Tuesday, May 21, 2013
WaPo | Ryan Mattheus breaks throwing hand punching a locker, adds to bullpen disarray
(www.washingtonpost.com)
posted 3 days ago by Coot Veal and Cot Deal make $486 every day to dumbness, nationals
|
15 comment(s)
The disarray in the Nationals’ bullpen reached a bizarre and self-inflicted new height Monday night. After the Nationals’ 8-0 loss to the Giants, Manager Davey Johnson revealed that set-up man Ryan Mattheus had broken his right hand Sunday when he punched his locker after a dreadful performance, landing him on the disabled list and leaving the Nationals scrambling for fresh arms.
Reader Comments and Retorts
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 2 of 8 pages
< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 > Last ›I am not a Nats fan, but I certainly thought they could win it all without Strasburg. That doesn't mean I agree with the decision to shut him down -- having him available clearly would have improved their chances of winning -- but they were clearly a team capable of winning the World Series. With Strasburg they were a 98-win team (96 by Pythagorean record), without him they were certainly no worse than a 90-win team, and 90-win teams win the World Series fairly often.
It's a false choice. They managed the situation poorly. They went into the year with the knowledge he wouldn't be available if they made the playoffs. That's not stupid, that's stoopid. Holding him to 160 IP and managing his rehabilitation so that he could pitch down the stretch was an entirely doable thing.
Some on both sides of this thing play the unknowns like trump cards, but there are too many of them for that approach to really work. However, there are some knowns, like that Strasburg is one of the most gifted pitchers in the majors,that there is no guarantee that the Nationals will be in as good a position to win the World Series as they were this year ever again, and that there is no guarantee that they have dramatically reduced the odds of his getting hurt again by doing this.
To me, those are pretty persuasive arguments against Rizzo's decision.
That makes a lot of sense. Now they would gt strange looks for holding him back early, but they could have preached caution --- and looked silly if they finished 10 games back. :(
What? Did I miss the announcement where September wins count for more in the standings than wins in July or August? This makes no sense at all.
If you want to argue the Nats should have just ridden SS until there were no more games to play, then fine. That's a coherent view, though I don't think I agree. But all these suggestions that the Nats could have split the difference are just nonsense. The team's first priority has to be making the post-season. The best way to maximize that probability is getting your 160 IP from SS during the regular season (and it doesn't matter a whit when that happens). If the team failed to get every possible inning from SS, because they were holding him back to pitch in playoff games that might never happen, Rizzo would have been excoriated as arrogant and a fool. And properly so. The Nats didn't clinch the division until, what, game 158? You simply can't assume you will make the playoffs, for all the good reasons being cited here by Rizzo's critics!
Once you accept the notion of an IP limit, Rizzo's plan is the only one that makes any sense.
No, but you apparently missed the one where October wins mean more than April wins.
What good is making the playoffs if you're not going to try your hardest to win when you get there? The players and fans, and Strasburg especially, deserved better. St. Louis won this series by employing the always controversial "Hey, let's use all our best players" strategy.
They could've easily delayed the start of his season by six weeks - which, if anything, is even better for his arm. And, yes, maybe it would also be nice to adapt enough to realize 20-30 additional playoff innings probably won't kill him.
You're confusing real health with baseball health. There's no comparison between risking baseball injury and something like oral cancer. Strasburg can blow out his elbow on pitch 1 of Spring Training next year, never pitch again, and have a wonderful life. He's already rich.
If I answer will I be accused of "making the thread all about me"?
You're off base. I've said that postseason games are irrelevant in determining whether a player is a Hall of Famer. I've said postseason games are irrelevant in determining the talent level of a player. I never said that teams shouldn't try to win postseason series; I said the outcomes of postseason series were largely driven by fluke, and were not a test of character. I never said you should start your 4th or 5th starter instead of your ace, or that you should shut down your best players. I watch the postseason, all of it. It's great fun. I critique tactical decisions by managers and organizations. That the games are exhibition games doesn't change any of that. You still want to win a championship. You just need to understand what that means. It's fluke-driven, but you can and should still try to put yourself in the best position to win. That means putting your best players on the field, and concentrating the innings in your best pitchers. I never once said otherwise.
I'm sorry, by "the stretch" did you mean post-season games? I'm not familiar with that terminology.
So you are saying the Nats should have limited Strasburg during the season, to save him for Oct games that might never happen? Let's imagine the Nats conducted a poll of fans in March, and asked "Which do you want: 1) let SS pitch 160 IP during the season to maximize the chance of winning the division, or 2) let SS pitch 135 IP, reducing the chance of making the post-season but having SS available to pitch if we make it?" Now that's an interesting question. My guess is that a majority of fans would pick #2. I could be wrong. But the idea that virtually all fans would pick #1 is just absurd.
You have absolutely no idea if that's true. You are shortening the break between 2012 and 2013, and maybe that's important. Having to pick SS's replacement in April rather than August also gives you less information, and makes it more likely you make a bad choice. And maximizing Nats' wins early in the season may have other advantages -- for example, maybe the Phillies will give up and trade half their team away. One could argue this in either direction. There's no obvious advantage.
