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.

This happens all the time here.

I choose A.

Why do you choose A?

Because A happened.

I see.

it's funny how the overwhelming majority of the anti-Rizzo sentiment is coming from fans of other teams.

How many regular Nats fans do we have? I for one heard many a complaint at the ballpark in Game 3 and 5 that Strasburg wasn't pitching in the series. But hey, BTF is the world so if it hasn't happening here it doesn't exist.

The only reason most of the people are defending Rizzo's moves is because he made them.

If Rizzo had figured out a way to use Strasburg in the postseason, with maybe a 180-inning total for the entire year, I can't imagine there'd be many people - and certainly no Nats fans - who'd come on here and scream that Strasburg should have been shut down for good in early September. For all the grief Cubs fans give Dusty Baker, I've never heard any of them argue that Mark Prior should have been shut down for 2003 a month before the regular season ended.

Based on what I've seen, I'd say probably 80-85% of Nats fans supported Rizzo strongly. Probably a certain percentage were of the pack mentality who made it an "us versus them" thing given the drum-beating of coverage, and the sheer stupidity of some of the anti-shutdown arguments.

Much of that is based on a "Trust in Rizzo" argument. He's the guy who built this team. We have faith that he's going to keep us here, and that when he says we have a window over the next half-decade, we do.

There's a certain arrogance to Rizzo -- it's certainly not a quiet confidence. And a lot of Nats fans have rallied around that, believing what he's saying as if it's truth, not just projection and bluster.

You know what other fan base rallied around a personality because he "led" a winning team? Cubs fans. "In Dusty we Trust-ee" was the slogan of 2003. Should give you pause.

And they got to the LCS :/

Rizzo had several reasonable options, he chose one, and that's it. Sure there are going to be people defending that decision as a reasonable one. If he had made a different, also reasonable choice, people would defend it as reasonable, because it would be. Nothing strange about it. It's only strange if you think there was a single, obvious choice and all the other options were horrifically bad.

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.

If you argue this was a business decision, then you've basically conceded Rizzo's case. The only business advantage for the Nats here is if shutting him down early really does reduce the risk of injury over the next 4-5 years. This is why the Rizzo critics have mainly settled on the critique that he was "stubborn." If you admit it was arguably the best business decision, then it was also likely the best fan decision (in this case -- that obviously isn't always true).

The only reason most of the people are defending Rizzo's moves is because he made them....This happens all the time here.

Seriously? You think the general tendency at BTF is to say "management is always right?" Don't see it....

Clearly, "management thought it was the right thing to do" does not settle any debate. At the same time, I think that "this decision was made by people who had more information than I have, and a strong financial incentive to make the correct decision," should be treated as strong evidence in this kind of debate. It doesn't settle the issue, but nor should it be dismissed as many here have done.

At the same time, I think that "this decision was made by people who had more information than I have, and a strong financial incentive to make the correct decision," should be treated as strong evidence in this kind of debate. It doesn't settle the issue, but nor should it be dismissed as many here have done.

Certainly true, but as you say, it doesn't settle the issue.

If history is written by the winners, why do we read Gone With The Wind?

It's only strange if you think there was a single, obvious choice and all the other options were horrifically bad.

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.

Seriously? You think the general tendency at BTF is to say "management is always right?" Don't see it....

Yes seriously. The argument isn't that people on BTF defend management but that people on BTF and everywhere will defend what happened vs what ifs.

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.

I doubt that, the people defending the move are defending them for a variety of reasons. I defend the move because I agree with it. In hindsight he could have taken a different tack, but I absolutely support a very cautious approach to a player returning from Tommy John surgery, whether there is numbers to back it up or not, doesn't matter, as the only numbers out there say "basically if you pitch, you are going to ruin your arm at some point in time". I like the 160 ip, I agree that once you shut him down, you don't turn him back on until spring training(intuitively turning him back on for the post season seems like sheer folly)

People defend Rizzo because he didn't cave into pressure. Not because he they blindly follow everything a person does.

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.

He came into the season with several options, the most common options being
1. Pitch the kid with no concern
2. limit his pitch count per game, but beyond that no concern
3. pitch him cautiously with a rough mental idea of an innings limit
4. Follow plan 3 but assume that the team will make a playoff and reserve about 40 innings for that
5. Start him off as a reliever, and as the season progress's stretch him out to a starter making sure that he falls within a certain innings pitched limit
6. follow plan 3 but when realized that they were going to make the post season do something to make him eligible for the post season
7. follow plan 3 but when realized that they were going to make the post season dump plan 3 entirely.

