Um, the word "highest" doesn't mean what you think it means.

In fact Andrews stated that pitchers undergoing the surgery have an 85-90% recovery rate. That kind of rate does not make one a "massive reinjury risk".

So we have Andrews stating that all these pitchers that weren't handled like Strasburg was handled had a 85 to 90% recovery rate. Sounds to me like Rizzo pinched some pennies and ended up losing a few dollars.

And his availability in the post season unlikely to make a significant increase in the Nats win expectancy, while he also has a high likelyhood of being one of the most valuable starters in baseball the next three years if he is healthy.

If his presence in the postseason means so little to a team's win expectancy, why would he be such a valuable starter the next three years?

Because Stephen Strasburg the next three years will be a combination of Koufax, Gibson, and Carpenter, duh.

Do you people not understand that pitchers throw a baseball in situations other than in a regular season game?....The 160 innings is a number that has side sessions baked in. So stopping for a month and then starting up again with side sessions will not cut into his limit and since he won't be fatigued it is likely that he'll be able to go over 160 innings if the need should arise.

Then why do pitchers coming off the DL often make rehab starts in the minors, or throw simulation games, before returning to MLB duty? I think Strasburg would need considerably more work than the amount of throwing he would typically do between starts. How much more, I don't know. And I acknowledged this might net you a couple of post-season starts. I just think there's a lot of uncertainty about how well this will work. The Nats obviously considered this course and rejected it. But perhaps they, like me, lack your vast "understanding" of pitcher preparation and rehabilitation.

And his availability in the post season unlikely to make a significant increase in the Nats win expectancy

Since the Nationals lost the series by a very small margin, and got a lousy start from Edwin Jackson (a clearly worse pitcher than Strasburg) in game 3, one of the losses, I think it is pretty likely that Strasburg would have represented a significant increase in win expectancy for the series.

In fact Andrews stated that pitchers undergoing the surgery have an 85-90% recovery rate. That kind of rate does not make one a "massive reinjury risk".

Clearly that's a higher injury rate than a healthy pitcher, and it seems a total, not a 1 year number.

But more importantly, it's not just the percentage of injuries, it's the severity.

He clearly states that a re-injury is catastrophic. Essentially Strasburg is highly unlikely to be Strasburg again, even if he returns to the league after reinjuring this arm within the next year. Can you imagine the amount of scar tissue he'd be pitching with after that?

Going by best case scenario, if Strasburg has a 90% chance of recovery from his TJ, but that includes a 35% recovery from a 2nd surgery, it implies he has a 15% chance of serious re-injury over the next year. Going by worse case scenario, 85% total, and 25% 2nd surgery recovery, that implies he has a 20% chance of injury over the next year.

Having a 15-20% risk of a career ending injury over his next year is a fairly high risk, and I think substantially higher than a "healthy" (obviously no MLB pitcher's arms are truly healthy with the wear they endure) pitcher.

That's a high enough risk that I think you should establish a fairly high benefit for taking it to prove your point. So far no one has stepped to the plate to do enough math to show that the Nats World Series hopes could even increase 1% with Strasburg pitching.

If his presence in the postseason means so little to a team's win expectancy, why would he be such a valuable starter the next three years?

162>5

Steve, how much do you think the Nats playoff chances should increase in order to make it worthwhile risking Strasburg pitching?

A little would be sufficient. He would easily provide that.

Do the Nats increase their win expectancy from, say 54%, to say 56%, per series on average with Strasburg? Or do you think the impact is substantially higher?

I don't know, but if it's from 54% to 56%, I'd take that.

Short series can and often do swing on small things. No team serious about winning can afford to easily surrender any of them.

Then why do pitchers coming off the DL often make rehab starts in the minors, or throw simulation games, before returning to MLB duty?

I'm not sure what this is addresssing. People are acting like Stephen Strasburg could only pitch 160 innings this year and besides those 160 innings would never touch a ball. I'm pointing out that a pitcher has side sessions during the season thus those 160 innings have lots and lots of other pitches that don't get counted as an inning baked in. This if he isn't pitching for a month he also isn't throwing all those other pitches as well until he starts working himself back into shape. Consider his rest as him banking those unused throwing sessions and then him withdrawing those pitches during his work out to get back into shape. Further also view the rest as creating interest in those pitches as the rest generates the ability to throw more pitches before tiring.

