have you changed your opinion on the decision to sit Strasburg?

 

Given the decision to limit his innings - which was made before the season ever started - where I really fault the Nats management is that they didn't attempt to ration or manage those innings at all. They basically pitched him until he used them all up - and then sat him down. Had they planned ahead, perhaps he could have had some of those innings left for September and the playoffs.

 

Looking at his game log from last year - http://www.baseball-reference....mp;t=p&year=2012 - you can see he started opening day and went 7 innings. Then he pitched nearly every 5th game until they sat him down. Start with the easiest solution - don't have him start the season until the 10th game - that gets him two more starts in September. Don't have him go 7 on a regular basis - make his normal start early in the year 5 innings. Use the all star game break as a means to skip another. 

 

Perhaps by doing this they drive him crazy - or aren't in contention in September - but he has innings left to spend at the end of they year. 

       
       


This is exactly what the Braves did with Kris Medlin. He started out as a reliever, then moved him to a starter part way thru the season. He had plenty of innings for the playoff run. That's what happens when you think ahead.

I am not sure if the Nats would have made the playoffs if he hadn't pitched 6 or 7 innings in those games.

He came into the season with a fresh and live arm.
Statistics prove that most players do better before the break, and then tend to tire as the season continues.

 

The whole idea is TO GET to the post season, and isn't that exactly what they did?

 

Two teams doing two different things and yet both didn't make it to the WS.

True TPM. However, there is no "what if" talk with the Braves - other than the "what if the IF call" wasn't made.

One went with their best and came up short. The other didn't and came up short with all of the shoulda, woulda, coulda's. I always thought the idea was to win the world series not just make the playoffs. If Joan Payson had thought that way the we never would have had the Miracle Mets in '69. Some of their guys had years that they are not repeating this year. I will say it again, when you get there you go for it.

 IMO,  the goal for many teams IS  to get to the World Series, but the way it's often done is one game at a time.

You got to get there before you can go for it.

Man, some of you guys think running a baseball team is like planning brain surgery. What more is there into going into a decision to purposely shut down your ace during a pennant run. This is the major league and highly paid athletes to do a job. The owners, fromt office and field managers job is to put their organization in the best position to succeed. This isn't little league and you are attempting to save extra pitches from a 12 yr old arm. What the Nats did was stupid. There's no other word for it.

       
       


zombywoof- Please enlighten those of us with no experience working in professional baseball, or specifically for the Nationals, how easy it is for the front office to operate in a successful manner.

I already have. There's not much more than that.  Washngton should've stretched him out to the end of the season if innnngs limit is that big a deal. 

 

Here's another way to make my point.

 

Its about the same as the way ownership,of the indianapolis Colts were going for an undefeated season that they got so caught up in it and made the decision to tank the rest of the regular season and and Their reward was lousy play when it counted. At least the NE Patriots were going all out to win every game but ran into a better opponent the last game. The Patriots were put on a position to succeed. They had their shot and almost pulled it off where as Indianapolis folded like a cheap tenT.

Zombywoof,

MLB is big business, bigger than you or I and anyone not involved in it could ever imagine.

I am going to assume that there is a lot more to this than meets the eye.

Much more than you or most of us could ever give explanations for.

 

There are quite a few here whose family work for the organization, so calling them idiots just doesn't cut it.

JMO.

 

 I guess we will just agree to disagree on this topic.I'm good with that. Nothing would change my mind or convince me Washington did the right thing. I have no dog in this fight so I can look at this from a neutral pov. I'm really not interested in what these people do in their day-to-day jobs to run a ball club. I just see the bottom line and I think it was foolish on how this was done.

       
       


You are obviously entitled to your opinion, which is completely fine. However, disagreeing with a decision and deliberately calling individuals "stupid" and "dumb" are two very different things, and the latter is not appropriate.

Why is it inappropriate to express an opinion that the Nats. mgt was stupid? He didn't call YOU or any other poster here stupid (and I can't find where he used the words 'dumb' or 'idiot'.)

 

Zombyhas an opinion that is shared by a whole lot of people. Disagree if you want, but please ... don't try to discredit the dude for his opinion.

