|
|
|
|
Baseball Primer Newsblog— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Saturday, October 13, 2012
History won’t be any kinder if Strasburg blows out his arm at some point and never gets to the playoffs. Nats fans can look at Zimmermann and Jackson’s bad starts and say “hey, they would have started anyway, so it’s not the fault of the shutdown.” They can look at Ross Detwiler‘s great start on Thursday and say Stephen Strasburg’s playoff rotation replacement did just as good a job as Strasburg would have done, if not better. They can also say that they twice came within one strike of advancing last night, and Stephen Strasburg would not have been throwing those pitches. But guess what: it’s futile.
Because everyone else will note that the Nationals (a) willingly chose to enter the playoffs with their best pitcher on the bench; (b) lost a series in which they gave up 32 runs and had only one quality start in five games; and (c) used a starting pitcher in relief in Game 5 on short rest, so all hands — except for their best hand — were obviously on deck.
And no matter what holes you can poke in that argument, Nats fans, the fact is that your team did not advance. They lost, and losers do not get to write the history when it comes to such matters. Believe me. I know from experience.
|
Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Newsblog: [OTP-May] Politico: Congressional baseball game, May 1, 1926 (4426 - 1:47am, May 25)Last: Jay ZNewsblog: OT: The Soccer Thread, May 2013 (1162 - 1:30am, May 25)Last: puckNewsblog: OMNICHATTER for May 24, 2013 (93 - 1:14am, May 25)Last: cardsfanboyNewsblog: Marchman: Why Even Have Baseball's Draft? (7 - 12:43am, May 25)Last: cardsfanboyNewsblog: Curtis Granderson has fractured left pinky finger (8 - 12:33am, May 25)Last: Cowboy PopupNewsblog: Paul Daugherty: Old-v-New schools of thought (30 - 12:28am, May 25)Last: Walt DavisNewsblog: OT: NBA Monthly Thread - May 2013 (1274 - 11:52pm, May 24)Last: Best Dressed Chicken in TownNewsblog: FanGraphs: Cameron: The 2013 Cubs: Better Than We Think (43 - 11:50pm, May 24)Last: Hack WilsonNewsblog: MLB: Don Sutton never shy about voicing his opinion (13 - 11:05pm, May 24)Last: Dr. VauxNewsblog: Tangotiger Blog: Ensberg and Tango speak on being locked-in (72 - 10:26pm, May 24)Last: Tom TNewsblog: LATimes: Microsoft unveils new Xbox One console (39 - 10:16pm, May 24)Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)Newsblog: OT: NHL is finally back thread (377 - 10:09pm, May 24)Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)Newsblog: Fox Sports: McLouth catch earns thrown beverage (13 - 9:42pm, May 24)Last: Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams)Newsblog: HHS: Autin: Miguel Cabrera to the max (32 - 8:17pm, May 24)Last: DavidFossNewsblog: Primer Dugout (and link of the day) 5-24-2013 (19 - 7:28pm, May 24)Last: bobm
|
|
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.
This happens all the time here.
I choose A.
Why do you choose A?
Because A happened.
I see.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
Certainly true, but as you say, it doesn't settle the issue.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Come on, there's no need to bring up the Nazis here.
On May 3rd, sure I would have. On September 1st and he misses 3 starts....maybe not.
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.
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.
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.
How about shutting him down in June? How about in July? How about in August?
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.
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 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.
The point was an excellent record, 95+ wins(94 will also work) which wasn't something that they really thought was going to happen.
I hope you aren't saying those are the same thing.
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)
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)
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.
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 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........
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.
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.
Temporarily? Yes. 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.
It's a different philosophical viewpoint. It's not inherently stupid.
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.
What options? Within the framework that Rizzo fully believes in, which for simplicity sake, we'll say is no more than 170 innings pitched.
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?
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.
How many million times does the multitude of options need to be repeated?
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?
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.
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.
So ... "fear of backlash"? That's your argument? You're going with that?
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.
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.
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.
"Guaranteed?" You're going with that?
But that's what he believes. That's what he's openly talked about -- even last week in his response to the anonymous GM who said he hoped the Nats never won anything ever because of the decision.
