I suppose it makes a more interesting media narrative to say that the Nationals are losing because of Strasburg's absence, but it doesn't seem to actually jibe with what's going on on the field. The 30 runners they've stranded in three games, on the other hand, has had a substantial effect. I'm surprised the media isn't jumping on the narrative of unclutchy young players instead of rehashing the Strasburg decision.

I suppose it makes a more interesting media narrative to say that the Nationals are losing because of Strasburg's absence

Baseball is a team game such that no one ever loses because of one player. But having an ace in their rotation over a league averageish pitcher would have improved the Nationals odds of winning this series by several points. It's easy to argue against claims that only people who don't understand baseball would make, but it doesn't serve to defend the actual choices the Nats made.

I could've easily appreciated Whiteyball if it'd been played on anything but a Superball playing field. I've got nothing against the running game---hell, I would've enjoyed the deadball era---but if you consider "artificial turf hits" a legitimate part of baseball, then I'd say you're not much of baseball fan yourself.

Artificial turf was great, even if I didn't realize it at the time*. It opened up an entirely new way of winning baseball games. You could play Earl Ball or Whitey Ball, and both were winning formalas if you had the talent. It's much better than the single style that small parks, jumpy balls and thin bat handles have wrought.

(And yes, Randy, your objection has been noted).

* Not speaking aesthetically, of course. It was ugly, and every instinct I have says that playing baseball on plastic should be an affront to the game. But it really did bring running into the game, and that's enough to overcome my gut feelings (even if my Red Sox had very little hope whenever they traveled to KC).

O ye of little faith. Strasburg would've obviously led the Nats to a 0 to -2 win.

His greatness would have led the umpires to declare that a shutout was not enough credit and that only by putting the Cards in negative numbers could justice be served.

I like Stras very much of course, but he really didn't pitch very well his last few starts. Is it a given that he would have in the postseason?

Oh, I do too. But I don't think a Cardinals victory would have been a surprise of any sort. That was a damn fine ballclub the Sox swept.

Swept in the most dominant victory in World Series history. I think that was the year it became obvious the NL was the weaker league. The Cardinal team was good (Carpenter + Pujols, Rolen, Edmonds and Walker is pretty good) but it wouldn't have won anywhere near 105 games in the AL. 90? Sure.

Teams that have won World Championships in the last decade while winning 90 or fewer games in the regular season:

2011 Cardinals
2006 Cardinals

Nobody wants to see a third entry on the list.

In fact, only 2 other teams in the entire division era have won with fewer than 90 wins. The 2000 Yankees, and 1987 Twins. And only the 1995 Braves (in a strike shortened season, and 1974 A's won with 90.

the Whiteyball teams won divisions. And they won 92, 101, and 95 games, not 83 and 88.

First off, the 83-win team did win their division. Just like the 82-win Mets in 1973 and the 85-win Twins in '87. And yes, I acknowledge that between the questionable quality of the team and the lackluster effort put forth by their opponents in the 2006 WS, that title is viewed by many (myself included) as cheaper than might otherwise be the case.

Because they routinely sneak in the back door of the playoffs and then run the table on the short series, which is ########.

Because I am sick and tired of them oozing into the playoffs every f#cking year and having the cosmic forces conspire to get them into the World Series

If by "sneaking in the back door" you mean winning their division (2006) or being a 90-win Wild Card team (2011), well, ####, I don't know what to tell you. That sounds pretty legit to me.

Even if I give you 2006 as being cheap---again, they won their division, but were fortunate to face a sleepwalking Detroit team---what are the others? Between 1968 and that 2006---almost 40 years---they were in 4 World Series, three of which they lost.

Where's the legacy of back-door sneakery? Was it last year??? That's ########, a 90-win team that finishes strong is legit. They beat the favored Phillies in a great series culminating in an epic 1-0 elimination game. That's great baseball, not sneakery. They averaged 7 runs a game and slugged .500 in taking the Brewers in 6, then battled through a classic World Series to emerge as champs. That's just great playoff baseball.

We all know the playoffs and the World Series aren't about finding out who's the "best team," and I realize that people at least want the teams in the running to be "deserving." But once you've made the playoffs you are deserving, by definition. Sh!tty, crappy teams don't make the postseason. Look at the roster of that 2006 Cardinal team, or the 2011 team, or this year's team, and you'll see a good, playoff-caliber team.

