User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.3684 seconds
53 querie(s) executed
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.
1. McCoy Posted: August 17, 2012 at 05:56 PM (#4210967)Your team is winning. Who cares?
And does he take credit for delivering Derek Lowe to the Braves?
jayson werth
edwin jackson
stephen strasburg
bryce harper
mike gonzalez
jesus flores
danny espinosa
strasburg, harper, and espinosa were draft picks, though, and jesus flores was taken in the rule 5 draft, so none of them really had a choice, other than going back to school or going back to venezuela.
jayson werth has 1 WAR this year, so he's not exactly a large part of their success.
mike gonzalez was a pickup off the scrapheap. he was probably happy just to have a job, but i guess boras could get some credit for delivering him to the nats.
edwin jackson was just plain offered more money to be a nat, but he's having a good year, besting his career averagees in ERA, K/9, BB/9, and WHIP by significant margins.
so, i'd probably agree with the consensus here that boras is more hat than cattle, in this instance.
Yes, as a part of his plan to elevate the Nationals.
His contract is a very good deal for the team. I know he turned down bigger offers.
Oh this is too rich for words.
the fossil record of that dynamic
ends up at a SCOTUS blog
Boras to Davey Johnson et al: "You didn't build that."
Particularly since every player involved has the right to tell Boras to #### off and sign whatever deal they want.
Oh.
I had never heard this expression before, but I like it, and plan to use it in the future.
Regarding Boras and the Nationals, the angle is simply he has a good relationship with the team because of its general manager's concern for the long term of Boras' clients. As a Nats fan, who sees the very real possibility that Washington -- the town MLB ignored for decades -- could become the team of the decade with the right break or two, I see nothing wrong with that.
I get this but you never know. If I was a Nats fan I would still want to see a strategy where this guy pitches in the playoffs.
Also, as I've mentioned before, the Oakland Athletics won it all in 1972 without Reggie Jackson, who was injured in Game 5 of the ALCS and missed the World Series. And while I like Strasburg -- he's only going to get better as he hones his pitching smarts -- with Gonzalez and Zimmermann, not to mention Jackson, Detwiler and even possibly Lannan, the Nats have enough pitching this year to win without him.
Also, as I've mentioned before, the Oakland Athletics won it all in 1972 without Reggie Jackson, who was injured in Game 5 of the ALCS and missed the World Series. And while I like Strasburg -- he's only going to get better as he hones his pitching smarts -- with Gonzalez and Zimmermann, not to mention Jackson, Detwiler and even possibly Lannan, the Nats have enough pitching this year to win without him.
Bingo. Even without Strasburg, the Nats are still one of the 2 or 3 best teams in baseball, and probably a slight (relative) favorite to go all the way. I might not say that if I knew that Sabathia and Pettitte were going to be fully healthy in October, but the Strasburgless Nats aren't the only team that's facing potential rotation shortages.
And as much as I generally don't like Boras, I'm glad to know that he's insistent on protecting his clients from some wackass Dibble-type manager** who puts short term success over all other considerations.
**Not that Johnson's like that, but Strasburg's going to be around longer than Johnson.
Ten teams being in the playoffs every year certainly helps their chances, but you have no way of knowing this. Neither does Mike Rizzo.
Sure, because Gene Tenace hit like Babe Ruth in the Series, and the A's won four one-run games. Also, Jackson was a position player, not a frontline starter. I think most people agree that the latter is probably a bigger deal than the former in a postseason series.
Basically, I think that endorsing this decision means placing an extraordinary faith in Rizzo's judgment about the medical probabilities related to the shutdown and the data/research thereof. That's fine, but as others have noted, there were other ways to do this, like having Strasburg pitch once a week, etc. There is a fine line between "making a decision and sticking with it" and "being inflexible and failing to accommodate changing conditions." I think the Nationals' FO may be on the wrong side of that line here, but we will see.
The Nationals have the best record in MLB and Strasburg is their most talented pitcher. The data would have to be really compelling to make shutting him down and holding him out of postseason worth it. I certainly agree that they should continue to monitor him, etc.
Don't be fooled by this B.S. "I'm your partner" routine he's trying to pull here. If the Nats organization or any of their fans seriously believe for even a second that this obeisance they're now apparently paying to Boras is going to be repaid by him in any way, shape, or form, they are kidding themselves. He doesn't give a fig about this team; he's a lowlife scumbag and he's in this game only to enrich himself.
It looks like you're in bed with the devil now, Rizzo and Lerner. You had better watch your back every second of every day, or you'll come to regret it.
This is also a team that's been averaging over 5 runs a game in the second half of the season, and last night for the first time all year had all of its starting lineup on the field. Rizzo knows all this, and is making the right decision. And can anyone even imagine the reaction if Strasburg went down again next year after trying to get through the playoffs?
About 15 years ago, you could have swapped out that sentiment with Indians.
I don't think it would be as bad as it will if
a) Strasburg gets hurt next year in spite of the shutdown
or
b) Detwiler, Gonzalez, or Jackson loses a postseason game that Strasburg might have pitched and the Nationals don't win the World Series in part because of said loss.
Like I said, there is an argument to be made for this move, but IMO it comes down to really, really buying into Mike Rizzo's judgment and what he knows about the medical probabilities. And in your case particularly, since you have scoffed repeatedly at the "postseason is overrated since it is a crapshoot" line, I am a little surprised that you are in favor of it.
I don't think it would be as bad as it will if
a) Strasburg gets hurt next year in spite of the shutdown
Which is less likely to happen than if they don't shelve him soon.
OR
b) Detwiler, Gonzalez, or Jackson loses a postseason game that Strasburg might have pitched and the Nationals don't win the World Series in part because of said loss.