So he's making the 160 decision based upon his supreme confidence (or arrogance!). And if you're ceding him that, then you might as well give him the other part of his argument. If he didn't think he had a window opening up, then he wouldn't (most likely) have limited Stras to that extent this year.
No. There is no reason to do that. None.
Well, the 160 itself was the first wrong-headed idea, as was pointed out many times. But the arguments here have generally taken it as a given. Even if we take it as a given, we don't have to take every following wrong-headed idea as a given.
But then arguing about nothing is 99.76% of what this site's about!
(That and doing close reading analyses of other poster's comments and picking them apart...)
No, we aren't.
Since 160 only makes sense in the context of Rizzo's other beliefs.
No, it doesn't. It can stand on its own, as so many posts here have acknowledged.
It was very likely they were going to be shut down within 10-15 innings of each other. Neither was likely to be shutdown before 160 or after 180, and 160 is probably within 5 innings of at least 33% of the distribution of possible endpoints. A pitcher on a plan like this, averaging 5.5 innings per start, will likely be shut down at points in series like 160, 165, 171, 177, with the lower numbers significantly more likely since you would expect the evaluators to have itchy trigger fingers when they get close to what they might consider a "minimum" maximum.
So the odds they both got shut down on their first start ending within the range? At least 1 in 10, maybe much much higher if Rizzo starts raising the bar for continued starts at 160.
Nope. I've seen reports that speculated he'd do it at 160 but I've never seen a report that said Rizzo said 160..
Nope.
I've seen Davey repeatedly answer the question, "After how many innings do you think he'll pitch before he's shut down" with "oh, probably about 160". Never have I seen him or anyone else quoted as saying Rizzo told them to shut Strasburg down at 160.
I've never seen Rizzo quoted saying anything other than that.
After a very bad start, and what could be considered worsening performance over the 2nd half, at least in HR rate/ERA, etc.
Why in the bloody hell do are people contending it was when there doesn't seem to be a single quote establishing Rizzo ever had a 160 inning plan?
And why in the bloody hell do you and I even care? I mean if you disagree with Rizzo' decision, what difference does it make if he had flexible or inflexible plan?
And I agree with his decision, and if it turns out I'm wrong and his 50 page "plan" was just the sentence "Shutdown at 160 innings" typed over and over again, I'm not sure it matters to me.
The stuff from Andrews was really scary. A re-injury within the next year is very likely to be a career ender. Reinjury is happening to 15- 20% of MLB pitchers undergoing TJ.
Really? You're serious with this question?
So again we have to be handcuffed to Rizzo's stupid decisions in order to show there was better options out there. That doesn't make sense.
The word you're looking for is 'piffle'.
Not that it matters at all to this argument, but Strasburg was supposed to have another start that would have put him over the mythical 160 if hadn't pitched so crappy after they told him that he had two left.
No. But if you're handcuffing yourself to 160, you need to realize why Rizzo did it that way, and all the thinking that went into it. He didn't pitch him in relief because he was trying to train a starting pitcher to handle a regular turn for 75% of the regular season.
So reallocating those 160 innings doesn't make sense as an academic exercise unless you're coming from the mindset of Rizzo: that the limit is to help 2013-2018, and whatever happens this year happens. If you don't agree with that, then don't limit yourself to shuffling around those 160 innings.
The approach I think they should've taken was careful scrutiny of his delivery/mechanics/command. And evaluated him on a start-by-start basis, particularly as he got closer to the 25 or so start mark. If he started slipping, and showing signs that command was going out of whack, then make a decision to rest him or shut him down. And maybe that's what they did, with all the gum-flapping about innings limits being a sort of cover.
Rizzo really did talk a lot about the eye test. And while he never really said anything about an innings limit, he didn't do a whole lot to shoot it down either. Maybe they were doing things behind the scenes... scouting their own player closely, monitoring him with pitchfx... there are any number of ways they could've looked at the issue rather than just a simple count. We don't have any evidence that they were doing it that way, nor do we have any evidence that they don't. The team simply refused to talk about what they were doing, other than letting Rizzo stand out front, taking the heat on how he was "the one who decides" (or whatever phrase he used).
