.
I was going to take a look on baseball reference a couple of guys that I thought...then it made me think, wouldn't it be cool for baseball reference to have a "Tommy John" tag (or a tag feature for players that you can just select---such as a cycle, no hitter, perfect game, 4 homerun, etc.....a lot of that you can do with pi etc..but not all of that, such as researching a tommy john surgery player or even a roid tag, suspended tag :) )
Big if? It's been five straight months baseball, everybody is fatigued. If they were in last, shutting him down might make sense. Shutting him down with the best record in baseball is an act of historical stupidity. The stuff that curses are made of.
If they do this maybe the Baseball Gods will finally give the Cubs a break a focus their full wrath on the Nationals as they would deserve.
Unfortunately that wouldn't likely shut up the Chasses and his fellow yahoos. Why anyone even pays any attention to people like that is wholly beyond me, and it's a relief that Rizzo isn't among those listening.
It's always decided by one game, the last one. There is no scenario where using one of the best pitchers in the game couldn't have turned the series.
Ricciardi=0
Nationals GM Mike Rizzo confirmed Stephen Strasburg will make two more starts before being shutdown.
Strasburg picked up a no-decision against the Cardinals on Sunday, and is now at 156-plus innings. If the Nationals stick to their current plan, Strasburg will finish among the league leaders in strikeouts, and look to improve on his 15-6 record and 2.94 ERA in his next two appearances. He remains a contender for the National League Cy Young despite his season being suspended. Source: Dan Kolko on Twitter Sep. 2 - 5:52 pm et
I think it's the wrong decision although I get why they're making it and obviously don't think there is zero chance of injury if he keeps pitching. But the writers seem to really, really, really hate it.
Yes to the former, but I think it's understood that Davey really has no say in it, so I'm not sure it will hurt him there.
While I think it's probably a mistake in judgment, it's pretty damn obvious that Strasburg is on board with it (occasional comments to the contrary notwithstanding). And if he really is convinced that this is what's best, then you've got to shut him down.
Why? Even if they finish in first?
It's not like he's engineered the situation. From last week's shouting match with Rizzo in his office, I think the writers know who is responsible for Operation Shutdown 2: Electric Boogaloo.
Sure there is -- sweep without using him.
If you use him and win, the future changes. These games aren't actually coin-flips you realize? I mean, the whole sturm and drang of dramatic narrative that surrounds most series is far, far overdone. That doesn't mean they're just random draws.
Let's say the Nats get swept in the LDS. Three not particularly close games. Now, if they use Strasburg and win game one, what happens next? For one thing, the various pressures shift. The other team knows they might face Strasburg again, etc. They may still lose three in a row. Or, they may not. You don't know, I don't know. Just like we don't know if shutting him down is preventing an injury or not. Just like I don't know if shutting him down is costing them a playoff game or not.
They've made their decision. I hope Strasburg has a long, healthy career in front of him and that he someday gets to pitch in the postseason. I think he will someday regret this decision.
That's regularly forgotten (or ignored). I still find it unlikely that a guy who gets voluntarily shelved with two-plus weeks left will get rewarded as his league's best pitcher (and particularly here, where he was just one of the candidates before the shutdown).
What does that have to do with the comment I responded to? And even if you think it does have something to do with the comment I responded to, what about the scenario where the Nats go 11-0 in the post-season without using Strassburg to throw a single inning?
Robert's comment (the one you were responding to) was following Larry's stipulation that began: "If the Nats lose a series..."
An 11-0 Nats' postseason romp (or any configuration of results that ends in a WS victory) is excluded from the scenario being discussed.
Sure there is -- sweep without using him.
If you use him and win, the future changes. These games aren't actually coin-flips you realize?
What does that have to do with the comment I responded to?
Sorry. I misinterpreted what you meant by sweep - thought you were saying they GOT swept.
Sure, if the Nats go 11-0 through the playoffs using Strasburg wouldn't have helped. Hell, if they win the world series, using Strasburg couldn't have improved things. Of course, in that event, Mr. Strasburg will have to live with the fact that he wasn't really part of that team. I kind of think that would be a fine ending to this; Strasburg sits throughout the playoffs, the Nats win a ring, he goes on to a long, great career....but never again pitches in the world series.