Exactly. Walt's comment was ridiculous.
Rizzo pissed on a chance to go to the postseason with the best team in the league.
I may be misremembering, but didn't you say that you were pleased that the Nationals might shut Strasburg down because it was a sign that a front office shared your view that the postseason was getting too much attention?
I got many of the words right, but Ray's angle was different from what I remembered.)
I was referring to September/October - the period of time he's been unavailable. See #49.
Given that choice, I'd certainly take #2. Worst-case scenario, you lose 25 innings and narrowly miss the playoffs. Which, really, isn't a heckuva lot worse than what happened. Unless you're really into division titles - which are cool but ultimately unsatisfying.
So Nolan Ryan excoriates Hamilton for stopping chewing tobacco and everyone with the exception of a couple of people vocally disagrees. A player's health is more important than baseball. Yet here, where there was a specific doctor's recommendation that Strasburg be shut down, all of a sudden if you choose a player's health over improved odds in the playoffs, you're history's greatest monster,
The link between tobacco and cancer is a lot stronger than the link between an incremental 30 innings and arm falling off. Plus, what snapper said.
Even ignoring the first bit, I believe this is false. It hasn't been widely publicized, but Kris Medlen was also on something of an IP limit. Medlen's eventual transition from reliever to starter was charted in the offseason. Both pitchers had Tommy John surgery in August 2010.
In Medlen's case I don't think there was a hard cap on his innings, and I am sure he would have been allowed to pitch through October. The Braves put the emphasis on slowly stretching him out and building his endurance.
Well, we can imagine how it will shake out. The way I see it, there are no circumstances that will allow the Rizzoites to declare a clear victory. If Strasburg is great and healthy in the future, both camps will decide that it is proof that they were correct. The Rizzoites will say: "See, he has blossomed under our protection." The anti-Rizzos will say: "Look how healthy he is. Surely he could have pitched another few games." And we don't know who will be right.
But there are lots of scenarios where Rizzo will look like he was wrong. If Strasburg is injured, or if he is ineffective, or if he's terrific but the Nats never again sniff the playoffs.
If Rizzo didn't think the Nats were going to compete this year then he should not have had Strasburg throw in spring training and start the season with the team. He should have delayed Strasburg's start to further strengthen his arm and get him in shape.
if Rizzo did think the Nats were going to compete then he should have came up with a plan that allowed the Nationals to maximize Strasburg's limited availability.
And all of this hinges on 160 being some magical number. 190 is too many. 120 is too few. No, they can't possibly know any of this.
There are lots of cautionary tales just from recent history of teams who thought they'd have "another chance": the '03 Cubs, the '06 Mets, the '07 Diamondbacks and let's not forget the '07 Indians either who got bounced from the ALCS with an "I'm sure they'll be back here again". You can't take anything for granted and that's why the Strasburg shutdown is the single most indefensible decision I've seen a major league front office make since I've been a fan of baseball - I'm not saying it would have made the difference in this series (but having another starter to go to having watched Zimmerman and Edwin Jackson crap the bed might have been nice), but it ought to cost Mike Rizzo his job. The way they handled this situation is inexcusable, and it ought to disqualify him as GM of a MLB baseball team.
That's fine UNLESS 20 more IP from Strasburg could have made the difference in terms of making the playoffs. Then, your decision to hold him back so he could kick ass in playoff games that will never be played will look really, really dumb. And it will look that way because it was in fact really dumb.
I've said for weeks that Rizzo needed to either be overruled or be fired.
Well, I did say "if" meaning if you schedule him for 160 innings and because he gets shelled here or there or dinged up here or there he only gets to 140 they can do X, Y, Z. But I will say it is a helluva lot easier to defend the stance of starting the season late for a player coming off of TJ than it is to pull one of your best starters out for the season when you are the #1 seed and going to the playoffs.
Personally I think limiting him was fine. I think monitoring him and protecting him from dangerous fatigue was a correct course of action. I also think it was rather stupid that Rizzo absolutely refused to change how they used Strasburg when it became apparent that this was going to be a special season and that they were likely to get into the playoffs.
I know this is a popular view here, but I don't get it. At what point did the "specialness" become apparent, and what change in usage was supposed to follow this revelation (other than, let's forget the limit)? There is no usage change that allows you to avoid the core choice: give priority to winning the division, or give priority to winning hypothetical playoff games.
Early July or so. By early August it was beyond obvious. There was obviously no guarantee they were going to make the postseason, but it was crystal clear that they were going to be at least battling for it through September. To pretend otherwise is silly.
and what change in usage was supposed to follow this revelation (other than, let's forget the limit)?
There were any number of options other than "forget the limit." He could be used as a spot starter, a long reliever, a mop-up reliever, a ROOGY, a closer, you name it. There were many, many ways to limit his innings while keeping him available all the way to the end, whenever the end would come.
