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 2 of 4 pages
Well, as I've said, the precise 160 IP figure is complete BS, but assuming it's carved in stone, then risking the division title is a given. It's unavoidable.
Yeah, it would make a whole lot of sense to fire the people who built this team up from the ground
Yeah, you cannot argue with a straight face that the plan they chose was more protecting of Strasburg's arm than any of several other reasonable options that would have allowed him to pitch in the postseason.
If the Nats had blown their lead against the Braves between the 7th and the time they played the Braves a week later and they kept on benching Strasburg the outrage would have been incredible.
Strasburg missed the last 24 games of the season and the team won by 4 games. Two of his last three games were against Miami who by that point were not even on the same level quality as they were earlier in the season. He pitched 14 innings in those games. If they had shut him down then, as I suggested back then, he could have had 3 to 4 weeks of complete rest spent a week to two weeks getting back into shape and pitched a game in the regular season as a tune up/if necessary. Now what would that have cost them? How would that have significantly hurt their chances of winning the division?
If they had shut him down then, as I suggested back then, he could have had 3 to 4 weeks of complete rest spent a week to two weeks getting back into shape and pitched a game in the regular season as a tune up/if necessary
no they didn't. Rizzo didn't want to do that. Yocum was on record as saying rest was important and that a month off could be good for him.
I know this is a popular view here, but I don't get it. At what point did the "specialness" become apparent
Rizzo deserves to lose his job over this if it was his decision, but something like this had to have ownership's blessing.
Shutting him down for a month at the end of the season and starting him back up for the playoffs would have been a move that had the least amount of risk to the ballclub. Shutting him down completely for the season at the beginning of September carried with it much more risk.
I don't think Rizzo should be fired for this. It may take several years to know how much the decision helped or hurt, and most GMs make much worse decisions than this on a yearly basis, without the positive accomplishments that Rizzo has under his belt.
If Storen gets one more strike nobody is arguing about this.
Rizzo deserves to lose his job over this if it was his decision, but something like this had to have ownership's blessing. The Lerner's got a $600M publicly financed stadium four years ago and the first real opportunity to somewhat make good on it they pull this.
You guys are crazy. Rizzo is going to win executive of the year.
So nop matter what happens he can't go over 160 IP? 160 equals perfect but 165 is horrible? If you give Strasburg a month off and then a week to two weeks to get back in shape he then can't pitch 20 more innings? Why? What is the evidence that throwing 170 innings in a season a year after TJ is bad but 160 is perfect? What is the evidence that taking a rest for a month when you get fatigued and then coming back and pitching 4 to 5 more games when you are fresher is bad?
I haven't delved through the entire thread, but how many people other than Ray are actually saying anything as inane as this?
The media and other MLB execs have been blasting away at the decision.
The Treder plan is basically based on flexibility and that is what most of us have been saying Rizzo needed to be. I'm not Treder but I seriously doubt his reply is going to be "tough" if a situation occurs where the Nationals are in jeopardy of losing the division and Strasburg is on the bench.
I think that trying to limit Strasburg's innings is sensible. I would have started him a bit late and skipped a few more of his starts, and maintained twin goals of (a) keeping Strasburg fresh to pitch his best down the stretch and in the playoffs and (b) limiting the stress of his arm. This is what every organization in baseball would do. It's an art, it requires weighing risks and working with the players and the doctors and the trainers.
It would be possible, under this scenario, that Strasburg might end up <gasp> breaking his innings cap by 20 or 30 innings. He probably wouldn't - as the season played out, you probably could have kept him to 140 and been fine. If he ended up having to throw 160 innings in the regular season and 30 innings in the postseason, it would be because the Nationals first had a pennant race go down to the wire and then made a deep run into the playoffs. That's obviously worth the risk of those 30 extra innings.
I think that trying to limit Strasburg's innings is sensible. I would have started him a bit late and skipped a few more of his starts, and maintained twin goals of (a) keeping Strasburg fresh to pitch his best down the stretch and in the playoffs and (b) limiting the stress of his arm. This is what every organization in baseball would do. It's an art, it requires weighing risks and working with the players and the doctors and the trainers. It would be possible, under this scenario, that Strasburg might end up <gasp> breaking his innings cap by 20 or 30 innings.
