I've long argued the plan was dumb. But I wouldn't fire anyone. The team just had the best season in their history and it was mostly unexpected. I think you hvae to evaluate personnel on the whole of their work and the whole of the folks involved certainly merits another year.

Yeah, it would make a whole lot of sense to fire the people who built this team up from the ground and put it in a position to contend for years to come. Let's replace them with Bain Management and let strategy and tactics be decided by social media insta-polls. Washington fans will soon learn to love the results.

The baseball press is going to write what they want to write. Whether it's Montreal was screwed over by out of town owners and MLB rather than abandoned by their own local businessmen and fans. Whether it's Bobby Bonds is an alcoholic and his son a jerk for ignoring them. Whether it's amphetamine-taking Mickey Mantle is the best player ever while anyone connected to steroids should be banned.

History is written by those corrupt enough to own the pen and deny others to it.

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.

Yes, but your plan is creating MORE risk. Again, the arithmetic couldn't be simpler. Regular season innings:
Rizzo: 160
Treder: 160 - A*
*Number of innings reserved for post-season.

If you want to argue this risk is worth taking, then make that case. I don't think many fans would agree. And I know that by the time we got to the final Braves series, if Strasburg was on the bench while our lead was slipping away -- even though he had not reached his usage limit -- the outrage would have been incredible. And I suspect that some of the Rizzo critics here would have been joining in.

Rizzo critics seem to believe Strasburg would have had a huge impact on the post-season, but of little value in winning the division. Very weird outlook....

Yeah, it would make a whole lot of sense to fire the people who built this team up from the ground

They, or at least Rizzo, lost their way. He thought keeping pitchers healthy and developing young players was the end, not the means. He proved to be completely inflexible as circumstances changed. He pretended, or at least thought, that he had more evidence that his plan works than he has. Yocum had little to do with this plan, and wouldn't have had anything useful to add anyway the subject of whether 160 is better than Sunday starter.

Rizzo deserves to be let go.

Very weird outlook....

And yet the defenders have this outlook that somehow Rizzo chose the correct path and their proof? That it happened. Very weird.

Strasburg's last game was on the 7th of September and he was as you know already on the bench because he reached his innings limit. 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. There were so many options available to Rizzo but he insisted only implementing his preplanned pattern no matter what and he gave no real good answers and might even have fibbed or exaggerated a time or two to sell it.

The only reason the outrage for benching Strasburg during the season wasn't larger than it was was because of fan hubris. When a team is rolling people tend to think they'll always roll and they tend to overestimate their ability and their chances.

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.

I suspect many of the creative alternative plans would not have offered equal protection. But let's assume there were several equally good alternatives. It doesn't matter, because every single one of them, by definition, involves putting the division title at greater risk. That's what advocates of the "middle path" seem unwilling to admit. Their position is:

1) It is arrogant to assume you will win future titles, but not to assume you will win this year;
2) Strasburg is essential in the post-season, but of little consequence for the pennant race;
3) You should prioritize winning this year over future years, but you should also prioritize future post-season games (hypothetical post-season games!) over winning the division now.

All these alternatives are basically nonsense, unless you want to admit that you don't really care about winning the division unless you have Strasburg in the playoffs (a position I can't believe many Nats fans would have supported in May, or August). Either man up and admit you want to blow through the IP limit, or accept that Rizzo's plan was as good or better than any other.

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.

Actually, DC fans haven't even had a team in forever. You know, that whole 1972 - 2004 thing.

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 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.

I agree. That scenario would have been a MUCH tougher test of Rizzo's resolve than what happened. Keeping SS on the bench while the division appeared to slip away would have been extremely frustrating for fans. I wonder whether Rizzo would have switched gears.

But now imagine this is all happening in the context of the Treder Plan: SS is on the bench, the division title is slipping away, and Rizzo says "we believe it would be safe for SS to make 5 more starts, but we prefer to keep him available for the playoffs, which we are still confident we will reach." Whatever level of outrage you were imagining in your scenario, you should now multiply by 10.

