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.
Rk Player IP Year Age Tm Lg G GS
1 Roger Clemens 281.2 1987 24 BOS AL 36 36
2 Fernando Valenzuela 272.1 1985 24 LAD NL 35 35
3 Dan Petry 266.1 1983 24 DET AL 38 38
4 Bret Saberhagen 260.2 1988 24 KCR AL 35 35
5 Frank Viola 257.2 1984 24 MIN AL 35 35
6 Mike Witt 250.0 1985 24 CAL AL 35 35
7 Felix Hernandez 249.2 2010 24 SEA AL 34 34
8 Ron Darling 248.0 1985 24 NYM NL 36 35
9 Bob Milacki 243.0 1989 24 BAL AL 37 36
10 Bill Gullickson 242.1 1983 24 MON NL 34 34
11 Mark Gubicza 241.2 1987 24 KCR AL 35 35
12 Richard Dotson 240.0 1983 24 CHW AL 35 35
Rk Player IP Year Age Tm Lg G GS
1 Fernando Valenzuela 261.0 1984 23 LAD NL 34 34
2 Bret Saberhagen 257.0 1987 23 KCR AL 33 33
3 Roger Clemens 254.0 1986 23 BOS AL 33 33
4 Dwight Gooden 248.1 1988 23 NYM NL 34 34
5 Alex Fernandez 247.1 1993 23 CHW AL 34 34
6 Mike Witt 246.2 1984 23 CAL AL 34 34
7 Jim Abbott 243.0 1991 23 CAL AL 34 34
8 Greg Swindell 242.0 1988 23 CLE AL 33 33
9 Mike Mussina 241.0 1992 23 BAL AL 32 32
10 Mark Buehrle 239.0 2002 23 CHW AL 34 34
11 Felix Hernandez 238.2 2009 23 SEA AL 34 34
12 Greg Maddux 238.1 1989 23 CHC NL 35 35
13 Dontrelle Willis 236.1 2005 23 FLA NL 34 34
14 Livan Hernandez 234.1 1998 23 FLA NL 33 33
15 Clayton Kershaw 233.1 2011 23 LAD NL 33 33
16 Brad Radke 232.0 1996 23 MIN AL 35 35
17 John Smoltz 231.1 1990 23 ATL NL 34 34
“By pitching nine innings,”
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 2.91
“No more innings than 10 times a pitcher’s age.”
A column in The New York Times two weeks ago said injury experts “have praised the team” for its stance on Strasburg’s injury, but the writer doesn’t name or quote any of his experts. The writer, David Leonhardt, is the Times’ Washington bureau chief. Geography apparently qualifies him to make other questionable statements.
I see no mention in TFA excerpt about Tommy John surgery
Elbows are supposed to be stronger after Tommy John surgery. Using the rule of thumb Armstrong cited, 10 times Strasburg’s age would give him a maximum of 240 innings, well above the number he will have, even accounting for the operation.
Maybe things really have changed but isn't Strasburg in fact having one of the all-time best seasons immediately following TJS?
He won't win the Cy Young if he doesn't pitch out the season. No way the writers vote for an uninjured guy who gets shut down. My guess is it costs Davey votes in MoY as well.
There is no scenario where using one of the best pitchers in the game couldn't have turned the series.
As we all know, only 32 people get NL CYA or MOY votes in any given year. The opinions being loudly expressed by many in the MSM are not necessarily going to represent those of the subset that actually votes.
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? 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Any other suggestions? A demand to be traded? A #### strike? I'm all ears.
Yes, that would do absolute wonders for the organization's morale! Maybe he could get Garry Templeton to help him with the wording.
Because Scott Boras works for him, not the other way around.
Actually your hypothetical is infinitely more self-centered than Templeton's almost comical threat to boycott a meaningless exhibition game. You're saying that Strasburg should threaten (through Scott Boras) to sabotage the Nats' long term interests if they don't cave on this one decision. I can't imagine anything that would be more completely destructive of either his or the Nats' interest. It would be almost breathtakingly counterproductive in every respect.
I've said that they have less standing to comment on what's an internal team decision than Nats fans do.
This is a BTF meme, but it has holes. While technically true, it seems pretty logical to assume that a guy in his 20s would be guided by the advice of the biggest name in the sports rep biz, even if the young guy in question disagreed with the advice intuitively. If by "on board" you mean "going along with Rizzo and Boras", yeah. If by "on board" you mean "totally 100% behind the shutdown and would put up a fuss if asked to pitch", I kind of doubt it.
(other than, I suppose, that Stephen Strasburg is a complete and utter moron and that he has no choice but to go along with whatever his agent tells him, which I have no reason to believe is the truth).
If the Nationals are 1 in 6 with him, what are they without him?
So he shouldn't necessarily "do anything", but to prove that he means it he has to do "something to show it."
Again, like what? This is getting a bit confusing.
This is what I don't get. You are talking about Boras like he is the guy who takes Strasburg's dog for a walk when the Nats are on the road. Boras is worth millions of dollars, represents many big-time players, and has negotiated some of the biggest contracts in the history of American sports. Listening to Boras' advice on a career/money/longevity issue would not make Strasburg a "complete and utter moron"; on the contrary, I would think it would make him pretty smart. Who has a better track record of helping top-tier MLB stars make big money on long-term deals than Scott Boras?
So, ISTM that if Strasburg's big-time agent AND the team's GM are telling Strasburg that the shutdown is the way to go, well, sure, Strasburg could go all Rob Dibble, fire Boras, and tell ESPN and MASN that he wants the damn ball, but I don't see that doing so would be a particularly good idea. But he's a ballplayer, so I think it is pretty safe to assume that he wants to play ball.
However, a Tommy John shutdown may boost the Nats' chances in 2013, '14 and '15 to 1 in 5 or even 1 in 4,
I said he'd be a moron for thinking he has no choice but to listen to Boras.
I don't believe for a second that if SS was in "damn the arm, we've got a championship to win" mode, the Nats wouldn't have tried to find a way to accomodate their young superstar's desire to, you know, pitch for them.
he'd at the very least tell his agent to STFU about how he absolutely, positively must be shutdown.
* Now, whether I agree with the dangers is another matter. My feeling is Rizzo has probably oversold the dangers of going beyond the innings limit, has no basis for feeling that the exact plan must be followed, rather than one that adhered to the innings limit but in such a way that allowed Strasburg to pitch in October, and is probably overestimating the Nats chances of ever getting in this position again.
Well, I was about to say that one key here is that you and Andy differ on what would happen if Strasburg went all nuclear on this. You are assuming that the Nats would cave and let him pitch; Andy seems to be assuming that they would not cave and would not let him pitch.
but it's just one of the many things in his arsenal
Keeping his arm healthy but thoroughly alienating him in the process (which I think would be a pretty common reaction if he was being shut down against his will) doesn't do a lot of good for the club.
Thus, I find the idea that he simply has no say in a decision that is ultimately being made to protect HIS future to be pretty farfetched.
But of course he "accepts" their decision, for the reasons I've stated: He's powerless and has no alternative that wouldn't make him seem like he's picking a pointless fight that he could never win on any level. And of course the management is going to say whatever it will about his mindset
if Strasburg is intensely pissed off, why would the Nats tell the media and the fans that? It is much easier and safer to play it the way they are playing it.
If Strasburg was intensely pissed off, I'd expect his representative to tell the media and fans that, or at the very least be silent. I wouldn't expect his agent to be toeing the company line.
I see no reason not to take him at his word when he says that.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (2 members)
Page rendered in 0.9715 seconds, 53 querie(s) executed