Strasburg shutdown: Fair to teammates and fans?

[eriqjaffe]

Originally Posted by Groucho Marx

Besides, as I pointed out in my post the Nationals did the same thing with Jordan Zimmermann last year. Nobody squawked then.

True, but the Nationals were not a playoff-bound (or even really contending) team last year, and Jordan Zimmerman isn't nearly as high-profile as Strasburg.

[Groucho Marx]

Originally Posted by eriqjaffe

True, but the Nationals were not a playoff-bound (or even really contending) team last year, and Jordan Zimmerman isn't nearly as high-profile as Strasburg.

My main point is that Zimmermann, while not quite as "stellar", as Strasburg is another solid member of the strating staff, is having a solid season this year and will not have an innings limit. He has an almost identical WHIP to Strasburg and has allowed only a slighly higher OBA.

Keeping Strasburg on his limitation helps to preserve his abilities and worth to the team over a longer period which is good for the team, the fans, and Strasburg himself.

If it seemd to have worked in the case of Zimmermann, why abandon the same plan just because you're in a playoff run? Johnson and Rizzo seem to be more concerned with the longer term prospects for Strasburg and the team than adopting a "win now" attitude that could cost someone (Strasburg) their career. I happen to agree with them.

[eriqjaffe]

I'm not entirely disagreeing with the notion of shutting Strasburg down. I have more of an issue with shutting him down for the playoffs. As has been noted, there's no guarantee that the Nats will make the playoffs next year, much less 2014 and beyond.

Shut Strasburg down for September. The Nats have a deep enough staff and a comfortable enough lead that they should make the playoffs without him. But in playoff series, where pitching is extremely important, it seems to be contrary to the point of the sport to intentionally withhold players that give you a better chance to win a championship. And who gives you a better chance to win a playoff game, Strasburg or Ross Detwiler? I know who I'd rather go with.

[Groucho Marx]

Originally Posted by eriqjaffe

I'm not entirely disagreeing with the notion of shutting Strasburg down. I have more of an issue with shutting him down for the playoffs. As has been noted, there's no guarantee that the Nats will make the playoffs next year, much less 2014 and beyond.

Shut Strasburg down for September. The Nats have a deep enough staff and a comfortable enough lead that they should make the playoffs without him. But in playoff series, where pitching is extremely important, it seems to be contrary to the point of the sport to intentionally withhold players that give you a better chance to win a championship. And who gives you a better chance to win a playoff game, Strasburg or Ross Detwiler? I know who I'd rather go with.

Yeah. I know they had no way of knowing how well they would be doing this year when Spring Training came around but, I wonder why they did not think about starting his season later than Opening Day so he could be available all year?

Or, as you pointed out, why not sit him every few starts to keep him longer?

Hell, I dunno. Rizzo and Johnson are the pros.

[Cod]

Originally Posted by Jason Moyer

Why would the MLBPA have to approve managerial strategy?

Going to a shorter rotation instantly makes the value rise for any starting pitcher. They become more important, have to "work" more, etc.. Pitchers are paid for quality innings, starts, wins, etc. and by going to a 4-man rotation, you immediately squeeze out those 5th starters that get paid like #2 or #3 starters. Forcing guys (30+ players) to take a pay cut to reliever pay is not the MLBPA's business. Also, #1 starter making $20mil per year in a 5-man rotation would likely start getting $25-30mil per year as a #1 in a 4-man rotation. So in my opinion, its a lose-lose either way...as a club (owner, gm, etc.) or member of the MLBPA.

[Cod]

Dr. James Andrews backs the Nats - DC Sports Bog - The Washington Post

The greatest sports surgeon of our time, Dr. James Andrews, agrees with the Nationals decision to shut down Stephen Strasburg. I don't think anybody can argue with the credibility of Dr. Andrews and his opinion on sports medicine topics should be taken seriously.

[Skipaway]

Some more Dr. James Andrews from another article:
Why the Nationals Are Right to Shut Down Stephen Strasburg - Jake Simpson - The Atlantic

Despite all the recent advances in sports medicine, there is no quantifiable innings benchmark for a pitcher in his first year back from Tommy John, Andrews said. But if a pitcher does re-injure the reconstructed ligament, the statistics are grim. Andrews' Tommy John patients have an 85 to 90 percent recovery rate from the surgery, but for those unlucky few that have to redo the procedure, the success rate drops to 25 to 35 percent.

"A redo is a career-threatening operation," Andrews said. "You're dealing with the existing scar issue, and you have to re-drill holes into already weakened bones. The scar tissue bleeds more, so the infection rate is higher. You don't wish that on anybody."

I think it's pretty fair to shut down Strasburg, if the medical assessment is like this. What we need to question might be if players can demand all teams to do it this way.

[canadiancreed]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

This has been a good debate. It will be fascinating if they do sit him down early AND they go deep into the playoffs without him. What if they win the WS? Wow.

Hey, how about Yankees versus Nationals in the Fall Classic? Wouldn't that be fun?