Once you're in, it's a crap shoot. For a team that's so lucky, to have made the postseason 9 times since 2000 but only have two titles doesn't seem so hot.

I'm seeing a lot of "Strasburg was terrible in two of his last three starts" start to pop up.

The only counter I'll offer? That the one of three was his dismantling of the Cardinals.

Baseball is a team game such that no one ever loses because of one player. But having an ace in their rotation over a league averageish pitcher would have improved the Nationals odds of winning this series by several points.

Sure, I think everyone knows this, including Rizzo. What's happening here (by "here", I'm referring to the media reaction, not BBTF) is a post facto explanation for the Nationals failure (which isn't even yet assured) being the absence of Strasburg. The reality, if we're doing that sort of post facto explaining, is that they're losing because of a lack of timely hitting, and because the pitching has been much worse than it normally is.

If by "sneaking in the back door" you mean winning their division (2006) or being a 90-win Wild Card team (2011), well, ####, I don't know what to tell you. That sounds pretty legit to me.

I guess tell us that you disagree, which you have. Those are still back door entry...

Those are still back door entry

Cue Mike Piazza reference

So Rizzo not only knows that this specific plan is best for Strasburg and the organization, he also anticipated losing the NLDS due to hitting deficiencies rather than pitching. Wow, that is some GM!

I hadn't thought about it from the perspective of other teams/GMs, but yeah, I don't think it's appreciated. This definitely opens the door for players/agents to make bolder demands as far as rest/rehab/usage.

Might have been nice to use Detwiler out of the bullpen in games 2 or 3. May not have made a difference, but they could have had a fresher bullpen for today's elimination game. Although I'm sure Rizzo already knows the bullpen won't be the reason they lose today. (Still hoping they win, by the way, although beyond this round, I'm not so sure)

boy when cardsfanboy finds this thread you are all in deep sh8t

But having an ace in their rotation over a league averageish pitcher would have improved the Nationals odds of winning this series by several points. It's easy to argue against claims that only people who don't understand baseball would make, but it doesn't serve to defend the actual choices the Nats made.

It'll look especially bad if this turns out to be the Nats' only real chance at a title, and they chose to handicap themselves. I wouldn't necessarily predict that to be the case, but plenty of teams people thought were going places turned out to be one-year wonders. They did have several guys on both sides of the ball suddenly be markedly better than they had ever been before.

Teams have seasons where absolutely every last thing they do works out and some other seasons where absolutely nothing does. The latter is obvious while it's happening (see this year's Red Sox and to a lesser degree, this year's Phillies) while the former isn't except perhaps in retrospect.

This would be a nice tack for Rizzo to take in the post-series press conference. "Our team was so inept, we wouldn't have won if we'd activated Strasburg, Frank Howard, Goose Goslin and Walter Johnson."

To be fair, some of those guys are dead.

No, but you don't #### with the baseball gods.

Yes, and as Nolan proved in the other thread, those gods are bigger than Josh's god.

or something like that.

Oh, I do too. But I don't think a Cardinals victory would have been a surprise of any sort. That was a damn fine ballclub the Sox swept.

Swept in the most dominant victory in World Series history.

Oh, really?

Is it a given that he would have in the postseason?

Exactly as much as it's a given that he would have gotten hurt.

What's happening here (by "here", I'm referring to the media reaction, not BBTF) is a post facto explanation for the Nationals failure (which isn't even yet assured) being the absence of Strasburg.

I don't know. Criticizing this argument, while possibly valid, only seems to affirm the "Rizzo was right" argument, which I still think is highly dubious. The details of the narrative were undoubtedly going to change as the Nats' playoffs fate was determined (and as their future with Strasburg plays out), but the underlying criticism hasn't changed at all: the Nationals made a decision to put less than their best team on the field for the playoffs.

Regardless of whether or not they get blown out by 20 runs today absolutely refusing to alter Strasburg's usage and sitting him down for the playoffs was beyond stupid. Lying about the evidence and information that one had just makes it all the more loathsome.

This is not a team that should be rewarded for its stupidity. If I wasn't living in DC right now I'd be cheering for a metor that takes out both teams.

If I wasn't living DC and have a chance to get WS tickets the team I'd be cheering to go to the Series in the NL would be the Giants since they would be the least objectionable team still standing. Over in the AL it would be the A's followed by the Orioles.

Oh, really?