But now imagine this is all happening in the context of the Treder Plan: SS is on the bench, the division title is slipping away, and Rizzo says "we believe it would be safe for SS to make 5 more starts, but we prefer to keep him available for the playoffs, which we are still confident we will reach." Whatever level of outrage you were imagining in your scenario, you should now multiply by 10.

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. The point of all the plans being suggested is that if Strasburg is going to have an innings limit then the Nationals should strive to use Strasburg in a way that every single one of those innings are important innings.

Step 1. Come up with two alternatives.
Step 2. Attack the decision.
Step 3. Bounce from one alternative to the next to deflect and attack again.
Repeat step 3 until your opponent gives up.

Oh, I thought this was the politics thread. It works here too.

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?

No. But it also doesn't achieve much of anything. You've saved 14 IP, but he makes one tune up start so let's say you've banked 9 IP. Let's assume it takes SS some work to get back into shape after 4 weeks off, so we'll count that as 3 IP. So all you've done is given yourself one start (6 IP) in the NLDS. Maybe that's a good tradeoff, but seeing it the other way is hardly a firing offense.

Again, if you want to blow through the 160 IP limit, fine. But nothing else you do is going to make much difference.

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

The doctors recommended against shutting him down and starting him up again as bad for his arm.

The doctors recommended against shutting him down and starting him up again as bad for his arm.

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.

No. But it also doesn't achieve much of anything. You've saved 14 IP, but he makes one tune up start so let's say you've banked 9 IP. Let's assume it takes SS some work to get back into shape after 4 weeks off, so we'll count that as 3 IP. So all you've done is given yourself one start (6 IP) in the NLDS. Maybe that's a good tradeoff, but seeing it the other way is hardly a firing offense.

Again, if you want to blow through the 160 IP limit, fine. But nothing else you do is going to make much difference.



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?

But even if somehow 160 is a limit he cannot surpass how is it not better to have one or two starts (there is no reason to have Strasburg pitch 5 innings in a tune up start, especially if 160 innings is an absolute. I wouldn't count his working back into shape as innings against his limit since his limit number was created with throw days factored in.) of his starts be in the playoffs instead up against the Marlins?

OK, my thinking about the criteria for judging the Strasburg Shutdown are evolving. I think that ultimately the Nationals' fortunes in any given year are irrelevant. The Nats may hope to win pennants while he's under their "control," but there are too many factors there to obsess about. You can never say that they've traded a series loss now for several series victories down the road; the context simply changes too much.

So the criteria have to be individual to Strasburg. If he has a career of decent length and effectiveness, then Rizzo was at least not wrong in shutting him down. No matter that the Nats lost this year: Rizzo's intention is to ensure Strasburg's longterm health, and he is very frankly conceding an advantage in 2012 to do so. No question in my mind there, though they seem to linger in other minds, and that's fine. Rizzo didn't make the wrong choice, even if the Nats limp along behind a good Strasburg till he hits free agency, and then he signs with the Rangers and wins three straight Cy Youngs while they win three straight World Series.

If Strasburg sputters henceforward, or throws another 200 fabulous innings next year and then his arm falls off, or if he takes the Mark Prior spiral toward oblivion, then one has to call Rizzo's move a failure. Particularly if he's got another 200 great innings and nothing more in his arm.

Obviously this is a continuum from "looks good" through "looks bad" with stops along the way. And it's entirely a post hoc judgment, which I know some people abhor. Strictly speaking, we should look at my two outcomes and say Rizzo was right if there's a better-than-even (or maybe considerably better than even) chance of the good outcome, no matter what the actual outcome. But in practice, you're interested in the outcomes. You don't look back on a horrible marriage and say "Well, back in 1991, that still had a 33% better chance of turning out happier than marrying Shirley Lapidus."

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 don't know about Yokum, but Andrews was much less sanguine.

Did the Natspos' master plan not work so very well? Oh, that's so vewy, vewy sad.

