get your head in the game, son! the natinals can't possibly let you think that you're bad!

He didn't look good last night at all. As I said in the game thread: shut him down now. Glad they did, hope there isn't some undisclosed injury or something.

And it's going to be Lannan moving forward, not Chien-Ming Wang. Lannan has clearly earned it, Wang hasn't.

A silly decision, backed by no evidence, other than "if he's not pitching, he can't get hurt," but that applied in April as it does now.

Next on the agenda: Tell Strasburg not to get out of bed in the morning.

Absurd.

Make sure they also tell him not to dream of spiders.

At the game yesterday and Strasburg was getting his pitches hit HARD.

If the Nats had a one game lead it would be a much bigger deal. They can afford to use Lannan with the cushion they have, and in the postseason, he is strictly a bullpen pitcher.

He did look terrible last night, although I hesitate to say it's because of his workload.

He didn't look good last night at all.

At the game yesterday and Strasburg was getting his pitches hit HARD.

I'm sure this has something to do with the decision.

1st half: 2.82 ERA, 11.6 K/9, 4.57 SO/BB
2nd half: 3.73 ERA, 10.2 K/9, 3.45 SO/BB

Never mind...

Operation shutdown.
I suppose they would have a few more losses on their record if they had done this, but why not just pull him after 4 or 5 innings each start and run him for the whole season. They could have designated one of the other pitchers as the 5 through 8 inning pitcher for Strasburg, Lannan perhaps. I don't doubt they thought through this, but I wonder how valuable the last roster spot is to have convinced them not to do this.

I suppose they would have a few more losses on their record if they had done this, but why not just pull him after 4 or 5 innings each start and run him for the whole season.

Exactly. A young pitcher needs to be trained to endure the duration of the major league season, as well as the number of innings/pitches. One has to respect the Nationals' intentions and their alacrity, but this has to be the most crude and clumsy manner of protecting Strasburg they could execute.

If he's tired or hurt then this makes sense. If his head's a mess then how is he helped by not pitching?

-

Like I said, I pretty much disagree with this, but I can also see going along with Rizzo here.

I do think it gives the Reds a slightly better shot to make the WS, so I like it strictly as a fanboy.

That 3.45 K/W is still pretty good.

Maybe someone can explain why he can't work out of the bullpen at least in the postseason? No more than once every 2 games, in very high leverage situations? What could possibly be wrong with that?

The idea that he looked terrible last night, or has not done as well in the second half, and therefore that's why the Nats did this (or provides justification for doing this) is bizarre since the Nats have been talking about this for months.

Did they not protect Strasburg after drafting him? And he got hurt anyway.

From BB-REF PI, here are career total IP through 2011 for all pitchers since 1961 who, at age 23, pitched 200+ innings with a minimum 120 ERA+

                                                 
Rk             Player     IP From   To   Age ERA+
1         Greg Maddux 5008.1 1986 2008 20-42  132
2       Bert Blyleven 4970.0 1970 1992 19-41  118
3       Roger Clemens 4916.2 1984 2007 21-44  143
4          Tom Seaver 4783.0 1967 1986 22-41  127
5          Tommy John 4710.1 1963 1989 20-46  111
6            Jim Kaat 4475.1 1961 1983 22-44  109
7        Frank Tanana 4188.1 1973 1993 19-39  106
8        Mike Mussina 3562.2 1991 2008 22-39  123
9    Dennis Eckersley 3285.2 1975 1998 20-43  116
10    Mel Stottlemyre 2661.1 1964 1974 22-32  112
11       Kevin Appier 2595.1 1989 2004 21-36  121
12    Bret Saberhagen 2562.2 1984 2001 20-37  126
13       Stan Bahnsen 2529.0 1966 1982 21-37   97
14    John Candelaria 2525.2 1975 1993 21-39  114
15         Andy Benes 2505.1 1989 2002 21-34  104
16       Mark Buehrle 2476.2 2000 2011 21-32  120
17     Scott Erickson 2360.2 1990 2006 22-38   98
18         Barry Zito 2252.0 2000 2011 22-33  111
19      Greg Swindell 2233.1 1986 2002 21-37  107
20   Andy Messersmith 2230.1 1968 1979 22-33  121
21         John Denny 2148.2 1974 1986 21-33  105
22        Dean Chance 2147.1 1961 1971 20-30  119
23          Dan Petry 2080.1 1979 1991 20-32  102
24      Danny Jackson 2072.2 1983 1997 21-35  100
25      Ryan Dempster 2042.2 1998 2011 21-34   97
Rk             Player     IP From   To   Age ERA+
26     Dick Ellsworth 1976.2 1961 1971 21-31  100
27    Carlos Zambrano 1826.2 2001 2011 20-30  122
28        Jim Maloney 1785.1 1961 1971 21-31  117
29     Alex Fernandez 1760.1 1990 2000 20-30  115
30     Wilson Alvarez 1747.2 1989 2005 19-35  112
31         Jim Abbott 1674.0 1989 1999 21-31   99
32        Steve Avery 1554.2 1990 2003 20-33  100
33        Jim Merritt 1483.0 1965 1975 21-31   99
34    Felix Hernandez 1388.1 2005 2011 19-25  128
35        Mark Mulder 1314.0 2000 2008 22-30  106
36   Dontrelle Willis 1221.2 2003 2011 21-29  101
37       Bill Travers 1120.2 1974 1983 21-30   94
38           Jim Nash 1107.1 1966 1972 21-27   97
39       Scott Kazmir 1022.0 2004 2011 20-27  105
40   Chad Billingsley 1013.2 2006 2011 21-26  111
41    Clayton Kershaw  716.1 2008 2011 20-23  135
42      Jair Jurrjens  702.1 2007 2011 21-25  119
43     Craig McMurtry  667.2 1983 1995 23-35   96