From a margin of victory standpoint, the 2007 Red Sox beat all of them (though not the 2001 Diamondbacks or 1961 Yankees).

The only counter I'll offer? That the one of three was his dismantling of the Cardinals.

Yeah, for 6 innings. Then he was at 100 pitches and left the game and the Birds got into the pen for 3 runs in three innings.

Do you think if Strasburg wasn't shut down he'd be going longer than 6 innings in a postseason game? He's routinely at or above 100 pitches after 6...

So the pen was predestined to give up all those runs regardless of situation and who they faced?

Oh, I do too. But I don't think a Cardinals victory would have been a surprise of any sort. That was a damn fine ballclub the Sox swept.

Swept in the most dominant victory in World Series history. I think that was the year it became obvious the NL was the weaker league. The Cardinal team was good (Carpenter + Pujols, Rolen, Edmonds and Walker is pretty good) but it wouldn't have won anywhere near 105 games in the AL. 90? Sure.

Oh, really?

From a margin of victory standpoint, the 2007 Red Sox beat all of them (though not the 2001 Diamondbacks or 1961 Yankees).

That's fine, but I was responding to a point about 2004, not 2007.

I don't know. Criticizing this argument, while possibly valid, only seems to affirm the "Rizzo was right" argument, which I still think is highly dubious. The details of the narrative were undoubtedly going to change as the Nats' playoffs fate was determined (and as their future with Strasburg plays out), but the underlying criticism hasn't changed at all: the Nationals made a decision to put less than their best team on the field for the playoffs.

I think I miscommunicated. My point is that the results of the playoffs simply can't validate or invalidate Rizzo's decision making process. As all of us here know, Strasburg's presence would increase their chances of winning each series by a few percentage points. That's not a trivial thing at all, especially when considering the multiplicative effect of going multiple rounds deep. What I'm objecting to is any sort of narrative about the playoffs being blamed on Strasburg.

Because the whole thing makes me feel snarky (and I suspect this is the case for others), we're inclined to point out that the narrative being painted doesn't even describe what's actually happened on the field.

So the pen was predestined to give up all those runs regardless of situation and who they faced?

No, but you can't assume the pen would be any better than their current demonstrated level of postseason effectiveness... (10 earned runs in 13 innings, with a 1.69 WHIP)

I think the problems for the Nationals are:

1. The very fact that people are wondering about this is bad.

2. The defense of this move has involved people seriously arguing that the loss of the team's best pitcher - and one of the best pitchers in the league - is not significant.

3. If it's not the time for Strasburg, with the Nats in the playoffs with arguably the best team, when in the hell are they saving him for? Speculative future playoff runs with teams not as good and when they only have him under team control for a limited time? You play the game for a playoff run like this - or so I've been told by some of the same people who are fine with this move now.

Rizzo's move was silly and bizarre at the time, and looks no better now.

And the biggest problem is that Rizzo pulled this 160-IP limit out of his ass.

OK, I'll admit I haven't paid much attention to this whole saga, but regardless of the effects/lack thereof on the team's postseason performance - did Rizzo ever give any rationale as to why it wasn't feasible to shut Strasburg down for, say, the last few weeks of the regular season, give him plenty of rest, and then bring him back for a start or two in the playoffs? Was there any data that would indicate that a total shutdown instead of extended rest was the only viable way to save his arm?

No, but you can't assume the pen would be any better than their current demonstrated level of postseason effectiveness... (10 earned runs in 13 innings, with a 1.69 WHIP)

With 6 of those runs and 5 of those innings coming in Game 2. Should we expect Gio or Stephen to only go 3 innings in game 2?

OK, I'll admit I haven't paid much attention to this whole saga, but regardless of the effects/lack thereof on the team's postseason performance - did Rizzo ever give any rationale as to why it wasn't feasible to shut Strasburg down for, say, the last few weeks of the regular season, give him plenty of rest, and then bring him back for a start or two in the playoffs? Was there any data that would indicate that a total shutdown instead of extended rest was the only viable way to save his arm?

Rizzo didn't think shutting Strasburg down for a month and then starting him back up would be a good idea. He thought it was too risky.

I think the reality is that Rizzo like most people at his level in his profession was risk adverse. He had a "book" and he was following it and furthermore by following it the advantages would be almost impossible to measure when it would matter.