 

FWIW, I think it was a stupid decision, too. Championship opportunities don't come along every day -- and while we all know it's a business (sorry, TPM, we CAN imagine; it's all public) there's still room for more than one view on this one.

 

 

 

jp24- The above post is the post in which zombywoof deliberately targeted specific individuals as being "dumb" and "stupid".

 

I never tried to discredit his opinion, or anyone else's opinion. People can formulate opinions based off of the information that they have, and that is completely fine. But I do not find it appropriate to call someone dumb or stupid because they may have made a decision that you disagree with. Saying "stupid decision" is quite different than saying that decision makers are as dumb as a bag of rocks.

Nah.

 

If we can't say MLB decision-makers make dumb and stupid decisions, we are too PC.

 

The Red Sox' decision to trade the Babe was dumb ... and stupid.

 

Come on, JH ... everyone makes stupid and dumb decisions sometimes. Just ask my wife!

I think the point JH and TPM are making is that there is a difference between people making dumb decisions and the people themselves being dumb.

Personally, as I've stated, I think sitting SS was a dumb decision. I don't necessarily think that the people running the Nationals are dumb people. There is a difference.

I have made some really dumb decisions in my life. But generally speaking, I am not a dumb person.

 

I don't disagree at all. Plenty of people make stupid decisions (I do...everyday). But that doesn't make me stupid.

 

Am I being too politically correct? Maybe. I don't know. I do know that I am not incorrect in saying that there is a lot of inner workings within a front office that aren't publicly discussed. I also know that I interact on a daily basis with some individuals that are in positions of power within this organization and can attest to the fact that they are, in fact, not dumb or stupid.

 

Was the Strasburg decision dumb or stupid? That's an opinion that I think anyone has the right to have. But call the decision a mistake- don't seek out the individuals making it.

He didn't name names.

 

Thanks, bballman.

 

Maybe it struck a cord with me and I'm overreacting a little bit. I don't know. But that's my main point. Just because you may disagree with a decision doesn't make the person making the decision unintelligent. 

 

 

 

 

.

 

Exactly. That was my intent. There was no point to name names. I wasn't looking to single out any one individual since I wasn't in the room with any of them. My opinions are from the decision and my thoughts of their decision was directed at the Washington Nationals as an organization.

       
       


In that case, then have at it. I don't think anyone wishes to discourage opinions.

It's all good.  What good are discussion boards if everybody had the same opinion. Nothing wrong with tossing around a controversial topic and seeing how peeps react to it.

So, 3 years later, what do you guys think of the Strasburg decision now?  I know Monday morning quarterbacking is easy to do, but looks like the "long term" decision to not go for the trophy that first year didn't really pan out.  I still think the Nats should have pushed the envelope when they had the chance and SS was pitching well.

 

I also wonder if that inning limit really had a whole lot of effect on his future health.  He's been on and off the DL and struggling since that time and is definitely not the dominant pitcher he was at the end of the 2012 season.  Maybe it helped him not have another TJ, but he sure hasn't responded the way the Nats had hoped.  

 

Mets are dealing with a similar situation with Matt Harvey right now.  Looks like they are starting to pace him out to be able to pitch into the post season.  

Originally Posted by bballman:

So, 3 years later, what do you guys think of the Strasburg decision now?  I know Monday morning quarterbacking is easy to do, but looks like the "long term" decision to not go for the trophy that first year didn't really pan out.  I still think the Nats should have pushed the envelope when they had the chance and SS was pitching well.

 

I also wonder if that inning limit really had a whole lot of effect on his future health.  He's been on and off the DL and struggling since that time and is definitely not the dominant pitcher he was at the end of the 2012 season.  Maybe it helped him not have another TJ, but he sure hasn't responded the way the Nats had hoped.  

 

Mets are dealing with a similar situation with Matt Harvey right now.  Looks like they are starting to pace him out to be able to pitch into the post season.  

 

People can wonder all they want and second guess too, but the answer’s still that the people who owned the team made a decision based on what the people they were paying millions for advise, advised them to do. If they are guilty of anything, it’s hiring people who weren’t very good at their job.