There is no usage change that allows you to avoid the core choice: give priority to winning the division, or give priority to winning hypothetical playoff games.
Yes, but guess what: tradeoff choices are what management is all about, not just in baseball, but in every walk of life. Finding the appropriate sweet spot between ultimates is something that management is there to attempt to do.
Especially with expanded rosters in September. He could have stayed right in the rotation but thrown only 2-3 IP per start all month, or pitched 2 IP per start in early Sept. and worked back up to 5-6 IP by the time the playoffs rolled around.
Who's pretending otherwise? The Nats were clearly in the hunt. And that's why it would be insane IMO to then cut back on Strasburg's IP. Then you are the one sacrificing the present for speculative gains in the future, exactly what Rizzo's critics accuse him of.
Well, sure. But what's the right answer? To me, the "sweet spot" is win the division. Give us playoff baseball. Give us a 1-in-8 shot at a WS.
I guarantee you that had the Nats announced "we are so sure we're going to win the division, we are going to cancel 5 of Strasburg's starts down the stretch so he can (hopefully) pitch in the playoffs," and then the Braves had passed them, the resulting controversy would dwarf this one.
OK, that's progress. Would you place any limit on Strasburg at all? Or would you let him go to, say, 225 IP if the Nats made it to the WS?
If it would be insane to cut back on Stasburg's IP, what was it to shut him down completely, then? What's more insane than insane?
Well, sure. But what's the right answer? To me, the "sweet spot" is win the division. Give us playoff baseball. Give us a 1-in-8 shot at a WS.
There is no one clearly right answer, precisely because there are so many reasonable competing alternatives. But the clearly wrong answer, IMO, is to go all in on a plan formulated long before the realities of the late season were becoming clear, and to rigidly stick with it no matter what. Especially since that 160 IP number is something they pulled entirely out of their a$$.
Are you being deliberately obtuse, Steve? If you have a fixed IP limit, then the only way to have SS pitch in the post-season is to reduce his IP in the regular season. This is 3rd grade math. In your scenario, SS will pitch fewer regular season innings than under the Rizzo plan. You are risking throwing away the division title. If you want to argue that set of priorities, fine. But this -- "There is no one clearly right answer, precisely because there are so many reasonable competing alternatives." -- is pathetic.
Guy, I have no idea. I haven't spoken to any doctors or studied any of the comparable cases. But if I was running the Nationals, Strasburg would have been available in the playoffs. Maybe that would have meant just throwing 225 IP, maybe it would have meant slowing him down in August and then stretching him back out again in mid September. Or something else. I don't know.
Is that a trick question? :-)
If you have a fixed IP limit, then the only way to have SS pitch in the post-season is to reduce his IP in the regular season. This is 3rd grade math. In your scenario, SS will pitch fewer regular season innings than under the Rizzo plan. You are risking throwing away the division title.
News flash: THE NATIONALS ACTUALLY DID RISK THROWING AWAY THE DIVISION TITLE, by shutting Strasburg down in early September as they did.
We assume that is a given. The only question remains, how best to achieve the IP limit (assuming the 160 number was appropriate, which was, of course, utterly arbitrary and based on nothing more than best-guess) while not shutting him down and removing him from post-season availability. This is not complicated.
But this -- "There is no one clearly right answer, precisely because there are so many reasonable competing alternatives." -- is pathetic.
It's the furthest thing from pathetic. It's the plain truth. There are many, many ways to deploy a pitcher that fall between starter-going-up-to-100-110-pitches-every-fifth-day and shut-him-down-until-next-spring. Many, many, and all of them reasonable alternatives.
This doesn't prove anything if you stipulate the 160 IP limit. GuyM is right.
But Rizzo consulted with experts! He had a 50-page binder!
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.
The question then becomes, how best to hold Strasburg's regular season + post-season workload at whatever to whatever limit the team decided as appropriate, while still having him available to contribute in some manner in the post-season. There were a wide variety of reasonable approaches to achieving that. The Nationals chose to avail themselves of none of them.
That was a distinctly poor choice on their part, especially given they had more than enough time to formulate a plan that would achieve it.
It's the double-secret expert 50-page binder plan.
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.
Nobody is complaining that they implemented A plan to protect his arm; they are complaining about THIS plan IN LIGHT OF the fact that the Nats were on a collision course with the playoffs.
- Take his regular turn, but strictly limit him to 3 IP, 50 pitches, whatever
- Have him take his standard start outing, but limit it to once a week, once every 10 or 15 days, whatever
- Have him be a long reliever, bailing out the struggling starter
- Limit him to the odd inning or two of mop-up relief in blowouts
- Target him against tough righties in one-or-two-out high-leverage late inning situations
- Make him your brand-new closer
Or any number of variations on the above, with any and all of them capped by an innings/pitches limit of your choosing.
But no, not one of them was a better alternative than what the Nationals actually did? Please.
#fireDavey
Page 2 of 8 pages
< 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 > Last ›You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.