He clearly states that a re-injury is catastrophic

And yet recovery rate is around 90% and how many pitchers can you recall have TJ surgery and injure themselves again about a year later and require a second TJ surgery? Very very few of them and yet none of them besides Zimmerman have ever been put on this plan.

Having a 15-20% risk of a career ending injury over his next year is a fairly high risk, and I think substantially higher than a "healthy" (obviously no MLB pitcher's arms are truly healthy with the wear they endure) pitcher.



For someone who keeps on insisting that the other side provide facts and prove things you sure do use a lot of assumptions to bolster your side of things. What are the odds of a "healthy" pitcher having a career ending injury? How many pitchers have undergone TJ surgery during their career? Lots right? So obviously the odds of a pitcher geting injured is extremely high.

How much did the Nationals increase their chances by limiting Strasburg's usage in the manner they did over what everyone else does?

Since the Nationals lost the series by a very small margin, and got a lousy start from Edwin Jackson (a clearly worse pitcher than Strasburg) in game 3, one of the losses, I think it is pretty likely that Strasburg would have represented a significant increase in win expectancy for the series.

That's not evidence, that's results oriented fact picking. Clearly one of either Jackson or Strasburg pushes Detwiler out of rotation, who threw 6 innings and gave up no earned runs (1 unearned) in game 4. Strasburg was likely to pitch better than Jackson did pitch, and highly unlikely to pitch as well as Detwiler did.

During the regular season Strasburg averaged a 2.8 FIP over about 5.7 innings per start, Jackson a 3.8 over 6 innings per start. It's hard to imagine Jackson isn't expect to average significantly more innings than Strasburg in the post season starts, given the leash you'd need for Strasburg. But ignoring that, Strasburg is worth about 0.65 runs over Jackson in expectation, assuming they pitch the same amount of innings as regular season in that one game. That's a huge edge. In one game. Maybe the Nats expectation goes from 50% to 60% (probably not), in that one game. If that were all true, the Nats chances of winning the series could have improved by 2%.

If the Nats could improve their chances every series by 2%, they could increase their World Series Championship chances from something like 15.7% to 17.5%, almost 2 %.

Or another way to look at it, they'll still falls short over 82% of the time.

Then why do pitchers coming off the DL often make rehab starts in the minors, or throw simulation games, before returning to MLB duty?

I'm not sure what this is addresssing.

If Strasburg isn't shut down for a month between starts, he just makes his usual numer of side session throws (probably on day 3). Under the shutdown scenario, you have to get him ready to throw again. That typically involves some rehab starts and/or simulation games, games that he would not have to throw if pitching straight through.

And I don't see how skipping side sessions during the shutdown matters -- he will have to do all that throwing once he's reactivated, so that's a wash.

And yet recovery rate is around 90% and how many pitchers can you recall have TJ surgery and injure themselves again about a year later and require a second TJ surgery? Very very few of them and yet none of them besides Zimmerman have ever been put on this plan.

Obviously 15-20% reinjure, you can calculate it directly from Dr. Andrews quote. Just because you don't remember them doesn't mean they don't exist.

For someone who keeps on insisting that the other side provide facts and prove things you sure do use a lot of assumptions to bolster your side of things. What are the odds of a "healthy" pitcher having a career ending injury? How many pitchers have undergone TJ surgery during their career? Lots right? So obviously the odds of a pitcher geting injured is extremely high.

Show me any stats that 1 out of 8 MLB pitchers suffers a career ending injury every year to two years. If you do, you win. But I think anyone who thinks their "memory" is good enough to estimate TJ reinjury rates surely knows that MLB pitching injury rates, while high, are no where near that high for the career ending injuries.

That's a high enough risk that I think you should establish a fairly high benefit for taking it to prove your point. So far no one has stepped to the plate to do enough math to show that the Nats World Series hopes could even increase 1% with Strasburg pitching.

The Nationals took the risk and must take the risk every single season. Their usage did't avoid the risk and nobody knows if it decreased the risk at all. 90% recovery rate is a really high number. It is really high to improve upon that and again that recovery rate is for pitchers that have not been used like Strasburg. Increasing his chance to say 92% isn't really going to move the dial in any meaningful kind of way.

Obviously 15-20% reinjure, you can calculate it directly from Dr. Andrews quote. Just because you don't remember them doesn't mean they don't exist.

