He didn't look good last night at all.

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

                                                 
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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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

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 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.

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.

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.

Flags fly forever.

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.

This is probably it. Note that the Braves basically announced a week or so ago that they started Medlen in the bullpen for the exact purpose of keeping his innings down so that he would be available as a starter for the playoffs. Now, that might be CYA, of course.

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?

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."

They don't have a plan to keep their players healthy. They have a plan to avoid blame for a future injury, whose odds are in no measurable way changed by this action.

They don't have a plan to keep their players healthy. They have a plan to avoid blame for a future injury, whose odds are in no measurable way changed by this action.

This is the same thing as managers who insist they're managing "by the book" when bunts and outs on the basepath are eating them alive. If you incur significant costs without knowing the odds of success, you're just a sucker.

Correction. They know *less* about it than an endless parade of internet doofuses, because this is a well studied area, and none of the studies ever produce anything. The internet doofuses know this, the team ignores it.

I'm sorry, but the goal of baseball teams is to make money, not actually to win pennants only.

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?

In March, nobody expected this team to have an October.

Yes, he is going to say that, if he believes it. He's Dr. F'n Andrews. The team does not want him to give them a CYA answer. They pay him for his opinion. If he says that his opinion is that 220 innings will not hurt the pitcher, he is going to say that.

I'd rather be a fan of a time that makes plans to keep its players healthy and then sticks to them, rather than a team which changes its mind.

For the Braves it was CYA. They started Medlen because they had to. They put Jurrjens back into the rotation first despite him sucking in the minors and then tried to get Dempster.

The reference to trying to get Dempster isn't really valid, as they actually did get Maholm

They called Jurrjens up instead of going to Medlen, so their "saving him" explanation is BS. Do you dispute that?

this is a well studied area, and none of the studies ever produce anything.

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

First of all, Andrews is an expert on surgery, that doesn't mean he any particular expertise on what causes injury.

But to say that they're guessing or that they have no evidence, or whatever is not true.

Especially when weighed against the fact that there is truly no evidence the other way, either.

If you're holding your third best starter out of the postseason to start a 4th starter who has been almost as effective you understand the concept of weighting assumable risk by it's benefit.

Yep. You've just summed up BTF.