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 4 of 4 pages
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.
One of the most bizarre aspects of this discussion is the people insisting that Rizzo's plan was not "160."
Zimmermann was shut down at 160.
Strasburg was said to be on the Zimmermann plan.
News reports all over the place said Rizzo said 160.
Davey Johnson said Rizzo said 160.
Rizzo in August nevertheless makes noise about there being no set limit.
Strasburg was shut down at 160.
Why in the bloody hell are people contesting that Rizzo's plan was 160?
So again we have to be handcuffed to Rizzo's stupid decisions in order to show there was better options out there. That doesn't make sense.
I don't really understand the notion that we should use him until he gets tired and then do something about it. Wouldn't a better plan be to keep him from getting fatigued period?
Having thrown 5 1/3 innings in relief in game one and 2 innings in relief in game two of a doubleheader in a AAA playoff run and completely toasting my arm, I have a different view than the "go for it now" crowd posting here.
BPro's writers picked the Nats to finish 4th. Only Adam Rubin at ESPN picked the Nats to win the division. Jon Heyman also predicted the Nats would win the division, and I wouldn't build a predictive model around his brand of logic.
Pitchers are creatures of habit - they exist best on a set and regular schedule of throwing between starts and working out through the entire season. Anything that changes their schedule is deleterious to their performance.
The "best" way to play the July/August/September innings reduction game would have been to drop Strasburg from the rotation after off days and keep the other 4 starters on a regular rotation. But, would the other 80% of the rotation have performed as well in September and in the playoffs with this minor innings increase?
We all realize why Rizzo did what he did. The debate isn't about his motivations, well, other than there being an issue of Rizzo valuing future unknown years over a known present year.
I don't know about that. If Strasburg blows out his arm in 2013 and the Nationals don't make the playoffs for the rest of the decade, I think people will be talking about the shutdown and the lost opportunity for quite some time.
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.
Also, it's not about whether or not Strasburg should be coddled. I have yet to see any poster in this thread suggest that the Nationals shouldn't have had some sort of reduced-work plan for 2012.
But Rizzo totally had a 50-page binder, man.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (2 members)
Page rendered in 1.1470 seconds, 74 querie(s) executed