So who are they? Again, lots and lots of pitchers have undergone TJ surgery. If it is true that 1 out of every 5 pitchers seriously reinjure their UCL then you should be able to quickly build a list with 50 or more names on it.

Show me any stats that 1 out of 8 MLB pitchers suffers a career ending injury every year to two years.

Well, MLB starters cause a selection bias to begin with since they are the ones with the bodies that have proven to be able to handle the stress of pitching the most. But I don't know why I have to prove that 1 out 8 MLB pitchers suffer career ending injuries (or how that involves my point) every year and yet you don't have to name a single pitcher that reinjures their UCL the year after surgery.

I don't know, but if it's from 54% to 56%, I'd take that.

Short series can and often do swing on small things. No team serious about winning can afford to easily surrender any of them.

That's fine. I think it's short-sighted. Strasburg's mean WAR over the next 3 years should approach 18 wins, plus he'll have value beyond those years to the Nats, either in free agent compensation or as a long term signing. I think taking an additional 15% chance of catastrophic re-injury making that number near zero is a big potential cost, and potentially huge variance that makes team building plans much more complex.

But even if you are right and I am wrong, and the cost of losing that WAR one in eight times isn't as valuable as this years increase in playoff expectancy, it's certainly at least close. And for me what would trump that math is the human side. Strasburg's life and baseball will be far better off if he's healthy rather than another Mark Prior or Steve Avery what-if story, and not solely for Nats fans either. We can sit and say, oh, he's rich either way so it shouldn't matter, but it does to a guy who trained his whole life for this, both in physical and emotional pain, but for fans in the the loss of a potential once in a generation player we could have loved or hated more than almost any other.

I've managed a lot of people and demanded a great deal from them, but I could never go over the line to where their health, career and family needs would never come first. Maybe that makes me a lousy GM candidate.

So who are they? Again, lots and lots of pitchers have undergone TJ surgery. If it is true that 1 out of every 5 pitchers seriously reinjure their UCL then you should be able to quickly build a list with 50 or more names on it.

First, you just called Dr. Andrews a liar. Second, you build the list.

Well, MLB starters cause a selection bias to begin with since they are the ones with the bodies that have proven to be able to handle the stress of pitching the most. But I don't know why I have to prove that 1 out 8 MLB pitchers suffer career ending injuries (or how that involves my point) every year and yet you don't have to name a single pitcher that reinjures their UCL the year after surgery.

Because the leading expert who took some sort of oath gave us the data, I don't need to personally interview the pitchers. You really believe he just made up those numbers? Give us something besides bluster to indicate his numbers are at least shady.

And again, you don't have to believe or accept Andrews numbers if you can show that "healthy" pitchers are getting career enders just as often, his numbers aren't pertinent any more if you do that.

First, you just called Dr. Andrews a liar. Second, you build the list.

I did? I called your "massive reinjury risk" an exaggeration and that is what it is.

As for the rest, I'm pretty much done with you. You've demanded a lot while providing little and not holding yourself to the same standard you are demanding of others. I have an opinion and you have opinion on this matter, don't pretend like your opinion is anything more than just that.

I just remembered that Strasburg appeared in the all-star game this summer. He started on July 6, pitched an inning in the game on July 10 (technically on short rest), then started again on July 15 (again technically on short rest if you count the all-star game, or on extended rest if you don't). Was that much of a risk?

What if they had made that his routine for the rest of the season? No real shutdown or startup required, and if you just skip every other start, it shouldn't disrupt the rest of the staff too much -- worse case, it makes Lannan/Wang/Gorzelanny a swingman/spot starter and shortens your bullpen by a spot for a few games until Sep. 1. That plan would have effectively let him finish the regular season with 25 starts, leaving 3 extra to be allocated at the end of the season or during the playoffs as needed.

The Nationals took the risk and must take the risk every single season. Their usage did't avoid the risk and nobody knows if it decreased the risk at all. 90% recovery rate is a really high number. It is really high to improve upon that and again that recovery rate is for pitchers that have not been used like Strasburg. Increasing his chance to say 92% isn't really going to move the dial in any meaningful kind of way.

You are sure hung up on the 90%, when the real number is 85-90%. Isn't it interesting how we bias our recall and interpretation of the numbers to bolster our positions?