He went with plan three and stuck with it. I think he's right in being cautious and not shutting him down and starting him back up, I think the 160 ip is a good start, I think he felt that getting 20+ starts out of Strasburg was better for the fans and the finances than getting 14 starts and 20 relief appearances. Ultimately the only thing that was going to ruin the plan was if the team did the unexpected and posted the best record in baseball and went into the post season as the favorites... the odds of that happening, seemed a bit unrealistic.

In hindsight he could have taken a different tack

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.

I like the 160 ip, I agree that once you shut him down, you don't turn him back on until spring training(intuitively turning him back on for the post season seems like sheer folly)

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?

You know what other fan base rallied around a personality because he "led" a winning team?

Come on, there's no need to bring up the Nazis here.

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?

On May 3rd, sure I would have. On September 1st and he misses 3 starts....maybe not.

People defend Rizzo because he didn't cave into pressure.

Caving into pressure is one thing. Considering alternatives with an open mind, and modifying one's course in the light of new circumstances, is quite another.

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.

Because if his team is the wild card team or barely makes it into the post season, I wouldn't have Strasburg pitching. The only scenario I would have contemplated Strasburg pitching was the one that they ended up with, best record in the league. Anything less than that, I shut him down.

On top of that, you want to maximize his innings, you wanted to make sure he reached at least 140 innings. At least I would have. If I was making the decisions, starting in August I would have conferenced with Davey Johnson, the pitching coach, and Strasburg and maybe modified his usage for the remainder of the year, plotted out a way to skip three starts and say those are for the post season. But even then, you still have another 3 weeks of the season to account for. I'm not sure that I could have planned a way to get him into the post season, while sticking to my beliefs on how to handle a pitcher coming back from Tommy John surgery.

The only scenario I would have contemplated Strasburg pitching was the one that they ended up with, best record in the league. Anything less than that, I shut him down.

So division winner by 4 games means you would shut him down because the Reds win one more game?


On top of that, you want to maximize his innings, you wanted to make sure he reached at least 140 innings.

There was/is nothing stopping the Nationals from having Strasburg throw simulated games.

On May 3rd, sure I would have. On September 1st and he misses 3 starts....maybe not.

How about shutting him down in June? How about in July? How about in August?

The argument has always been between this was the only good option vs there were plenty of good options.

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.

And can we please at least drop the profoundly silly argument that because at some point in the season things changed (it became clear the Nats would contend), and Rizzo did not then change course, that he must therefore be "stubborn" and "inflexible?" There is no logical reason that a strategy developed under condition "X" has to change under any condition "not X." You need to show there was a better and plausible strategy available at the time. And no one has come close to doing that here.

On top of that, you want to maximize his innings, you wanted to make sure he reached at least 140 innings. At least I would have. If I was making the decisions, starting in August I would have conferenced with Davey Johnson, the pitching coach, and Strasburg and maybe modified his usage for the remainder of the year, plotted out a way to skip three starts and say those are for the post season. But even then, you still have another 3 weeks of the season to account for. I'm not sure that I could have planned a way to get him into the post season, while sticking to my beliefs on how to handle a pitcher coming back from Tommy John surgery.

You've kind of contradicted yourself about three times over in here. You're making this out to be far, far more complicated than it is.

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.

The notion that having him wind up with some number of innings marginally different from 160 as the result of that would be clearly more dangerous to his health is just completely based on, you know, no evidence at all.

No, there were only BAD options available.

No, there weren't.

The Rizzo critics seem to have a hard time getting their heads around that reality.

That's because it isn't reality.

And, as has been shown throughout this thread, the options were all roughly equally bad.

This has been shown roughly nowhere.

So division winner by 4 games means you would shut him down because the Reds win one more game?

The point was an excellent record, 95+ wins(94 will also work) which wasn't something that they really thought was going to happen.

There was/is nothing stopping the Nationals from having Strasburg throw simulated games.

I hope you aren't saying those are the same thing.

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.