What are you talking about? I suppose if the Nats win that he'll be expected to turn down his ring, since those 180 or so innings he pitched had nothing to do with their success, just like Reggie Jackson told the '72 A's he didn't feel right about accepting his.
I kind of think that would be a fine ending to this; Strasburg sits throughout the playoffs, the Nats win a ring, he goes on to a long, great career....but never again pitches in the world series.
After comments like this, all we need now is for Rick Reilly to demand that Strasburg whip out his balls to prove that he's really a man.
There are some Nats fans who'd like proof as well.
There are some Nats fans who'd like proof as well.
I don't think this at all (and, in fact, I'm kind of impressed), but I am very surprised that Strasburg is on-board with the shutdown. Putting long-term prospects over short-term wants is not a mindset you see in most athletes.
Did Reggie feel fine when he didn't play in the 72 series? Could he have played and just decided not to?
I'm not questioning Strasburg's manhood. I'm not questioning his talent, drive or determination. I'm sure he's worked harder at pitching than I've ever worked at anything.
What I'm saying is that the point of the game is to win and the point of the season to win the championship. Bowing out due to long-term concern over his pitching arm and income potential may well be the right decision for Strasburg and, to a lesser extent, the Nats to make. It's just not something I can root for. It really is spreadsheet thinking, wins/$ thinking and the idea that I just find repugnant in sports. Yes, I get it, it's a business and my little rooting interests don't count for much. But, in terms of entertainment, I don't find this kind of thinking to be very entertaining. YMMV, of course.
You're (many of you) arrogant attitude that anyone who thinks he should pitch is a neanderthal who wants to check his nutsack seem awfully defensive to me. I'm simply saying that the ultimate goal of any MLB player should be to play in and win the World Series (or, Andy, shall we agree that the 90s Braves are better than the 90s Yanks?). As a fan, I don't particularly care how much money Stephen Strasburg makes in his life. While I hope he has a long career, I'd rather see a few beautiful years than 15 years of very good. I want players and teams to be trying to win. This move doesn't seem that to me. (At any rate, Andy, you're once again assuming everyone on the other side of an argument from you thinks uniformly. I'm not sure why you think that or why you think I'm questioning Strasburg's manhood. I'm saying voluntarily missing out on playing in the postseason is the kind of decision a 24 year old makes that comes back to haunt him later in life. Of course he gets a ring and he contributed mightily to it. Yay! A RING! But did he get to step on the field in the final moments? Shut a team down in the World Series? Are you telling me that if a guy is voted a playoff share though he was cut in August that that should feel the same as a guy who gets a couple of hits in the Series? Seriously?.)
I also don't like what I see as inconsistency. If he's to be treated gently, why was he started up with spring training. I'd think a couple more months of rest, bring him along slow, to the majors in July or so and let him pitch out the season makes a lot more sense than what they're doing. I'm not stating that so that he can pitch in the playoffs. I'm saying that if he can't do a full season, it doesn't make a lot of sense to start him at the start of the season and then shut him down. It makes a hell of a lot more sense to give a little extra recovery time and then bring him along.
At any rate, I think he's a wonderful pitcher. If he's the kind of guy who can just shut down when he feels fine* and his team is at the brink of doing something incredible and, potentially, once in a lifetime, he's not the kind of player I can root for. That feels very A-Rodish calculating to me.
* All this is predicated on the idea that he feels fine, is pitching well, etc. As I've said, over and over, I'd sit him down a lot sooner than if he hadn't had a recent TJ. If they come out and say, you know, he's having a little discomfort, so we're shutting him down, I'd be 100% for it. But that isn't what they're saying. They're saying, no matter what, he's done. Right or wrong, no one can know. But it isn't the sort of philosophy, on a playing field, I can get behind.
Well, he may really be, but even if he is not, if made a big fuss about it, it would just ratchet up the controversy. As long as his teammates know that he would to be out there with him and they still respect him (all indications are that they do), going along with it in the media is probably the prudent course. Not saying you are wrong, just saying that there is more than one way to read it.
Well, he may really be, but even if he is not, if made a big fuss about it, it would just ratchet up the controversy. As long as his teammates know that he would like to be out there with him and they still respect him (all indications are that they do), going along with it in the media is probably the prudent course. Not saying you are wrong, just saying that there is more than one way to read it.