Andrews stated that he didn't really know and never addressed the plan as I suggested which is to shut him down and then get him back into shape over a matter of a week to two weeks.

I know this is a popular view here, but I don't get it. At what point did the "specialness" become apparent

Personally, I knew all the way back in May that the Nationals had built themselves an excellent team, and I even said so right here. I knew that because they didn't just start playing really well early this season, they started playing really well late last season.

When I first said it I don't think a lot of people quite believed it yet, but almost everyone else realized it within the next month or two after that.

I know this is a popular view here, but I don't get it. At what point did the "specialness" become apparent

There was a pizza party when Harper arrived on the short bus.

Still too bummed out to care about the argument. 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.

Rizzo deserves to lose his job over this if it was his decision, but something like this had to have ownership's blessing.

Exactly. "Fire Rizzo" doesn't make much sense unless you believe that it was a unilateral decision on his part, rather than one that was endorsed by his superiors. To use Ray's "overruled or fired" construct, if you think he could have and should have been overruled, then the person who should be fired would be the one who failed to overrule him. Conversely, if you think he should be fired, then you're basically asserting that there was no one who could have overruled him. The exception would be a scenario where his bosses expressed reservations with his decision (at minimum), but basically said, "OK, but it's your ass if this blows up on us." If those facts were in evidence, then it would be more like "Rizzo should have been overruled AND now he should be fired."

You guys are crazy. Rizzo is going to win executive of the year.

Love or hate the strasburg decision, he's built a great organization that is full of talent.

If Storen gets one more strike nobody is arguing about this.

I don't agree. If we were getting ready to face the Giants tonight, I think plenty of us would still be wishing that Strasburg would have been available.

Yes, but your plan is creating MORE risk. Again, the arithmetic couldn't be simpler. Regular season innings:
Rizzo: 160
Treder: 160 - A*
*Number of innings reserved for post-season.

No sh!t, Sherlock.

If you want to argue this risk is worth taking, then make that case.

That case has been made, over and over. There is risk in everything. There is risk in losing the division race, and there is also risk in losing the post-season tournament. There is risk in overworking Strasburg, and there is risk in underusing him. Balancing risk in a flexible, nuanced manner is what management is supposed to do.

But let's assume there were several equally good alternatives.

I haven't just assumed it, I've specified several of them. You've failed to address the specifics of any of them.

It doesn't matter, because every single one of them, by definition, involves putting the division title at greater risk. That's what advocates of the "middle path" seem unwilling to admit.

I thought it was so flipping obvious as to not require "admitting." But consider it roundly admitted. It's among the tradeoff of risks. It isn't some sort of "gotcha."

Their position is:

1) It is arrogant to assume you will win future titles, but not to assume you will win this year;

No. The position is that both are arrogant. But one was a lot more likely to be achieved by mid-season of 2012.

2) Strasburg is essential in the post-season, but of little consequence for the pennant race;

No. He's of consequence to both. The appropriate approach is to balance his availability in both.

3) You should prioritize winning this year over future years, but you should also prioritize future post-season games (hypothetical post-season games!) over winning the division now.

No. You should balance your deployment of resources as best you can, always.

Either man up and admit you want to blow through the IP limit, or accept that Rizzo's plan was as good or better than any other.

This nonsense utterly fails to address the alternative approaches I have specified in this thread.

I don't assert that Rizzo should be fired over this. In the grand scheme of GM responsibilities, it isn't that huge a deal. But to conclude that "Rizzo's plan was as good or better than any other" is ridiculous. That's why it is so ridiculed.

In changing Stras' starts, you are plugging in one starter for another. If you change his innings per game to a lower number, you affect the entire bullpen and its usage - overuse and using people in different situations. As we have seen from some of the relievers in the playoffs, they don't do too well when placed in these different situations - the wimps that have to throw an extra 1/3 inning or come in with runners on base or have the misfortune to "close" with a four run lead or come into a tie game.