But yes, you have a good point too. The Nats can't expect to entirely eliminate his chance of re-injury, but if Rizzo is to believed, they can greatly reduce it. The mythical book he put together that has the study is the key, but if he found that starters who went north of 160-180 innings got reinjured 30% of the time and those who kept at or below that limit got reinjured 5% of the time, he's got good claim to eliminating the majority of the reinjury risk with this approach.

But also remember, the 85-90% recovery seems to be a gross number. If so, that includes reinjury success stories and implies a 15-20% reinjury rate. So 80-85% are healthy enough to pitch a complete season in year 2, while 15-20% get reinjured at some point from year 1 to 2, and eventually 25-35% of those recover, giving a total recovery rate of 85-90% at some future point. What this means is the Nats would normally expect Strasburg to miss some or most of next season 15-20% of the time, and only come back healthy rarely after that and even then after missing another full season.

So the real risk to focus on is 15-20% of reinjury. Whether he's able to come back from a reinjury or never does is a minor matter for the Nats, because his return will be just before he becomes a free agent and they will have missed out on the majority of their control period.

You are sure hung up on the 90%, when the real number is 85-90%. Isn't it interesting how we bias our recall and interpretation of the numbers to bolster our positions?

Holy christ! You know what? 85% is a really high number as well and it is unlikely that any kind of primitive newly formulated usage pattern is going to move the needle in any kind of meaningul way.

The mythical book he put together that has the study is the key, but if he found that starters who went north of 160-180 innings got reinjured 30% of the time and those who kept at or below that limit got reinjured 5% of the time, he's got good claim to eliminating the majority of the reinjury risk with this approach.



Which isn't some kind of ultra secret code that cannot be broken. If something like that is true Rizzo is not the only human being who would have found it.

I did? I called your "massive reinjury risk" an exaggeration and that is what it is.

When healthy pitchers recover 85-90% from Tommy John surgery, but Strasburg's recovery rate from a re-injury is 25-35%, that's not a massive risk? That's a career ender 2/3s of the time and effectively almost 100% of the time in terms of the Nats control years.

As for the rest, I'm pretty much done with you. You've demanded a lot while providing little and not holding yourself to the same standard you are demanding of others. I have an opinion and you have opinion on this matter, don't pretend like your opinion is anything more than just that.

I've contributed specific data points, quotes, done my own calculations, admitted to a few mistakes, and clearly described the types of data you could present that would refute my position . You have come up with a single quote, done nothing else, want to throw out any data point doesn't match your thesis without any reason other than you don't agree with it, you don't want to do any work to support it, and when I call you on it, you take your ball and go home, as I suspected you eventually would.

That's fine. I think it's short-sighted. Strasburg's mean WAR over the next 3 years should approach 18 wins, plus he'll have value beyond those years to the Nats, either in free agent compensation or as a long term signing. I think taking an additional 15% chance of catastrophic re-injury making that number near zero is a big potential cost, and potentially huge variance that makes team building plans much more complex.

I think you're placing vastly more confidence in the injury-prevention efficacy of a limited pitching workload than is warranted by the empirical record. Neither you, me, Mike Rizzo, or Dr. James Andrews can pinpoint a "safe" workload for Strasburg. Everyone is best-guessing.

Given that, the plan of front-loading all of Strasburg's 2012 workload into the portion of the season that would end before the September stretch run, let alone the entire postseason, and sticking to that plan come hell or high water, all in the name of maximizing Strasburg's injury prevention, was a poor choice. There were many alternative ways of making him potentially available to pitch in late September/October while still limiting him to essentially the same number of innings/pitches he threw, and to dismiss them all in favor of a false precision regarding his future health was taking risk aversion beyond its appropriate realm.

I've managed a lot of people and demanded a great deal from them, but I could never go over the line to where their health, career and family needs would never come first. Maybe that makes me a lousy GM candidate.

I have as well, and I could not as well. But I'm not (and I assume you're not) an athletics coach/manager/GM. Competitive sports brings injury risk, period, that the vast majority of professions don't. Balancing that injury risk against the demands of competition is at the heart of Rizzo's/Davey Johnson's job. It cannot be avoided. The Nationals in this case didn't make the best balancing tradeoff they could have.

That's not evidence, that's results oriented fact picking. Clearly one of either Jackson or Strasburg pushes Detwiler out of rotation, who threw 6 innings and gave up no earned runs (1 unearned) in game 4. Strasburg was likely to pitch better than Jackson did pitch, and highly unlikely to pitch as well as Detwiler did.