I don't really understand the notion that we should use him until he gets tired and then do something about it. Wouldn't a better plan be to keep him from getting fatigued period?
Yes - and this relates to my posts of Dr. Andrews and Dr. Yocum a long time back.
This decision was a short term vs. long term choice based on balancing the physical health and productive career of the player and the economic status of the franchise. A lot of money was paid up front for Stras and the team wants to be sure that they get yearly returns in the future on that investment. That's all!
Having thrown 5 1/3 innings in relief in game one and 2 innings in relief in game two of a doubleheader in a AAA playoff run and completely toasting my arm, I have a different view than the "go for it now" crowd posting here.
To be fair, Bob, nobody is remotely suggesting such a thing for Strasburg. Most of us are perfectly fine with a ~160 IP limit as a precautionary measure, we just think those innings should have been allocated with some acknowledgment of the Nationals playoff chances/realities in 2012.
How much more confidence did the team gain in "getting yearly returns in the future on that investment" by pitching him April through August, as opposed to May through Sep/Oct? How much more confidence did they gain by not skipping alternate starts after the all-star break? How much more confidence did they gain by not giving him 2-4 weeks of rest in July/August, the same that he would have received if he had suffered a minor non-throwing injury during the season?
Rizzo left a non-injured all-star starting pitcher with a career 135 ERA+, 11.2 K/9, and 4.7 K/BB off his playoff roster (and effectively off his September pennant race roster). Call me naive, but I think that's going to have more effect on the Nationals fortunes 2012-2018 than any of the usage modifications I suggested above.
So, I am at a bit of a loss as to when the team "knew" they were playoff bound and not merely spouting pre-season bromides.
I would say they "knew" they were in the playoff hunt by some point in May.
And by July their probability of making the postseason was high.
The "best" way to play the July/August/September innings reduction game would have been to drop Strasburg from the rotation after off days and keep the other 4 starters on a regular rotation. But, would the other 80% of the rotation have performed as well in September and in the playoffs with this minor innings increase?
They were an 80-win team last season, without a full season of Zimmermann, without Gonzalez and Jackson, and only a token September performance from Strasburg himself. In fact, it's been mentioned on this thread that Rizzo signed Jackson to give them 3 good starters once Strasburg was shut down in September, suggesting that Rizzo expected some level of playoff contention.
First of all, they had Lannan to take Strasburg's "skipped" starts. No re-shuffling of the rotation was necessary. I think most teams don't skip the fifth starter's spot on off-days anymore either, so aren't starters used to varying amounts of rest?
Secondly, this is really shifting the goalposts here. I thought the Rizzo plan was all about "getting yearly returns in the future on that investment" but now we're quibbling about how skipping the fifth starter on off-days affects the short-term performance of the other 4 starters on the staff?
Switching him to relief was not something they actively considered because they believed that he would most benefit NEXT season by being a starter full time THIS year.
Yes, there are other approaches they could've and perhaps should've taken... but you have to also realize the reason why they resisted a move to relief.
We can cite how the Rays handled Price and the tradition of many other rookie SP starting in the pen, but they would just counter that this case is different because of the recovery aspect.
Right. The criticism is not that he developed a plan; it's that he developed a plan and then showed a total lack of flexibility thereafter (despite the fact that it was clear at least by July where the Nats were headed) assigning false precision to the plan in the face of other options that were just as reasonable. And in so doing he scoffed at a championship run with perhaps the best team in the league while prioritizing speculative future runs over the run that was already in the queue.
And at that, Yocum's initial statement basically said that he was not consulted, with his second statement attempting to walk that back a bit while contradicting his first statement in a number of key respects that led to a bizarre juxtaposition.
But Rizzo totally had a 50-page binder, man.
Unfortunately, the line falls flat with audiences, because no one has any idea what he's talking about....
I don't know about that. If Strasburg blows out his arm in 2013 and the Nationals don't make the playoffs for the rest of the decade, I think people will be talking about the shutdown and the lost opportunity for quite some time.