 

What this issue really breaks down to, is a disagreement between those who believe in going for it all the time as opposed to taking a more cautious approach. But it’s likely both sides make mistakes in judgment all the time because there’s just no way to tell when the human body is going to break. Had they originally threw caution to the wind and let him go and he would have broken down, people would have been screaming how stupid they were.

 

And isn’t it just a little bit possible that he wasn’t as good as everyone was making him out to be because he could hit triple digits? If that’s the case, all that’s happened is the rest of baseball caught up to him and made the adjustment, but he hasn’t.

If you recall, Strasburg wasn't pitching that great before he was shut down.  His last few starts before getting shut down were all where he allowed several runs and/or was pulled early.  It seemed to me that year he was wearing down.  Also, if you recall, Detwiler took his place in the rotation that year and pitched pretty well during the post-season.

 

Given the way he was pitching prior to being sat down, combined with how well Detwiler did...I would argue that they may have done better that year BY shutting him down.

I definitely looks like the Mets are taking a different path.  They have been irrelevant for almost a decade having never recovered from Molina's homer in 2006 and dropping off the ranks of Major League Rosters after 2008.

 

The Mets might very well be looking at the entirety of the Strasbourg situation and trying to navigate a way to have their cake and eat it too.  They may have lightening in a bottle this year and have a potential fortune at stake if they make a World Series run.

 

So they want to limit his innings as much as they can and get in the playoffs where he is sure to get at least one start.  A World Series run means three starts in the post season.  So there could be 5 more starts at 6 innings each means he would be pushing 200 by the time it would be over.  If the next three years resemble Strasbourg but they had that magic 2015 I'd bet all the money Madoff stole they'd take that deal without even considering it.

 

As a Met fan from NY area I can say this - if they get to the NLCS and are down 2-1 to the Cards and Harvey gets shut down then Jon Neise gets his turn and is shelled the Mets and Harvey will get slaughtered in the NY press.  

 

I find it interesting that the inning limit for Harvey comes directly from Dr. Andrews - an inning limit and not a pitch limit?

If I had to guess...and it is a guess....they probably used innings based on a number of pitches per inning average based on per game pitch counts.   So if the average start was 6-7 innings at about 100 pitches each start they probably determined what the pitch count would be and then figured the innings. 

 

This supposes that over say 3,000 pitches that 50 to 100 one way or the other over the course of the season is inside the tolerance.

Originally Posted by roothog66:

I find it interesting that the inning limit for Harvey comes directly from Dr. Andrews - an inning limit and not a pitch limit?

 

Seems to me exactly what Andrews said is still up for debate.

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/spo...it-article-1.2350047

 

Dr. Andrews didn’t tell me there was a 180 innings limit,” Alderson told Mike Lupica of The News.”

 

“That leaves the Mets in a tough spot. Harvey did say he spoke to Andrews last week and was told of the 180-inning limit. “I have been on the phone with Dr. Andrews. I have been on the phone with Scott. Dr. Andrews said his limit was 180. That’s what Scott, er, Dr. Andrews had said,” Harvey said. “For me, I’ve got 166 innings and I don’t know any much more than what I have to do Tuesday.”

 

But even so, as I remember, the pitch limits Andrews suggests are for youth pitchers. I did read ASMI recommendations for professional pitchers here, but there was nothing about pitch counts. http://www.asmi.org/research.p...=TJpositionstatement

 

I know it didn't come off that way, but my remark was mainly tongue-in-cheek. I would have found it funny either to have put him on the pitch count chart or to have expressed the limit as a 2700 pitch limit.

I believe Harveys and Strasburgs heavy college loads are to blame.  

The decision to shut him down at that time was a good one.  Strasburg very fragile.

 

It's very tough for a starter to recover from TJS.  Expecting 100% results is unattainable first season out.  Marlins pitcher struggling as well.

 

Not sure about Harvey, but unless Stasburg gets better, he will be become a BP guy, maybe long reliever.. Harvey has the makeup of a closer.