Once you make a decision to limit innings, the best course to avoid altering all of the moving parts in your pitching staff is to shut him down.

From someone who threw 130 total innings in 1977 and then 190 innings during his first full year of pro ball and injured his arm, then threw 120 innings in relief in 1982 and finished it off.

Strasburg was shut down on Sept 7th. No matter what they did as long as they were shutting Strasburg down they were affecting the entire bullpen and its usage. Secondly, as you know, rosters expanded in September thus mitigating this problem. 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.

Personally, I knew all the way back in May that the Nationals had built themselves an excellent team, and I even said so right here. I knew that because they didn't just start playing really well early this season, they started playing really well late last season.
When I first said it I don't think a lot of people quite believed it yet, but almost everyone else realized it within the next month or two after that.

As Michael Jackson said, you were not aloooonnnne.

Jim Bowden, March 28: "The Philadelphia Phillies will not make the playoffs... the Miami Marlins and Washington Nationals are much improved and it looks like the Phillies are heading back toward the pack."

Jayson Stark, April 3: "The whole sport is buzzing about this team."

Drew Storen, March 30: "We're the trendy pick for a lot of people.''

I suspect many of the creative alternative plans would not have offered equal protection. But let's assume there were several equally good alternatives. It doesn't matter, because every single one of them, by definition, involves putting the division title at greater risk.

I think the key should have been to preserve flexibility. The Nats won their division by 4 games. They were up by 6.5 when they benched Strasburg. At that point, they knew they had a very high likelihood of winning the division. If they had started Strasburg a little later in the season, they could have had him skip starts later, and maybe stretched him out to 180 IP to balance the potential risks and rewards. The strategy they embarked on at the beginning of the season, however, put them in a bad position to make adjustments (taking for granted that you couldn't shut him down and start him up again).

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.

I am immensely amused by the confidence with which people here are pronouncing that Mike Rizzo -- after having built this team up from a disastrous shambles into a 1st place powerhouse within a brief span of time -- MUST be fired.

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.

They shut him down when the rosters expanded, so the bullpen effects were limited. Any reduction or shutdown during the 25 man roster period would have hurt the pen - and other starter's schedules.

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.

The asset value of the franchise is up, season tickets will rise...I think per "Network", "I’ll announce projected earnings for this team for the first time in five years. Believe me, Mr. Lerner’s gonna be rocking back and forth in his little chair, and he’s gonna say "That’s very good, Mike. Keep it up."


And...this:

If Storen gets one more strike nobody is arguing about this.

Or at least the intensity level subsides.

part of me wishes this had happened in 1977 and one of our esteemed historians had written a multi page article on the situation

that would be a lot more fun than this current day bluster

though i think the nats better make hay now in the short term. the brewers supplemented their young talent (yount, molitor) with older guys so the window to win opened and closed pretty quickly

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.

Didn't Rizzo claim he told ownership that "If they don't do this, I'll make you fire me"?

***

You guys are crazy. Rizzo is going to win executive of the year.

Not unless he hacks into the voting. The media and other MLB execs have been blasting away at the decision.

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?

There is no evidence. None. None at all.

"Rizzo did it" seems to be the only evidence needed. As SugarBear pointed out, people have this bizarre obsession with thinking that "insiders" know all and should be trusted without question. Even when they know what isn't so.

I am immensely amused by the confidence with which people here are pronouncing that Mike Rizzo -- after having built this team up from a disastrous shambles into a 1st place powerhouse within a brief span of time -- MUST be fired.

I haven't delved through the entire thread, but how many people other than Ray are actually saying anything as inane as this?

I haven't delved through the entire thread, but how many people other than Ray are actually saying anything as inane as this?

Me. Though I admit I'd have a hard time doing it if I was actually in a position to because of the other successes he's had, I also don't see how you can let the clusterf### that was the organization's handling of Strasburg this year pass without some real consequences.

The media and other MLB execs have been blasting away at the decision.

Serious question: who actually votes for executive of the year?

I think this post by McCoy gets at the key point in the Guy-Treder dispute:

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.