The critics don't think there were only bad options available. They think it's perfectly legitimate for Rizzo to tank his plan and let Strasburg go, since there is no real numbers to indicate that there is a magic 160 inning pitched number. (note I obviously don't agree with that philosophy, but that seems to be their philosophy)

How about shutting him down in June? How about in July? How about in August?

Depends on how long he is down for, and why he went down. June probably not, I think if I have an a 160 innings pitched limit, that roughly 3/4ths of that would be the shut down range if there is a reason to shut him down(if he's over 120 innings or so, I seriously consider any extended down time to be the shut down time)

They think it's perfectly legitimate for Rizzo to tank his plan and let Strasburg go, since there is no real numbers to indicate that there is a magic 160 inning pitched number.

I'm not sure which critics have advocated simply "letting Strasburg go," but I'm not aware of any in this thread. I certainly haven't said anything remotely similar to that.

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.

I wouldn't have considered it as an option until around August 1st, he already had 120 ip at that time. If I have a hard 160 limit then you have 60 team games remaining to get him another 20 innings pitched? Do you really want to make him a reliever and expect him to bounce back and become a starter again?

I am a Tiger fan and if the Tigers did the same thing under similar circumstances I would be royally pissed. I want my team to go for it. Smoltz for Doyle Alexander still hurts, but I loved it at the time and the '87 race was a great memory I will always have. To intentionally shut this guy down when he could help them in the last weeks of September and the playoffs was a joke.

I have yet to see anyone demonstrate why converting him to relief at the ASB was a bad option. Perhaps some risk yes, but driving to the park on the freeway and flying on the team charter are risks too. The Nats fans and players got screwed. If they win a couple and Strasburg has a great career, hey, all is forgiven. If not........

I hope you aren't saying those are the same thing.

Same thing to what?

Strasburg needs to bat and field a baseball in order build strength in his arm and hone his skills?

As for they were all bad plans, I'm not really sure why the defense of Rizzo then. If having him pitch 160 innings from April to the end of September is just as bad as having him start in May or skipping starts or shutting him down and starting him up again then the reaction to all these suggestions shouldn't create 100's and 100's of posts. You should be saying "meh" instead of so vigorously defending Rizzo's moves.

Depends on how long he is down for, and why he went down

How about he was shut down to keep him healthy? This is kind of weird. If Strasburg injures himself and goes on the DL it is perfectly acceptable to have him come off the DL and pitch. But actually bench him for 10 to 15 days is considered too dangerous and impossible to implement.

If I have a hard 160 limit then you have 60 team games remaining to get him another 20 innings pitched? Do you really want to make him a reliever and expect him to bounce back and become a starter again?

There are a number of reasonable ways to set up a schedule in which he would work about 20 innings in 60 games instead of 40 innings in 35-40 games. Having him make a few bullpen appearances is among them. Freaking out than any slight deviation from The Prime Directive equals a dramatic increase in his injury risk is to put far more faith in the predictability of injuries than is warranted.


I have yet to see anyone demonstrate why converting him to relief at the ASB was a bad option.

It wasn't a bad option at all.

Do you really want to make him a reliever and expect him to bounce back and become a starter again?

Temporarily? Yes. It happens all the time. Especially in the postseason.

It happens all the time. Especially in the postseason.

And for most of the many decades of MLB history, it commonly happened all through the regular season as well. There is no evidence that it in itself raised the likelihood of injury.

This is just classical stand on 16 when the dealer has a 10 showing type mentality.

This is just classical stand on 16 when the dealer has a 10 showing type mentality.

It's a different philosophical viewpoint. It's not inherently stupid.

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.

Thanks for providing confirmation.

A good option would be using your best pitcher for the full season plus the post-season. That wasn't available (maybe Ray would disagree, I don't know). The options that have been offered here, like Rizzo's plan, are not good. And if you think winning the division is priority #1, none of them are an improvement on what happened. Good creative effort, but the results just aren't there.

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.

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.

What options? Within the framework that Rizzo fully believes in, which for simplicity sake, we'll say is no more than 170 innings pitched.

Why are we being handcuffed by Rizzo's own refusal to adjust his plan? He made a bad choice and you guys are defending it by saying that we need to stick within Rizzo's poor parameters and definitively prove that our suggestion would work better than Rizzo's. That's silly. Just because Rizzo chose to jump off a bridge and dash himself on the rocks that doesn't mean we have to figure out a way for Rizzo to jump off the bridge and not dash himself on the rocks. We can actually suggest that he simply not jump off a bridge.