Oh, I forgot. Sorry. ()

Probably one of the rare times I'd root for the Yankees

[Groucho Marx]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

Some more Dr. James Andrews from another article:
Why the Nationals Are Right to Shut Down Stephen Strasburg - Jake Simpson - The Atlantic




I think it's pretty fair to shut down Strasburg, if the medical assessment is like this. What we need to question might be if players can demand all teams to do it this way.

Especially if they plan on thowing money at him later to keep him in D.C. when he's FA eligible.

He's their staff stud. They should take care of him.

[Carlton]

Originally Posted by jaxmagicman

This may turn out to be the new Moneyball. There are studies that show inning counts and pitch counts work, but nobody has done any pratical study on the matter like the Nats are doing right now. I have to hand it to the Nats. They are worried about the Kid's complete future and not just this year.

There are also studies and injury reports that show they may harm more than help...much like start and stop on your engine in rush hour traffic

As for the player's future, sorry...players and unions have shown that they go for the most money and fringe benefits in a contract, not loyalty. Why SHOULD the Nationals risk a World Series title for him to walk in a couple of years?

But on the other hand, does ANY team really care about winning at anything but the register? I think that died with Steinbrenner. If fans come out and pay money, that's all that matters to most ownership conglomerates ...oh AND naming their stadium something wretched

[hayesb26]

Originally Posted by Carlton

But on the other hand, does ANY team really care about winning at anything but the register? I think that died with Steinbrenner. If fans come out and pay money, that's all that matters to most ownership conglomerates

""

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Carlton

As for the player's future, sorry...players and unions have shown that they go for the most money and fringe benefits in a contract, not loyalty.

Which clubs are all too happy to pay.

Originally Posted by Carlton

But on the other hand, does ANY team really care about winning at anything but the register?

Professional baseball has always been about the money, right from the very first day players were paid to play way back in the 19th century. To think it has ever been about anything else is romanticized nostalgia.

[Carlton]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Which clubs are all too happy to pay.

Professional baseball has always been about the money, right from the very first day players were paid to play way back in the 19th century. To think it has ever been about anything else is romanticized nostalgia.

Again, you pick a microcosm of my point and try to downplay the CONTEXT...

Yes, I realize owners wanted to make profit, but MANY owners and front offices wanted to WIN the World Series...from Veeck,Finley,Barney Dreyfuss, the Shibes, and the aforementioned Steinbrenner.

BTW, let's keep our differences to the OT debate forum, because following me around the forums disputing every single post, for a man who spouts peace and tolerance; it seems spiteful

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Carlton

AYes, I realize owners wanted to make profit, but MANY owners and front offices wanted to WIN the World Series...from Veeck,Finley,Barney Dreyfuss, the Shibes, and the aforementioned Steinbrenner.

You don't think that's true today? Winning a World Series generally results in a nice boost in attendance for the next season and, not surprisingly, revenue. The only thing that's changed these days is the financial environment which perhaps makes it more difficult to achieve. (But even then the figures on how many different teams that have made the post-season since 1995 is better than some might think it is. When one compares the MLB figures to that of the NFL—typically cited as the great example of competitive balance—it turns out MLB compares quite well.)

Originally Posted by Carlton

BTW, let's keep our differences to the OT debate forum, because following me around the forums disputing every single post, for a man who spouts peace and tolerance; it seems spiteful

No, I spout devotion to facts and evidence. If folks start making assertions which are either unsupported by evidence or run counter to the evidence, I may well chime in to point that out.

The financial aspects of pro sports, and MLB particularly, is an area I've researched a great deal. So you're pitching into my wheelhouse, so to speak. Don't be surprised if I swing for the fences.

[Cryomaniac]

Strasburg will only make two more starts:

Stephen Strasburg shut down is right decision by Rizzo, Nationals - Tom Verducci - SI.com

[Cod]

I'm glad Rizzo finally came out and said what needed to be said. Well done Mike!

[Groucho Marx]

Originally Posted by Carlton

But on the other hand, does ANY team really care about winning at anything but the register? I think that died with Steinbrenner. If fans come out and pay money, that's all that matters to most ownership conglomerates ...oh AND naming their stadium something wretched

It's always been about the money first.

Connie Mack is quoted as saying that he liked a team that competed for the Pennant for most of the season and then finished third or fourth. That way he'd make enough money from attendance and concessions to show a profit and he could justify NOT giving his players raises because they did not win the Pennant.

Spaulding, Comiskey, Mack, Col. Ruppert, etc., etc., ad nauseum. Winning World's Series was nice but they were more concerned with the balance sheet at the end of a season.

[Cryomaniac]

Strasburg has been shut down a start earlier than planned:

The Washington Nationals Are Shutting Down Stephen Strasburg A Little Earlier Than Expected

[Cooleyvol]

I don't buy the 'mental' reasons. Looks like a ploy to shut him down without it being due to # of innings to me.

[Cryomaniac]

Originally Posted by Cooleyvol

I don't buy the 'mental' reasons. Looks like a ploy to shut him down without it being due to # of innings to me.

Agreed. It seems like a cheap excuse.