At the ASB the Nats were 49-34, 4 games ahead, best record in the league. They had reasonable expectations of at the very least meaningful baseball in September, if not October as well. SS had thrown 99 IP. They knew they were going to limit him. I cannot fathom one good reason nor have I seen one advanced here why a major league front office would not adopt a flexible approach at that point or at some point very shortly thereafter. As I indicated in post #1 I kept waiting for it, and was amazed to never hear it. I don't know that the Nats ever publicly acknowledged a magic number of 160 so I don't know that any of us should assume we are stuck with it. But even if we are, 60 IP is near a season's worth for a closer. Strasburg could have been re-distributed in a variety of ways, all of which would have kept him pitching into the critical last weeks of September. And contributing something, if not as much as a starter, to the pennant race. Add then the bonus that when they did make the playoffs you now have a choice, use him some more or shut him down. Shutting him down on September 7 it was a bit late to crank him up again in October. The choice had already been made. Had he pitched until the end of the season they could have re-evaluated. I don't think Rizzo should be canned but I would be concerned, were I a Nats fan, at the stubbornness, the lack of creativity, and the hubris of the apparent "we'll make it again" assumption. GMs trade off the present for the future all the time, but not when they are in first place. This was a very poorly managed decision. Rizzo and company chose the most rigid approach that will leave them the least vulnerable to criticism in the event of a future injury. But they gave up much more. I like their team and I hope they win. But if they don't it will be Rizzo's legacy, even if Strasburg wins 300 games.

I haven't delved through the entire thread, but how many people other than Ray are actually saying anything as inane as this?

I've said that he deserves to be fired - not "must be." I was happy with overruling him as well.

But leave it to you to ask what the public polling is on an issue, as if that in itself is validation of your position.

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 will co-sign this, as it is utterly reasonable.

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?

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.

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.

If you're working with a limit of 190 IP, rather than 160, I agree you have a lot more flexibility. Whether you can make this work depends on how much extra work/stress is required to get SS active again after a multi-week shutdown, or by having him pitch in the pen and then move back to the rotation. I suspect no one involved in this discussion has the requisite knowledge to really evaluate that (including me). 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. Would that have seemed reasonable in mid-August? Maybe. And as it happens, that would probably have worked out OK. But in a tighter pennant race I think you have to re-activate him sooner, and probably at the cost of losing him in the post-season (which is still no worse than what happened).

But all of that is contingent on letting him pitch (potentially) an additional 30 IP. There's no way this works within the 160 IP limit, which was my point.

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.

As best I can tell, this is fiction. I went back and looked at this last week. I only went back to July, but in July the news reports all referred to the Nationals "plan" to sit Strasburg at 160 IP. They even referred to a quote from Johnson where Johnson specifically said there was a 160-IP limit. By August Rizzo was claiming that there was no set IP limit, but the news reports had been saying otherwise. Zimmermann was sat down at 160. And Strasburg was magically shut down at 160.

The idea that there was no set 160-IP limit seems to be revisionist history, and it's of a bizarre sort because WTF difference does it make? The fact is that Rizzo did not adapt.

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.

Not if you start him in May and skip his turn a couple times during the summer. That gets you basically through September.

And it's not a "190 IP limit". IP limits are dumb. I would not be trying to get Strasburg 190 IP in the regular season. I would be trying to keep Strasburg's workload from getting too heavy, keep his arm from being overstressed, and I was using IP as a proxy for that. It's possible that Strasburg, under my plan, would have started reporting pain in September, and I would have had to shut him down. The point is flexibility, balancing long- and short-term goals.

I cannot fathom one good reason nor have I seen one advanced here why a major league front office would not adopt a flexible approach at that point or at some point very shortly thereafter.

That's because there is none.

146: 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?

It sounds to me like you have a 160 IP limit for regular season. Is that not true? Would you let SS go more?

What do you gain with a May start?

The answer to this question has been presented multiple times.

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 - 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.