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 3 of 4 pages
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
How about this, since you are the one demanding proof, you show that his number are accurate.
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.
Holy christ! You know what? 85% is a really high number as well
Seriously. You really ought to let go of this.
Reading this thread still depresses me :-/
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.
his availability in the post season unlikely to make a significant increase in the Nats win expectancy
Is this another fact?
There's no chance Strasburg would get two starts in round one,
Particularly if that POS Scott Boras had input on the decision.
The only reason most of the people are defending Rizzo's moves is because he made them.
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.
The only reason most of the people are defending Rizzo's moves is because he made them....This happens all the time here.
The only reason most of the people are defending Rizzo's moves is because he made them. If Rizzo had decided to strip Strasburg down and paint him green in an attempt to save his arm there would be people defending that move as well.
No, it is also strange because the people defending the move are disputing the notion that were other viable options. The argument has always been between this was the only good option vs there were plenty of good options.
So if he stubs his toe on May 3rd and goes on the DL you wouldn't have him pitch again until spring training of 2013?
So only now a month after he shut Strasburg down and 5 months after it became apparent that the Nationals were going to be having a special season did it become apparent to you that he could have taken a different tack? If you realize now that he could have taken a different route I'm not sure why you are defending his moves to people who didn't need months to realize that he could have taken a different route.
The argument has always been between this was the only good option vs there were plenty of good options.
So division winner by 4 games means you would shut him down because the Reds win one more game?
There was/is nothing stopping the Nationals from having Strasburg throw simulated games.
No, there were only BAD options available. The Rizzo critics seem to have a hard time getting their heads around that reality. And, as has been shown throughout this thread, the options were all roughly equally bad.
How about shutting him down in June? How about in July? How about in August?
Modifying his usage pattern in mid-season such that he's directed to reach about 140 innings by the end of September is not rocket science. That would leave him with about 20 innings of potential post-season availability.
This is just classical stand on 16 when the dealer has a 10 showing type mentality.
No, there were only BAD options available. The Rizzo critics seem to have a hard time getting their heads around that reality.
No, there weren't.
There were plenty of workable options Guy, all with pluses and minuses. Rizzo chose the one that hurt his team the worst down the stretch and possibly screwed his team out of the NLDS. Just because you think you have refuted the other options doesn't make it so. I hate to break it to you but you are wrong.
Stick him in the bullpen at the ASB when they realized they would be playing real games in September. Like I said in POST #1 and have repeated several times. And the myriad other options given by Steve T.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (2 members)
Page rendered in 1.0702 seconds, 57 querie(s) executed