Spanning Multiple Seasons or entire Careers, From 1961 to 2011, For players in the saved report : (For single seasons, From 1961 to 2011, For age 23, (requiring earned_run_avg_plus?120 and At least 200 Innings Pitched), sorted by greatest Innings Pitched: Results), sorted by greatest Innings Pitched
Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Play Index Tool Used
Generated 9/8/2012.

Exactly. A young pitcher needs to be trained to endure the duration of the major league season, as well as the number of innings/pitches. One has to respect the Nationals' intentions and their alacrity, but this has to be the most crude and clumsy manner of protecting Strasburg they could execute.

Signed: Not a trained medical expert.

The idea that he looked terrible last night, or has not done as well in the second half, and therefore that's why the Nats did this (or provides justification for doing this) is bizarre since the Nats have been talking about this for months.

And they had basically said it would be two starts and that was it, but then after last nights game comes this edict..... Yes, it's totally unbelievable to think that his recent performance had anything to do with this.......

The idea that he looked terrible last night, or has not done as well in the second half, and therefore that's why the Nats did this (or provides justification for doing this) is bizarre since the Nats have been talking about this for months.

Didn't mean to imply that. Was providing those numbers for context on why they might have shut him down one start earlier than thought before.

I do think that he's not as effective as he was at the start of the year (which could be for a variety of reasons).

I suppose they would have a few more losses on their record if they had done this, but why not just pull him after 4 or 5 innings each start and run him for the whole season.

He's only averaged 5 and 2/3 innings per start. He's hardly been extended deep into games (edit: which has probably helped his performance).

Fortunately, their other 4 regular starters still leave them pretty well stacked for the postseason.

PS- it's "tach it up" like revving the engine before a start.

PS- it's "tach it up" like revving the engine before a start.

I assume Repoz knows this and is making a pun. I do not understand this pun.

I don't know why they didn't just disable him for 3 weeks in mid-season with a phantom injury.

He could have tuned back up in the minors, and be ready to go for Sept. and the playoffs.

Since they were bound and determined to keep his innings to a certain level ...

On August 1st they had the division lead and the 2nd-best record in the NL. Wouldn't it have been a more efficient idea to sideline him then and bring him back in mid-September? You can stretch him back out with two or three late-season starts and then he's playoff-ready (assuming you made it). This plan would've reduced their chances of winning the division, but it's unlikely they'll go far in the playoffs without him.

This could've been executed with more foresight. If I were a Nationals fan, I'd be getting institutionalized about right now.

Good lord, people. The team has said multiple times that this was their specific plan. They don't think shutting him down early and bringing him back for the late season/postseason is an effective way of protecting his arm. Argue about whether it's dumb all you want, but stop with the "Why didn't they think of this instead?" routine. It was thought of and discarded.

On August 1st they had the division lead and the 2nd-best record in the NL. Wouldn't it have been a more efficient idea to sideline him then and bring him back in mid-September? You can stretch him back out with two or three late-season starts and then he's playoff-ready (assuming you made it). This plan would've reduced their chances of winning the division, but it's unlikely they'll go far in the playoffs without him.

This could've been executed with more foresight. If I were a Nationals fan, I'd be getting institutionalized about right now.

The way the Nationals looked at it, and their theory is that once you have been shut down, it's for the season. They specifically stated they felt shutting him down and restarting him would be just as bad. The theory is more than he has so many innings to pitch in a season, it's that he has so many innings to pitch, and then it's a good idea to shut him down for a full recovery to build up the strength/endurance/callouses(whatever you want to call it).

Ray's silly idea that they have no numbers to support it, ignores the fact that they have no numbers to oppose it either.

edit: or what post 25 said.

The Nationals have no real idea the extent to which shutting him down now will impact his future. None. They'd be just as well off consulting the astrology tables, reading Strasburg's palm before his starts, or evaluating the entrails of a billy goat.