Count me in as one of the non-hysterical on this issue. But I first-guessed it too, and I must say, if the Nats lose to St Louis, they'll have to take some criticism. The only way to defuse it will be to follow Strasburg to a series win next year, thereby proving their long-term smarts.

As to the Cardinals, I have as much right to hate them as anybody, but I have to say that Chris Carpenter is a serious pitching mensch. It's very hard to hate someone who consistently goes out there and kicks playoff butt, even if your team's is the butt being kicked. My respect is accorded.

I want Nats vs. Reds really badly. I can't remember the last time we had an LCS without at least one sort of eh team. 98 wins vs. 97 wins sounds pretty sweet.

The only way to defuse it will be to follow Strasburg to a series win next year, thereby proving their long-term smarts.

Well, a WS win covers up a lot of things but it doesn't actually prove that his plan was correct. If they win the series next year the argument can be that not only could they have won in 2013 but in 2012 as well.

I want Nats vs. Reds really badly. I can't remember the last time we had an LCS without at least one sort of eh team. 98 wins vs. 97 wins sounds pretty sweet.

Except both teams are no longer 98 and 97 win teams because of injuries and usage decisions.

Rizzo didn't think shutting Strasburg down for a month and then starting him back up would be a good idea. He thought it was too risky.

Did he ever point to any evidence for that belief other than his "gut?" If that was his basis for ruling out what would seem to be the optimal solution, I can see why people are pissed.

With 6 of those runs and 5 of those innings coming in Game 2.

And 4 more (earned) runs coming in 8 innings in Games 1 and 3, meaning the starters (including Gio) only went 5 innings in each of those as well.

Well, a WS win covers up a lot of things but it doesn't actually prove that his plan was correct.

nor does elimination prove it wrong.

If they win the series next year the argument can be that not only could they have won in 2013 but in 2012 as well

OK, so they'll actually have to win in '13 and '14 to come out ahead :)


it doesn't actually prove that his plan was correct.

nor does elimination prove it wrong

I think we can take this whole nil post facto doctrine a bit far. If you can't argue from results, then any decision in the long run is the same as anything else. I think it's human nature, and not particularly irrational, to ask "hey, how is that choice working out for you?"

if the Cards womp up the jams today

Nothing would make me happier than for catchphrases from comedy podcasts to take over sports discourse.

nor does elimination prove it wrong.

It kinda does. Sitting Strasburg down decreased the chances of winning games and he did so while gaining virtually nothing. Rizzo's plan for Strasburg is not the only way to go about handling this situation. Win or lose there were better ways to handle it but Rizzo refused to alter his decision.

Did he ever point to any evidence for that belief other than his "gut?" If that was his basis for ruling out what would seem to be the optimal solution, I can see why people are pissed.

He claimed he talked to doctors and experts on this subject and he came to his conclusions based on their advice. Yet the doctors have stated that they were not part of the process.

"You don't save a pitcher for tomorrow. Tomorrow it may rain." - Leo Durocher.

And the Cardinals suck.

He claimed he talked to doctors and experts on this subject and he came to his conclusions based on their advice. Yet the doctors have stated that they were not part of the process.

Nor do the doctors have anything meaningful to add, other than pronouncing a pitcher injured or healthy or healthy enough to start rehabbing or pitch in games.

They have precisely nothing to add on the subject of a 160-IP limit, or what IP-limit is best for pitchers coming off of TJ, or whether preventing a pitcher from increasing his workload by >50 innings from season to season is best, etc etc etc. Rizzo pretty much made up the basis for his decision from whole cloth.

Rizzo decreased his team's chances of winning a postseason series, and now in an elimination game the Nats have their 5th starter on the mound instead of Strasburg.

The Nats almost need to win a future championship on the back of Strasburg to make up for reducung an opportunity to win one with the best team in the league. And even if they win one, there's not much to say that Rizzo's decision helped in the least.

And if Strasburg gets hurt in future years, or Bryce Harper does, or the Nats aren't as good, it's a problem that they reduced this opportunity.

Did he ever point to any evidence for that belief other than his "gut?" If that was his basis for ruling out what would seem to be the optimal solution, I can see why people are pissed.

Yes, he did. I'm sure people will correct my details, but he had, I believe, a 50-page binder with information and statistics. He also had the plan formed with the doctor who performed the surgery, and also Dr. Andrews.