That may be true of the Dibbles or a certain segment of the talk show crowd, but I think you underestimate the respect that most Nats fans have for Rizzo's judgment.
Like I said, there is an argument to be made for this move, but IMO it comes down to really, really buying into Mike Rizzo's judgment and what he knows about the medical probabilities. And in your case particularly, since you have scoffed repeatedly at the "postseason is overrated since it is a crapshoot" line, I am a little surprised that you are in favor of it.
I've often stressed the importance of the postseason in terms of rating the "best" teams, but when I weigh all the relative risks and rewards, I'm glad in this case that the Nats have a GM who's not fixated on short term goals. Not to mention that they're still one of the 2 or 3 best teams in baseball without him, and quite possibly the best.
And since I know what's likely coming next, I'd be saying exactly the same thing if Strasburg were a Yankee.
I actually wasn't going there. I only go there when we talk Lakers/Boston. ;-
Also, I think claiming that they are "still one of the best two or three teams in baseball without him" weakens the case, rather than strengthening it. If the Nats were a borderline contender, a WC team with questionable peripherals that was headed to the play-in game if they got in, I would probably get behind the shutdown. As it is, I think this is sort of like the 1969 Mets shutting down Tom Seaver or Jerry Koosman. No, the 1969 Mets did not have a Bryce Harper, but even with a guy like that, there are no guarantees in baseball.
if he knew where the risk for injury peaked, then it would be a lot easier to monitor strasburg for signs of fatigue around that point, and shut him down when it becomes necessary.
the fact that rizzo is holding steadfastly to this 180 inning limit, and beyond that, he's also refusing to alter strasburg's workload (not going to a 6 man rotation, or skipping a start here and there, or pulling him after the 4th inning) i think points to the fact that his main interest is in preserving the long term health of strasburg's arm.
DB
Sure. But if you're right about the rest, then Rizzo doesn't really know enough about how to do that to make the innings limit the last word on how to do that.
This is only true if you assume that the Nats get to start every series with their rotation lined up perfectly. That's probably out the window as soon as one series goes past four games. If the LDS goes five games, Zimmermann's not available until LCS game three or four. You can easily wind up having to throw your fourth starter in a game seven. If that happens to Washington and Jackson or Detweiler spits the bit, people will want Rizzo's head on a pike.
Adding to this, there are obvious differences--that is why I said "sort of."
OPS+
2012 Nats: 98 and rapidly rising, having averaged over 5 RPG in the second half, and likely to rise a fair amount higher now that for the first time they're playing with their originally projected lineup at full strength.
1969 Mets: 84
ERA+
1969 Seaver 165
1969 Koosman 160
2012 Strasburg 136
Not to mention that Seaver and Koosman were throwing complete games (34 between them), while Strasburg's average outing has been under 6 innings. Plus Washington's pitching beyond Strasburg is much deeper than the Mets' would have been without Seaver or Koosman.
It comes down to measuring unknown long term risk vs marginal (and equally unknown) improvement, and Rizzo made the best decision he could make, knowing what he does and what he doesn't. Erring on the side of caution when you're talking about a 23 year old pitcher less than a year removed from Tommy John surgery seems pretty clearcut to me.
Like I said in the follow-up post, there are differences--that is why I said "sort of." But I think you are placing too much emphasis on ERA+. Strasburg has the kind of talent to where he could throw a couple of six-inning two-hit shutouts in post-season. I think it is less likely that Detwiler or Jackson do that. Also, since the 1969 Mets had Nolan Ryan as their long man and Tug McGraw as one of their two top relievers, and since Cardwell, Gentry, and McAndrew were all pretty good, I am not sure about the depth assertion.
As to the hitting, I think that, again, any data like OPS+ that shows how good the Nats are weakens the case. As they are serious contenders, the difference between Strasburg and Detwiler could be very meaningful.
But, really, it goes back to how I started this, as this sentence shows:
I think you are simply saying, "We should trust Rizzo here since there are all these unknowns."
Fair enough, but there are some things in this situation that aren't speculative:
The Nationals are a legit contender.
Strasburg is a very talented and effective pitcher, and the guys who will get his innings are not as talented and effective as he is.
You want to go into postseason games using your most talented and effective players in key roles.
And it is unknown whether or when the Nationals will be in this position again, and whether shutting Strasburg down will prevent future injuries, or, perhaps, even what the probabilities surrounding that are.
So, sure, you can say it's a "reasonable choice." But I am not convinced that it's a good one.
Part of it is agreeing to a metric for good. If the Nats win the WS while Strasburg blows out his arm in his WS game, and recovers only to be a league-average or so pitcher, do you think it will have been a good choice to ride him?
Here's the OPS+ of their current lineup:
141
98
118
116
122
118
99
49
P
Bench: 113, 123, 89, 58, 53.
That's a potent offense.
Flags fly forever.
Basically, I think the unknowns and knowns are such that the Nats should adjust their decision in some way, so as to allow Strasburg to continue to pitch and to participate in the postseason. Rizzo, obviously, has medical information that has lead him to the opposite conclusion, and he knows much more about this than I do, (or Rob Dibble does) so on that basis, it is reasonable to back him.
But I think it is also reasonable to point out the possible downside of this decision, which I think is pretty substantial, and the structural issues inherent to making it.
Finally, I would assume that if the Nats go through with the shutdown, it will be pretty tough on Strasburg to watch his teammates and buddies go at it for the trophy while he sits in the dugout and/or in the pen, and feels like he can pitch. That is an emotional thing of course, and I am not saying that it should change Rizzo's mind, but I think it's worth remembering.
This would at least spread the risk.
(&, no, I am neither Jon Heyman nor his sock puppet.)
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main