Good lord, people. The team has said multiple times that this was their specific plan. They don't think shutting him down early and bringing him back for the late season/postseason is an effective way of protecting his arm. Argue about whether it's dumb all you want, but stop with the "Why didn't they think of this instead?" routine. It was thought of and discarded.

Yes, heaven help the thought that the organization that's brought the Nats to this point might have some idea of what they're doing. From the tone of most of these comments, you might not realize that the people writing them were actually fans of other teams rather than of the Nats, and that the whining about the shutdown has been almost exclusively been heard outside the Washington area, but I suppose Rizzo should be grateful anyway for these oh-so-helpful concerns.

Co-sign with #25 and #28. Also, I understood tshipman's original #7 post the way he later clarified that he meant it: that Strasburg HAS been looking wobbly lately, and given that the shutdown was imminent and that there was only one road game left anyway, why take chances? Lannan's been rock-solid in his games up here so far, might as well just bring him in earlier.

Andy tangentially hits on a point that has amused me greatly during this whole ginned-up "Strasburg Shutdown" controversy, namely the fact that nearly everyone in the DC area, from fans to the media (with, again, the exception of our redoubtably retarded sportstalk radio idiots) is unanimous in their approval of Operation Shutdown...whereas everyone else in the country seems to be unanimous in the other direction. With the exception of orthopedic surgeons and the expert medical community, who are openly thrilled with the idea. But hey, what value is their opinion worth?

A silly decision, backed by no evidence, other than "if he's not pitching, he can't get hurt," but that applied in April as it does now.

There's not "no evidence." There's a small sample size, but they aren't just making #### up:

Nevertheless, Rizzo told ESPN's "Outside the Lines" last week that the Nationals looked at "the workload of 23-year-old pitchers in baseball history that have the stuff, and the arm, and the stress per pitch, that a Stephen Strasburg has." And what they learned, he said, was that "there's no pitcher that's gone from 44 innings pitched in one season, after Tommy John surgery, to 200 the next season, without injury down the road."

We did an informal study of our own after hearing this explanation, and found two pitchers who came close to meeting Rizzo's description. One was Josh Johnson, who had Tommy John surgery at 23 and pitched 209 innings at 25. The other was Kerry Wood, who had the surgery at 22 and then averaged 199 2/3 innings per season from ages 24-26. It's safe to say both had enough health issues afterward to match Rizzo's analysis.

Meanwhile, the Nationals also have an example on their own staff, Jordan Zimmermann. Had Tommy John surgery at 23, at almost the same point in the season as Strasburg. Threw 70 2/3 innings the next year (31 in the big leagues). Was shut down after 161 1/3 innings last year. Back on a "normal" track, and having a sensational season, this year.

-Link

From the tone of most of these comments, you might not realize that the people writing them were actually fans of other teams rather than of the Nats

But you're not a Nats fan either.

I don't know why they didn't just disable him for 3 weeks in mid-season with a phantom injury.

He could have tuned back up in the minors, and be ready to go for Sept. and the playoffs.

Or stick him in relief for a few months, and put him in the rotation at such a point when one start every five days for the rest of the season will leave him near his innings cap. We can call this the Kris Medlen plan.

I don't know why they didn't just disable him for 3 weeks in mid-season with a phantom injury.

Because they tried that with Zimmerman and he stunk when he came back.

#25 is spot on. Everything suggested has been considered by the Nationals.

Cool idea, take a young pitcher coming back from injury and in the middle of the season change is warm-up routine and then change it back. What could go wrong?

So, you guys think it's not worth any extra risk to have one of the best pitchers in MLB available for the playoffs?

Wow. I think we need to remember the developing young players is a means, not an end.

If the Nationals develop Strasburg into the next Walter Johnson, and don't have any Pennants to show for it, they've failed.

Cool idea, take a young pitcher coming back from injury and in the middle of the season change is warm-up routine and then change it back. What could go wrong?

So, whenever a young pitcher goes on the DL he should be immediately shut down for the season?

Andy tangentially hits on a point that has amused me greatly during this whole ginned-up "Strasburg Shutdown" controversy, namely the fact that nearly everyone in the DC area, from fans to the media (with, again, the exception of our redoubtably retarded sportstalk radio idiots) is unanimous in their approval of Operation Shutdown...whereas everyone else in the country seems to be unanimous in the other direction. With the exception of orthopedic surgeons and the expert medical community, who are openly thrilled with the idea. But hey, what value is their opinion worth?

It's not "ginned-up." Shutting down your healthy ace pitcher in the middle of a pennant drive is something that no baseball team has ever done before. It was going to be a controversy no matter what. Tons of people in and around baseball disagree with the Nats' decision.