Detwiler is still available, either to replace Jackson as starter (my choice) or come in earlier in Jackson's start.

I can't believe that you're seriously claiming that Strasburg (based on his 2012 performance) was "unlikely" to significantly improve the pitching for the postseason. If you want to say it's no guarantee, sure. If you want to say the impact isn't worth the increased injury risk, that's fine too. But to say it barely matters? Strasburg was a very good pitcher this season and adding a very good pitcher to your roster is almost always going to help you in some way.

We don't need results-oriented thinking. The Nationals are a substantially better postseason team with another starter that put up a 125 ERA+ performance in 2012 on the roster.

If his presence in the postseason means so little to a team's win expectancy, why would he be such a valuable starter the next three years?

162>5

I know, I was just being snarky. It's sort of odd, though, to argue that you have to protect Strasburg at all costs because he's so valuable, yet his on-field value is apparently so tiny as to be virtually meaningless in a playoff series. Sample size, I know, but odd.

I know it's not totally cool to "save" a pitcher for the last weeks of the season or the postseason when a playoff spot isn't guaranteed. But once those important late-season/postseason games are reasonably likely (as was the case for the Nationals by July/August this year), I think you've got to make some effort to get Strasburg into those important games.

McCoy, if you want to do any work at all, I'll give you some incentive to do so.

You can either

1) Come up with a quote from Rizzo saying he had a hard innings limit at 160 innings (not 160-180 innings), OR a quote from Davey Johnson saying Rizzo set a hard innings limit at 160 innings (not "we decided to shut him down at 160 innings cause he was wearing down").

2) Show how the Andrews stats on career ending re-injury risk for TJ rehabbers aren't accurate or don't matter (by showing that at least 10% of healthy MLB pitchers suffer career ending injuries every 2 years).

Show either, and I will change my name here to "McCoy is always right, and I am always wrong" or some reasonable variation of that you prefer, for at least 30 days.

1) Come up with a quote from Rizzo saying he had a hard innings limit at 160 innings (not 160-180 innings), OR a quote from Davey Johnson saying Rizzo set a hard innings limit at 160 innings (not "we decided to shut him down at 160 innings cause he was wearing down").

This is cherry picking to an insane length. Davey Johnson said they had an inning limit on Strasburg that was 150 to 160 innings long. Reports throughout all of this year was that Strasburg was on an inning limit, Rizzo said they were just going to run him out there until he hits his limit, and sure enough when he hit 160 innings he was shutdown.

2) Show how the Andrews stats on career ending re-injury risk for TJ rehabbers aren't accurate or don't matter (by showing that at least 10% of healthy MLB pitchers suffer career ending injuries every 2 years).



How about this, since you are the one demanding proof, you show that his number are accurate.

I would just love it if Strasburg pulled a Ken Dryden and retired tomorrow. That (or an unrelated offseason injury - say losing his leg to an alligator) is about the only thing that will prevent this discussion from continuing for eternity.

Just make Strasburg the closer or the set up man at the ASB. Storen was still out. You can monitor Strasburg's rest, give Clippard a hand, easily keep him under 160 IP, have him available for the entire season and potential postseason, and still have him making an impact in high leverage situations. It involves risk, yes, minimal I would submit. It opens Rizzo to more criticism in the case of re-injury, minimally, I would submit. And it gives Davey another bullpen option, which any watcher of the playoffs knows is invaluable when we are down to these batter by batter nailbiting scenarios. I think Rizzo took the most plausible and defensible injury risk averse approach because his bosses would rather have Strasburg healthy long term than have him available this year. As a businessman I understand that position. As a fan it makes me crazy.

I can't believe that you're seriously claiming that Strasburg (based on his 2012 performance) was "unlikely" to significantly improve the pitching for the postseason. If you want to say it's no guarantee, sure. If you want to say the impact isn't worth the increased injury risk, that's fine too. But to say it barely matters? Strasburg was a very good pitcher this season and adding a very good pitcher to your roster is almost always going to help you in some way.

My math was he gives them at most a 2% higher win expectancy, and given his usage requirements and fatigue, likely only 1% or maybe even less.

I think that's not a large increase, though now that I"ve done the math I agree it's not as trivial as I thought . But I think Strasburg is going to be a 2-4% increase in expectation for both making and winning the playoffs for the next 3 years if he stays healthy and improves like he should in future seasons post-rehab. He will be likely pitching deeper into games and providing significantly more value.