 

About limiting innings, the Cardinals pushed back the rotation and the wheels fell off.  Lance Lynn said it affected his routine.

 

 

Actually got the sarcasm - but I still think the 180 innings is based off of pitches per inning or innings per start rounded at about 100 pitches per start.

 

I also wonder if Harvey will ever be a 200-220 inning guy.  With the arms the Mets have in the pipeline turning him into a closer with Clippard and Familia could make the Mets bullpen very formidable if they went that way.  Find that lefty guy and it is killer.

 

Strasbourg looked very good the other night but it is like he has a block after 7.  I wonder if he will ever be the guy the Nats thought he would be.  They look to have a big star in Harper though.  They can pen that guy in for 15 years of .300+ 35 HR's and 100 RBI's if he plays 150 games a season. 

You're assuming Harper stays with the Nats.  He wants to win a championship. Before the season started, the Nats looked to have the team capable of doing so this season - on paper anyway.  It hasn't quite turned out that way.  Only way they can make the playoffs is by catching the Mets and I don't see that happening with only 24 games left and they are 7 games behind.  Wildcard spot is even further out if that makes any sense.

 

I see Harper going to the Yankees if the Nationals don't make the playoffs before his contract is up.

TPM... The comment about TJS being tough for a Starter to overcome is interesting. I've never thought of the recovery being more difficult for a Starter vs Reliever other than regaining stamina as the arm strengthens over time. Do u have some specifics or info on that? Just curious to hear or read more on the topic. Thanks. 

I didnt say it was harder for a starter than a reliever. I said it was harder for starters to recover. Not that its easier for either, but understand a starter is expected to put in over 200 innings per season.  Thats not easy with a good arm.  My own pitcher, a starter, had surgery in elbow (not Tommy John) and struggled, then forever regulated to the BP.  

Most of the guys my son played with either college or in proball who were starters with TJ ended up in the bull pen. Many had secondary issues afterwards as well (like Strasburg).  But they werent million dollar players expected to continue as starters.  

Google list of ML TJS players, very intetesting. You can come to your own conclusions.

 

Nope.  I haven't changed my mind since Oct 12, 2012 at 7:34am.  

 

"I'm convinced I don't know enough to make the decision. I do have confidence in Nats Ownership (Lerner family), management, and medical staff to make the right decision with their people investments. If anything they've erred on the side of caution, which isn't a bad thing IMHO."

The organization's LTV from a healthy Harvey, Strasburg, Zimmermann, et al, is not measured in championships, but in ratings and attendance. Conversely, Josh Johnson pitched beyond the 180, and what did that do to his LTV?

Boras knows the revenue stream that can be garnered by a healthy Harvey for the player, the agency and the club (and Lord knows Mets ownership needs the revenue post-Madoff).

Conversely, an injured Harvey in the land of tabloids is a career killer.

For the life of me, I still can't figure out why clubs don't hold all post TJ pitchers back until mid May when it's warmer and they can pitch deeper into the season, especially when a .500 record keeps you in the WC discussion (exception: this year's NL Central).

Something worth pointing out and something I don't remember exactly so please jump in if I'm wrong...

 

Strasburg was 12 months post-op and pitched in a handfull of games, which was a bad idea in my opinion. Didn't amount to anything and rushed recovery.

 

Harvey did a 15 month rehab timeline before pitching a game. Only threw a sprinkle of BPs At 12'ish  month mark and shut it down till spring If I remember correctly.

 

I think the two pitchers situations are different. Harvey probably would be better setup to throw a few more innings than Strasburg was. IMO... OK to shut Harvey down or probably OK to go 200 if he and the medical staff feel he's strong enough to handle it. 

 

A surgeon is going to be conservative with his recommendations to Harvey/Mets. Any Doc would with a big name like Harvey on his resume.  It's much easier to lean to conservative Rather than find the exact sweet spot for the individua's health and organizational needs. There's too safe and there's just not smart to do. Glad I dont make those recommendations! 

I thought about that, but you need to win as many games as you can from the get go. In baseball anything can happen just ask the Cardinals!