Further, the fact that Nationals fans almost universally like the idea and non-Nats fans don't could really be read either way. Maybe Nats fans are closer to the team, know more about Rizzo, and are better positioned to judge. On the other hand, maybe fanboy and fangirl love for the front office is clouding their judgment, and people who aren't Nats fans have a better perspective. I'd guess that the both are true, and it's best not to ignore the views of anyone based on their fandom.

I tend very strongly to the "no one has a ####### clue how to prevent pitcher injuries" side of the spectrum, which makes me highly skeptical of the future added value of this move. Of course, since I don't have a ####### clue how to prevent pitcher injuries, I can't dismiss the hypothesis that Rizzo and co do know something that I don't. All things considered, my experience as a fan is that you can't assume a winning team will keep winning, and I would tend toward wanting my front office to maximize reasonably certain present value over highly speculative future value.

Flags fly forever.

I was mostly ambivalent regarding the Nationals handling of Strasburg; but having read the arguments against shutting him down, which were so perfectly capsulized in Post 27, I now feel confident that Washington has made the right decision.

DB

I'm sure this has been addressed, but I couldn't find it in a quick googling:

What is the Nationals' reasoning behind the timing of Strasburg's season? That is, why did they have him start gearing up for the season in March to pitch MLB games in April, if they were going to shut him down in September? Could they have let him rest an extra six weeks this spring, then ramped his prep up in April to debut in May, in order to keep Strasburg under his innings limit through October?

I admire the hell out of Rizzo and the Nats for making this decision.

I also think it is based on flimsy evidence and unlikely to meaningfully reduce the likelihood of future injury for Stradburg.

Can you imagine the ensuing shitstorm if the Nationals falter in the playoffs and Strasburg sustains a serious injury next season?

I'm not saying anything about the likelihood of that outcome. I have mixed feelings about the shutdown, and I certainly don't wish injury on any player. I'm simply saying that the media would have a field day.

So, you guys think it's not worth any extra risk to have one of the best pitchers in MLB available for the playoffs?

Not if he is ineffective. Then he's a liability, not an asset. The Nationals are deep enough that this won't derail them. They're still a very good team.

The drama of this situation is that a lot of great players never get to play in the World Series. Heck, a few teams almost never get to play in the World Series. In other words, #38.

Could they have let him rest an extra six weeks this spring, then ramped his prep up in April to debut in May, in order to keep him under his innings limit through October?

I have been wondering about this all season. The only explanation I can fathom is that Rizzo was concerned that the Nationals wouldn't make the playoffs and Strasburg's inning count would be limited to 130-140. That would limit his "development" by another season assuming that the Nationals will only increasing his innings by 30 or so a year. e.g. Instead of throwing 190 innings next year, he would only be able to throw 160 next year. So assuming that the Rizzo's assumed window is 2013-2015, the Nationals lose more Strasburg innings in the window.

I admire the hell out of Rizzo and the Nats for making this decision.

I also think it is based on flimsy evidence and unlikely to meaningfully reduce the likelihood of future injury for Stradburg.

Agreed on both counts.

I have been wondering about this all season. The only explanation I can fathom is that Rizzo was concerned that the Nationals wouldn't make the playoffs and Strasburg's inning count would be limited to 130-140. That would limit his "development" by another season assuming that the Nationals will only increasing his innings by 30 or so a year. e.g. Instead of throwing 190 innings next year, he would only be able to throw 160 next year. So assuming that the Rizzo's assumed window is 2013-2015, the Nationals lose more Strasburg innings in the window.

If this happened would Strasburg have been allowed to pitch in the Arizona Fall League to make up the difference or is tht restricted to minor leaguers?

The Nationals have no real idea the extent to which shutting him down now will impact his future. None. They'd be just as well off consulting the astrology tables, reading Strasburg's palm before his starts, or evaluating the entrails of a billy goat.

There is no evidence that throwing more pitches increases wear on the arm and the risk of injury?

It's unreasonable to think that a weary pitcher having trouble throwing in their normal and best motion might put more stress on their arm?

Flags fly forever.

So you'd rather have been a marlins fan than a braves fan the last 20 years?

#35. I'm sorry, but the goal of baseball teams is to make money, not actually to win pennants only. If he Nationals gave up one WS to have Walter Johnson for the next decade it's hard to argue that they'd be worse off.

As is, they've hurt their chances this year a little bit in order to decrease the chance of injuring their franchise cornerstone ace. Have they decreased that chance by a little, a lot, or not at all? That's debatable. But the trade off may make good economic and championship sense over the years to come.

From the tone of most of these comments, you might not realize that the people writing them were actually fans of other teams rather than of the Nats

But you're not a Nats fan either.

I realize that some people restrict their fanhood to only one team, but the Nats are the only NL team I've ever rooted for. And I would've said the same thing if the pitcher in question had been a Yankee.