Where is the evidence that Rizzo ever said this? Everything I have seen actually reported (as opposed to the opinions here) is that Rizzo had a goal in the 160-180 area , with the decision to sit him depending on how he was pitching and the like. As it was, based on his last few starts they decided to shut him down at 160. I have never seen that reported as an absolute limit.
You would have basically had to shut him down by mid-August I think, and then spent the 2nd half of Sept. getting him ready for the post-season.
I see no conceivable advantage in skipping April. You want to have as much info as possible when deciding how/if to limit him. What do you gain with a May start?
I'm buying the argument that shutting down and then re-starting was recommended against by the doctors. Rizzo's been pretty clear that the doctors and trainers thought that caused added stress, and it's not unreasonable to me
Always enjoy the folks telling us the truth about pitchers ignoring the former pitcher in the discussion.
It's unreasonable to me. Since when have we ever heard that it is a problem for any pitcher, of any age, now healthy after any injury, to miss 1-2 months because he sprained an ankle or broke a finger or broke a toe? Since when have people said, "Oh no, don't bring him back after he heals, this might hurt his arm"? It would be just the same thing here - Strasburg would just take 1-2 months off - minus the broken toe.
Now all of a sudden doing that would be a huge problem. On what basis? None. Rizzo and his fans have pulled it out of their rears.
I don't see how Bob could tell us that 160-IP is good, but 190-IP is not.
Rizzo's been pretty clear that the doctors and trainers thought that caused added stress, and it's not unreasonable to me - the Yankees start-stop plan with Joba seemed dumb at the time and looks bad in retrospect. If you start Strasburg at the beginning of the season, you're looking at a nearly full season of pitching if you have him going to the playoffs. I want something less than a full season of pitching, so I take April off so that you don't have any start-stop-restart effects.
However, the Nats followed a similar program with Zimmerman last year post-surgery and he was fine in 2012. It may not be scientific enough for the residents of this site, but..... I guess because Jordan is not the next new thing the program that the team used to resurrect his career is not valid.
I have no doubt that the Zimmermann program was valid. But that's not the same thing as saying the Zimmermann plan is the only possible way to deal with a pitcher coming off TJ surgery, especially once the needs of the organization have changed. They shut down Zimmermann at a time when the team was 62-70 and had no hope of the postseason. There was literally no cost to that decision.
Zimmerman was shut down on July 18, 2009 and started back up 13 months later.
They shut down Zimmermann at a time when the team was 62-70 and had no hope of the postseason. There was literally no cost to that decision.
Zimmerman was shut down on July 18, 2009 and started back up 13 months later. Strasburg was shelved on August 21, 2010 and returned 13 months later. The Nats' record at the time of Zimmerman's shutdown was 26-64, and at the time of Strasburg's shutdown was 53-70. The only difference between them was in the team's circumstances during their first full year of their return, and other than that there was no more or no less "cost" to either decision to shut down. In both cases it was clearly a medical decision.
As an economic entity, what does a major league baseball team want? To win a World Series? Yes, fans would want every team to go for it all every year, but the economic model that pays off is to be competitive for a playoff spot on a yearly basis
2) 160 innings is false precision,
Seriously, I'm absolutely amazed that the whole lot of you haven't been snapped up by one team after another
Seriously, I'm absolutely amazed that the whole lot of you haven't been snapped up by one team after another----hell, they could make you the GM, the manager, and the team doctor all at the same time, and save themselves the unnecessary expense of having to pay three separate salaries. I haven't seen so much strategic erudition on display since the time that a TV monitor once caught Rob Dibble talking to himself.
The argument that Rizzo made the best possible choice is overwhelmingly drowned by superior counterarguments.
Whatever a team's chances at a pennant, and fully granting that wins in April equal wins in September, it's nevertheless obvious that wins in the postseason are more vital than those in the regular season. So why not ease Strasburg along and get him into the rotation by mid-May?
Starting SS in May, BTW, makes zero sense. If your position is that "we'd like SS to throw 160 IP, but we'll go to 190 if it really matters" (replace 160/190 with your own choice), then the last thing you want to do is hold him out in April
Staerting in May makes zero sense if the Nationals planned to be flexible on the innings limit. But they weren't flexible on the innings limit.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (2 members)
Page rendered in 1.1404 seconds, 57 querie(s) executed