It's hard for me to be critical of Strasburg when he seems to me to have very little practical input into the decision. If he instead protested, he would be criticized for being a malcontent, right?
Because Scott Boras works for him, not the other way around. There's no logical way to interpret Boras's insistence that Strasburg be shut down than to believe that Strasburg is on board with the decision.
There are some Nats fans who'd like proof as well.
There's little indication that those Nats fans constitute anything other than a vocal minority. Most of the complaints I'm seeing directed towards Strasburg are from the Dibbles and the Chasses.
------------------------------------------------
There are some Nats fans who'd like proof as well.
So SoSH and Bunyon, you tell me: What exactly is Strasburg supposed to do? He's already said plenty of times that he feels fine and that he wants to keep pitching.
Beyond that, is he supposed to go out there on shutdown day, wrestle the starter for the ball, and then say "Take it from me if you dare?"
Or should he be issuing daily statements to the media, thereby undercutting the organization, implying that his teammates aren't capable of winning without him, and accomplishing absolutely nothing of a positive nature?
Any other suggestions? A demand to be traded? A shit strike? I'm all ears.
Look, obviously I agree with Rizzo's decision, but the point is that if you think that it reeks of paranoia, cowardice, lack of foresight, or just plain old stupidity, your argument should be solely directed at Rizzo and the organization, not at the pitcher who's obviously willing to go out there if given the go-ahead. For better or worse, baseball isn't an individual sport where a player is responsible for nobody but himself, and the players don't make out the lineups. And although some people seem to find it irrelevant, Tommy John surgery is serious business.
EDIT: cokes to robin and bobm
Have his agent, you know the guy who helped build the Nats organization, make a simple statement that if the Nats don't let him pitch in the postseason, then he won't sign a long-term deal when he becomes eligible for free agency. That would be an indication that they'll have to tear the ball out of his hands, rather than the empty words that you have so clearly eaten up. Do you think the Nats' fanbase would be fully on board with the decision if Boras said that?
But hell, Boras doesn't have to make any threats at all to indicate Strasburg's attitude. If Strasburg truly wanted to pitch, then Boras should be making that claim, rather than defending the shelving. Boras is either not representing his client's wishes, or his client is not being entirely truthful about his wishes. I"m putting my money on the latter.
I refuse to believe that Strasburg has no leverage, that he's merely a pawn to Mike Rizzo's machinations. If he truly wanted to pitch in the postseason, I think the Nats would have done something, anything, to figure out a way to make it happen (stagger his starts, skip a start, limit his innings during starts). That they have done nothing of the sort to deviate from "The Plan," coupled with Strasburg's employee's rather forceful declarations of the need to shut him down, tells me that Strasburg is good with the shutdown.
Now, unlike bunyon, I'm OK with Strasburg choosing this long-term path over the short-term one. Just don't try to convince me that he really, really wants to pitch and the mean ol' Nats just won't let him.
Have his agent, you know the guy who helped build the Nats organization, make a simple statement that if the Nats don't let him pitch in the postseason, then he won't sign a long-term deal when he becomes eligible for free agency.
Yes, that would do absolute wonders for the organization's morale! Maybe he could get Garry Templeton to help him with the wording.
Or maybe the Nats should just fill the stands with out-of-town commentators, and let them make out the entire starting lineup like Bill Veeck did on Grandstand Manager's Day. Anything to keep the team focused on things that really matter.
suppose you had a magic instant MRI ray you could point at any of your pitchers who'd just had a bad couple of starts but claimed they felt "fine." does anybody doubt that you could prevent a huge ####### number of serious injuries?
Yes, because desperately wanting to play is the exact same thing as not wanting to. But as I said, Boras doesn't have to threaten anything. But if he's defending the decision, it's hard to reach any other conclusion than that his employer is OK with it.
As for your second sentence, frankly, I'm about sick of this line of argument you keep making on this subject. You think it's the right thing, fine. But this ######## you keep spewing about out-of-town commentators, as if any of us non-Washingtonians can't have an honestly formed opinion on the subject, is thoroughly obnoxious.
Page 1 of 2 pages
1 2 >You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.