Tell me again why the Nationals couldn't skip a start here or there?

He had to pitch in Colorado on 6/25 or against them on 7/6? He had to face Miami twice in his last 3 starts? He had to face San Diego on 5/15?

"What options?"

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.

What options?

How many million times does the multitude of options need to be repeated?

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?

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.

really, you are proposing a team to take one of their three best starters at the half way mark and make him a reliever to save his arm for the post season...and you don't think that would have a major backlash?

You know when they were only 4 games up on the Braves and 4.5 games up on the Mets, and 7 teams within 4.5 games of them.

really, you are proposing a team to take one of their three best starters at the half way mark and make him a reliever to save his arm for the post season...and you don't think that would have a major backlash?

Who here is arguing in this case based on finding the option that causes the smallest story to unfold?

Who cares what kind of story unfolds? The issue is that they didn't want to go full throttle with Strasburg so they had to come up with a plan to use him this season that was different than simply giving him 32 or so starts and letting him throw 200 innings if possible. They chose a plan and many people are disagreeing with the inflexibility of the plan.

really, you are proposing a team to take one of their three best starters at the half way mark and make him a reliever to save his arm for the post season...and you don't think that would have a major backlash?

So ... "fear of backlash"? That's your argument? You're going with that?

You know when they were only 4 games up on the Braves and 4.5 games up on the Mets, and 7 teams within 4.5 games of them

So how about at the end of July when they had the best record in all of baseball and the Braves were 5 games back with nobody else even close in their division?

People keep talking about flexibility and the team adapting. So you know what the answer is if they move Strasburg to the pen and they start to lose their lead? Put Strasburg back in the rotation. This isn't rocket science.

Personally I wouldn't have moved him to the pen. My first choice would have been to start Strasburg's season later. Not because I wanted to save him for some unknown playoff game in the future but because starting him later allows his arm to recover that much more and avoids a good chunk of cold nasty weather. Rizzo had created a plan that ignored the possibility of a playoff run or the team being in serious contention. Since he entered into the season with that kind of mindset having him start in April or May or June makes no difference at all.

So that would have been my first choice. If for some reason Strasburg had to start in April and the team started to show signs of getting good I would start to look at my options. I would look to see how much of a dropoff Lannan is, I would try to find out how well Strasburg is bouncing back after each start. Once I thought I got a good handle on the various variables I would decide between shutting him down for a month in August/September and starting him back up or having him skip 4 or so starts throughout the schedule.

If they had told the fans that a transition to the pen would allow them to use him all year and into the post season in high leverage situations there would have been zero backlash and in fact a hugely positive reaction. You know the fans all believe the bullpen is really important. A lot of Reds fans think it is in the Reds best long term interest to leave Chapman as the closer. I do not share this contention but the notion that moving Strasburg to the pen to KEEP HIM AVAILABLE would have caused a backlash is laughable.

The problem those of you arguing against the shutdown are ignoring is that you're ceding to Rizzo (in some cases) the necessity for some sort of limit -- whether it's 160 or 180 or whatever -- but not ceding to him the main thrust of his argument: that what happens this year doesn't really matter, because by doing this (and the other actions he's made as GM) he's guaranteed a window from 2013-2018.

So while we can devise all kinds of schemes to reallocate those 160 this year, it's missing the point. Rizzo wanted him to train as a starting pitcher to help NEXT season. They were happy with the innings they got this year, but knew all they needed was four solid starters in the postseason. Signing EJax was done not to strengthen the season-long rotation, but to have a veteran, capable third starter once Stras was shut down. Rizzo didn't care about this season. If anything happened it was gravy.

So while you can reallocate those innings, it doesn't make sense to do so unless you're also giving ground to the second part of his arguments and beliefs.

"Rizzo didn't care about this season."

I hope you are wrong although I'm not sure you aren't. If Rizzo didn't care then I wholeheartedly understand why some Washington fans (call ins on MLB Radio mostly) have suggested he should be fired. In reality he will very likley be Exec of the Year. And I am sure his bosses are very happy. As a fan I am just very disappointed a front office would so brazenly handicap their team's chances.

what happens this year doesn't really matter, because by doing this (and the other actions he's made as GM) he's guaranteed a window from 2013-2018.

"Guaranteed?" You're going with that?