If Strasburg blows out his arm next year, you think fans will consider that vindication for the "stop coddling Strasburg and increase his workload" view? That's more than a little counter-intuitive. Evidence of Strasburg's fragility makes Rizzo's case at least as much as his critics'. That's like arguing the Nats were wrong to "baby" Strasburg in 2010 because he ended up needing TJ surgery -- an argument that's been persuasive to virtually no one.
As for not making the playoffs the next few years, that would obviously be very disappointing and presumably hurt Rizzo's reputation. But if that happens, then the view that the 2012 Nats were the "best team in baseball" will seem far less credible (since the same core of players, sans SS, will have failed to be even one of the top 33% of NL teams for multiple years), so 2012 will seem less like the magical opportunity that some now see. And to the extent anyone spends time thinking about 2012 could-beens, the name "Storen" will come up about 10x more often than the name "Rizzo" (with "Davey" somewhere in between). (Not fair, but the reality.)
And Rizzo will also be protected by the more general trend that as time goes by the notion that "we should stop babying pitchers and let them pitch" will become an increasingly marginalized view, understood as something said by cranky old men who don't understand the modern game. Younger fans will wonder "did people really used to argue about whether young pitchers need to be protected?", just as they will be puzzled to learn of global warming deniers and opponents of gay marriage. Whether Rizzo was right or wrong in this case, he will be seen as being on the right side of baseball history.
Valid point. I doubt it moves the dial on the expected winning % though.
Not at all. The whole idea of limiting Strasburg in 2012 is based on balancing present value with potential future value. If the future value part of the proposition ends up a bust, it certainly makes the decision look very bad in hindsight. (I'm not saying that we should evaluate the intelligence of the decision based on hindsight, but we certainly can evaluate the results that way.)
2010 is an entirely different animal: there was really practically no present value to be sacrificed. The Nationals lost 93 games that season, and that's an entirely different risk-reward calculation.
If Strasburg blows out his arm in 2013, it would further establish that even the most cautious approach is still far from a guarantee of future health, but a highly speculative proposition. The thing we know best is the now; without the benefit of hindsight, it is very likely that the 2012 Nationals are a better playoff team with Strasburg than without him. (With the benefit of hindsight, considering the bad start from Jackson and the bullpen issues, having even another reliable live arm on the staff certainly would have been of value.)
Also, it's not about whether or not Strasburg should be coddled. I have yet to see any poster in this thread suggest that the Nationals shouldn't have had some sort of reduced-work plan for 2012. The questions are whether this was the most effective strategy for limiting Strasburg's risk in 2012, whether such a strategy should be more flexible that this one was, and whether a shot at a title should factor into that risk/reward calculation. To most of us here, the answers appear to be NO, YES, and YES. If Strasburg blows out his arm in 2013, it's hard to say this strategy worked in preserving his arm (making the first two answers seem more reasonable). If the Nationals never get to the playoffs again, it makes the 2012 chance for a title more precious (making the third answer seem more reasonable).
And Rizzo will also be protected by the more general trend that as time goes by the notion that "we should stop babying pitchers and let them pitch" will become an increasingly marginalized view, understood as something said by cranky old men who don't understand the modern game.
This is really an argument directed at Sir Not Appearing In This Thread. It's not particularly helpful to the discussion.
CrosbyBird: the question I raised, and you responded to, is whether large numbers of fans (or Nats fans) will be upset about this decision some years from now. I think that is exceedingly unlikely, for the reasons I gave. You provide the reasons that Rizzo's critics will feel vindicated under your scenario, and I'm sure you are right. But that's the point: both sides can and will take any outcome as justification for their view. In the end, I don't see very many Nats fans feeling this is a black-and-white issue -- it's balancing unknown risks against a small advantage. It just isn't that a big deal and will be mostly forgotten about. This isn't Bartman or Grady Little leaving Pedro in too long. On a 1-10 outraged fan scale, it's maybe a 2. And that's under the conditions you stipulate (Strasburg gets hurt, Nats achieve squat).
I don't really get your final point. The issue at hand is how Rizzo's decision will be judged by "history," and my point is entirely germane to that.
But it was only one binder and it wasn't full of women.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main