People are welcome to disagree with the conclusions, with the data, or even with the credentials of the surgeons, but it's disingenuous to claim that he pulled the number out of his ass.

He also had the plan formed with the doctor who performed the surgery, and also Dr. Andrews.

Except the doctors have stated they were not part of the planning and were not involved in creating the plan.

The doctor who performed elbow surgery on Stephen Strasburg said he did not tell the Washington Nationals to shut down their ace pitcher.

“I wasn’t asked,” Dr. Lewis Yocum told the Los Angeles Times.

Yocum said he had not talked with Nationals General Manager Mike Rizzo since last year and had not talked with Strasburg since spring training….

Yocum said that, had he been asked, he would not have been able to provide conclusive information about whether Strasburg’s long-term health would be best served by shutting him down.

“There’s no statistic as far as studies,” Yocum said.

Yocum noted that Rizzo set his own standard with Nationals pitcher Jordan Zimmermann….

Yocum said that process — and not any medical directive — essentially determined how Rizzo would proceed with Strasburg.

“It’s based on Mike’s experience,” Yocum said. “Mike is extremely confident. His track record speaks for itself. Zimmermann did extremely well.”

Yocum said the results with Zimmermann and Strasburg might well influence how other teams handle the progress of young pitchers coming back from Tommy John surgery, in which a damaged ligament in the forearm is replaced.

“If there was a guarantee, everybody would be doing it right now,” Yocum said. “You just don’t know. This may be the beginning of a trend.”

We had a whole thread about this a month ago.

Yes, he did. I'm sure people will correct my details, but he had, I believe, a 50-page binder with information and statistics. He also had the plan formed with the doctor who performed the surgery, and also Dr. Andrews.

People are welcome to disagree with the conclusions, with the data, or even with the credentials of the surgeons, but it's disingenuous to claim that he pulled the number out of his ass.

It's certainly true that Rizzo said he had a binder, and I don't doubt that a lot of work went into the Strasburg decision.

However, I think your post treads close to disingenuous in describing the binder and the data. I can't disagree with the conclusions or the data because I haven't seen them. I have no idea what Rizzo's reasons are, what his data is, how it was collected or analyzed, any of that. In the absence of any actually available evidence, I see no reason to assume that he's right.

Yes, he did. I'm sure people will correct my details, but he had, I believe, a 50-page binder with information and statistics. He also had the plan formed with the doctor who performed the surgery, and also Dr. Andrews.

A "50-page binder" that nobody in the public has seen and that couldn't have informed any 160-IP or similar limit for pitchers coming off of TJ as opposed to any other strategy. There was nothing that could possibly have concluded that one reasonable strategy was better than another (e.g., having him take 2 months off in-season), or even that any strategy was better than letting him pitch, other than the simple fact, known for over a century, that pitchers who are pitching might get injured. As I've said, it would be like having a "50-page binder" on whether God exists.

And the doctor first specifically denied any involvement in the plan, later walking back that somewhat in a bizarre follow up statement that conflicted his first statement on the matter in various material ways.

People are welcome to disagree with the conclusions, with the data, or even with the credentials of the surgeons, but it's disingenuous to claim that he pulled the number out of his ass.

No, it is not. He doesn't have evidence that this strategy is better than any other reasonable strategy, including letting Strasburg simply pitch. He can't have.

I want Nats vs. Reds really badly. I can't remember the last time we had an LCS without at least one sort of eh team. 98 wins vs. 97 wins sounds pretty sweet.

2012 NL run differential leaders:
WSN 0.8
STL 0.7
ATL 0.6
CIN 0.5
SFG 0.4

The Cards belong this year. Which, ironically, you can tell just from the obvious fear emanating from the comments of the Cards-haters in this thread

It'll look especially bad if this turns out to be the Nats' only real chance at a title, and they chose to handicap themselves.

Imagine if the '81 Expos had shut down Steve Rogers.

I am not interested in re-hashing the thread from a month ago, so I will just point out in response to #94 that Yocum the very next day said that he was misquoted and that he was involved. In response to #96 I will agree that we do not know what's in the binder, so you can reasonably be skeptical that Rizzo has good information. However, it's a large leap to continuously claim that he pulled the number out of his ass. The most you can say is that you don't know. In response to #95, I am not being disingenous. I pointed out a fact, I did not make any claims about the validity.

The Cards belong this year.

Pythag wins aren't wins. Wins are the things that show you belong.