Davey Johnson said they had an inning limit on Strasburg that was 150 to 160 innings long. Reports throughout all of this year was that Strasburg was on an inning limit, Rizzo said they were just going to run him out there until he hits his limit, and sure enough when he hit 160 innings he was shutdown.

Also, Zimmermann was shut down after exactly 161.1 innings last year. The Strasburg plan was modeled explicitly after the Zimmermann plan, and Strasburg was shut down after 159.1 innings this year. If that's not a hard-and-fast limit, it might as well be.

This is cherry picking to an insane length. Davey Johnson said they had an inning limit on Strasburg that was 150 to 160 innings long. Reports throughout all of this year was that Strasburg was on an inning limit, Rizzo said they were just going to run him out there until he hits his limit, and sure enough when he hit 160 innings he was shutdown.

It's a good quote, and I hadn't seen one from that long ago (just the recent davey johnson quotes). But again, context is missing. Is Davey saying we have a fixed limit set down by Rizzo, or my guess is based on our criteria we will be forced to shut him down around 150-160 innings. Because Rizzo has clearly said they were using performance based analysis to make the decision.

Do you want me to make it too easy for you. What value is there in getting me to change my handle if it's a trivial win?

How about this, since you are the one demanding proof, you show that his number are accurate.

The irony of you demanding me to provided documentary evidence to support the accuracy of statistics on Tommy John recovery rates provided by one of the worlds leading experts on Tommy John surgeries and recoveries, while you feel you need provide no evidence of their inaccuracy, tastes deliciously robust.

But sure I bite, given you are willing to change your handle to what? if I can provide such evidence?

Also, Zimmermann was shut down after exactly 161.1 innings last year. The Strasburg plan was modeled explicitly after the Zimmermann plan, and Strasburg was shut down after 159.1 innings this year. If that's not a hard-and-fast limit, it might as well be.

It MIGHT well be. But no one has ever quoted Rizzo as saying it was one. And correlation isn't causation, esp. when Strasburg's last start was so concerning.

But no one has ever quoted Rizzo as saying it was one.

Seriously. You really ought to let go of this.

"The Strasburg plan was modeled explicitly after the Zimmermann plan"

MISSES THE POINT. THE SITUATION WAS TOTALLY DIFFERENT. THEY KNEW THEY WERE PLAYING FOR SOMETHING. The question is do they make a strictly health/business interest decision with Strasburg or do they take into consideration the interest of the fans who pay for the whole thing and the other guys on the team who are there trying to to win. The argument against Rizzo here is that he went forward with the "Zimmerman plan" at the expense of the latter, and from a fan's perspective one can reasonably say it was a sh!tty thing to do when there were reasonable alternatives available. That is all anyone here is trying to say.

I agree, Tim D. The point is that KT is trying to pretend there's no 160 inning limit, when the two pitchers under the plan were both shut down right at 160.

Holy christ! You know what? 85% is a really high number as well

Coincidentally, about equal to the odds of winning at Russian Roulette.

The irony of you demanding me to provided documentary evidence to support the accuracy of statistics on Tommy John recovery rates provided by one of the worlds leading experts on Tommy John surgeries and recoveries, while you feel you need provide no evidence of their inaccuracy, tastes deliciously robust.

But sure I bite, given you are willing to change your handle to what? if I can provide such evidence?

Are you trying to "win" this argument? Tell you what, you win. Your opinion on this matter is A#1 in your book, congrats.

I'm willing to concede the existence of a 160 limit even though I think it is a guess at best.

My math was he gives them at most a 2% higher win expectancy, and given his usage requirements and fatigue, likely only 1% or maybe even less.

I think a 2% greater chance is significant. What percentage of win expectancy do you think it would cost the Tigers to sit Verlander for the postseason? 3%? 4%? I don't know that we could even have any significant precision on the effect of one player's impact on an entire postseason before the fact, though.

But I think Strasburg is going to be a 2-4% increase in expectation for both making and winning the playoffs for the next 3 years if he stays healthy and improves like he should in future seasons post-rehab. He will be likely pitching deeper into games and providing significantly more value.

Sure, but that's not the trade-off. You could avoid using Strasburg and he could still not stay healthy; you could use him and he could still stay healthy over his career. The tradeoff is the potential gain in this postseason weighed against the potential additional long-term risk of using him for some more innings in the postseason. (Or if you don't assume that the Nationals can't "save" 15 innings or so for the postseason by starting him a bit later in the season/pulling him earlier/stretching his starts/switching him to the bullpen, the additional risk associated with that.)

Seriously. You really ought to let go of this.

Good advice. You should consider taking it.

Competitive sports brings injury risk, period, that the vast majority of professions don't

That's at the heart of it. They are paying the young man to play baseball. Paying him not to play baseball will absolutely guarantee the safety of his arm, as long as he stays well away from wood-chippers and the like. But at some point it's absurd – not to say the Nationals are near that point yet, but it's looming in the distance.

Reading this thread still depresses me :-/

You're not the only one. I have completely lost interest in the rest of the postseason. No one will mistake me for a Yankees fan, but if they somehow come back and beat Detroit I will actually be rooting for them against the team who I will not name.

This 160 inning thing is pure BS. It depends on the individual's physical makeup and delivery, not on some mystical formula where you gradually increase the innings thrown 20 per year and that will ensure they remain healthy. As good of a job as Rizzo did, I still resent missing at least a puncher's chance to win a WS. Particularly if that POS Scott Boras had input on the decision.

My math was he gives them at most a 2% higher win expectancy, and given his usage requirements and fatigue, likely only 1% or maybe even less.

I think a 2% greater chance is significant. What percentage of win expectancy do you think it would cost the Tigers to sit Verlander for the postseason? 3%? 4%? I don't know that we could even have any significant precision on the effect of one player's impact on an entire postseason before the fact, though.

KT's "math" isn't very relevant here. He apparently eyeballed Strasburg's and Jackson's per-start averages and guessed at a 10% single-game win expectancy bump (and thus a 2% series win expectancy bump). Aside from not including much actual math, it failed to account for the presence of an extra quality arm in the bullpen (Jackson or Detwiler) to bail out a starter who struggles, be an extra-innings weapon, or simply give the bullpen a break.

his availability in the post season unlikely to make a significant increase in the Nats win expectancy

Is this another fact?

Well it depends on how you define significant I guess. I'd make the expected difference in any start around .4 runs. There's no chance Strasburg would get two starts in round one, so I make the difference about 2% in terms of getting out of the first round. Maybe 4% per round after that.

Given that Detwiler isn't exactly a replacement level pitcher this is higher than I'd have expected.

There's no chance Strasburg would get two starts in round one,

Gio, Edwin Jackson and Zimmermann all made two appearances in the series. Strasburg probably would have been available for at least one relief appearance, even if he had made only one start.

Particularly if that POS Scott Boras had input on the decision.

This is the part that interests me. Boras clearly had a level of input on the decision. It's in HIS best interest to do so as it may lead to increased earnings for his client and for him in the future. Boras also has a direct line to the Lerners.

If he didn't have that direct line, how would that have played out? All the Lerners heard was Rizzo and Boras telling him this is the way to go... with probably not many countering voices.

Since the Nationals lost the series by a very small margin, and got a lousy start from Edwin Jackson (a clearly worse pitcher than Strasburg) in game 3, one of the losses, I think it is pretty likely that Strasburg would have represented a significant increase in win expectancy for the series.

Yep, good ole Stras would've pitched the greatest complete game in history and led the Nats to a 0 to -2 win.

------------------------------------------------

MISSES THE POINT. THE SITUATION WAS TOTALLY DIFFERENT. THEY KNEW THEY WERE PLAYING FOR SOMETHING. The question is do they make a strictly health/business interest decision with Strasburg or do they take into consideration the interest of the fans who pay for the whole thing and the other guys on the team who are there trying to to win. The argument against Rizzo here is that he went forward with the "Zimmerman plan" at the expense of the latter, and from a fan's perspective one can reasonably say it was a sh!tty thing to do when there were reasonable alternatives available. That is all anyone here is trying to say.

That's about it, and fortunately Rizzo considered those alternatives, found them wanting, and stuck to his guns in the long range interest of the franchise. And again, it's funny how the overwhelming majority of the anti-Rizzo sentiment is coming from fans of other teams.

[296] I'm about as anti-shutdown a Nats fan as you'll find... the idea that they'd bring him in to relieve is crazy. The Cardinals weren't even willing to bring back Chris Carpenter, and he's got a million more miles on his arm.

Rizzo considered those alternatives, found them wanting,

The "found them wanting" part was a blunder, as has been explained many times.