strasburg's innings limit

[biittner77]

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/stephen-strasberg-nationals-innings-limit-tommy-john-surgery-scott-boras-mike-rizzo-.html

 

Here's a bad, old school, "players should be tougher", blah blah blah article about it. With Shark's impending innings limit I thought this was worth discussing.

[Derwood]

Shutting down Strasburg only makes sense if you think the Nats are going to be perennial playoff contenders. Even then, there's no sure thing (see: 90's Atlanta Braves).

 

No better time than now to try for the championship. Shutting down your ace seems like a bad idea when there's no guarantee the team will ever see October again

[Sammy Sofa]

He's a young pitcher coming back from major surgery (and yes, it's still that despite how often it's done and how often it's successful). They're a team with a lot of money that have an incredible anchor for the future in Strasburg and Harper. To think that this is likely their only shot over the course of having those two seems like it would lead to a foolhardy course of action.

[Derwood]

To think that this is likely their only shot over the course of having those two seems like it would lead to a foolhardy course of action.

 

http://i.cdn.turner.com/sivault/si_online/covers/images/2003/0707_large.jpg

Edited August 12, 2012 by Derwood

[KingCubsFan]

He's a young pitcher coming back from major surgery (and yes, it's still that despite how often it's done and how often it's successful). They're a team with a lot of money that have an incredible anchor for the future in Strasburg and Harper. To think that this is likely their only shot over the course of having those two seems like it would lead to a foolhardy course of action.

I support the Nationals shutting him down, but I can see the other side of the argument. There's really no predicting the future. We could have made the same argument about the 2003 Cubs (although I would argue a lot of the future developments had to do with the anti-Nationals treatment of our young pitchers). And Strasburg's mechanics are apparently so terrible, he's likely to have a short shelf life as it is.

[Sammy Sofa]

To think that this is likely their only shot over the course of having those two seems like it would lead to a foolhardy course of action.

 

http://i.cdn.turner.com/sivault/si_online/covers/images/2003/0707_large.jpg

 

Prior's workload that season basically makes my point for me. Plus Wood was already damaged goods at that point.

[Derwood]

no, the point is that "young ace potential" doesn't mean "team will contend for the next decade". Strasburg's arm could fall off even at this made-up innings limit, and the Nats could have tanked their one and only chance to win it all.

[Sammy Sofa]

He's a young pitcher coming back from major surgery (and yes, it's still that despite how often it's done and how often it's successful). They're a team with a lot of money that have an incredible anchor for the future in Strasburg and Harper. To think that this is likely their only shot over the course of having those two seems like it would lead to a foolhardy course of action.

I support the Nationals shutting him down, but I can see the other side of the argument. There's really no predicting the future. We could have made the same argument about the 2003 Cubs (although I would argue a lot of the future developments had to do with the anti-Nationals treatment of our young pitchers). And Strasburg's mechanics are apparently so terrible, he's likely to have a short shelf life as it is.

 

All they have to do is make the playoffs and they have a shot, and now they have even more of a chance to make the playoffs with the second WC added.

[Guest]

The very next year, the Cubs won 89 games and narrowly missed the playoffs, and Wood and Prior missed a combined 20 starts to injury. They combined for fewer and fewer starts after that. Contention is obviously not guaranteed to the team that torpedoes 40% of their starting rotation that they are expecting all-star level production from.

[Sammy Sofa]

no, the point is that "young ace potential" doesn't mean "team will contend for the next decade". Strasburg's arm could fall off even at this made-up innings limit, and the Nats could have tanked their one and only chance to win it all.

 

That's a really dense way to run a baseball team. It's a very Dusty way to run a baseball team.

[Sammy Sofa]

Any comparisons to the 2003 Cubs grow even more ridiculous when you compare the ages of the guys getting the most playing time on the 2012 Nats to the old as [expletive] corpses mostly playing for the Cubs in 2003. The Nats are doing this with a younger team and with a guy like Harper playing well below his potential and in a pretty crappy division; they'd be foolish to act like this is likely to be their only shot.

[toonsterwu]

To think that this is likely their only shot over the course of having those two seems like it would lead to a foolhardy course of action.

 

http://i.cdn.turner.com/sivault/si_online/covers/images/2003/0707_large.jpg

 

I support the Nats shutting him down, but I imagine you'll see them extend the innings limit a tad, maybe to 170-175 and find a way to carry him deeper into the season.

 

The one thing lost in the discussion is that the Nats still have a very group of arms for any playoff series. It's not like they have no chance if Strasburg is out. The group of Jordan Zimmerman, Gio Gonzalez, Edwin Jackson, and Ross Detwiler matches up with most of the rotations with a shot in the NL*, and they have a deep and versatile pen that's working to bring Storen back to his top form.

 

Yes, it would be better to have Strasburg, but it's a very solid group of arms behind him.

 

* To be clear, I'm not saying that I would take the rest of the Nationals rotation as the best group that could make the playoffs. Giants would obviously feel comfortable with their top 3 (Bumgarner, Cain, Lincecum ... I'd take this trio over the top 3 left for the Nats). Same goes for the Dodgers (Kershaw/Billingsley/Capuano). Cardinals (Wainwright/Garcia/Lynn?) and Reds would be close (Latos/Cueto/?), and the Reds dominant pen would make them scary. That said, the Nats "leftovers" are good starters that would leave them feeling like they could win a series, and I think that depth and talent is a factor in the Strasburg decision.

[Derwood]

my issue is that 160 innings is a completely arbitrary, made up number and the Nats may torpedo their chances based on this completely arbitrary, made up number

[TruffleShuffle]

my issue is that 160 innings is a completely arbitrary, made up number and the Nats may torpedo their chances based on this completely arbitrary, made up number

 

any number they pick is going to be completely arbitrary and made-up. so are pitch count limits. the alternative is "well we don't know how many innings he should throw, so let's just not worry about it" - which will result in him throwing over 200 innings between the regular season and playoffs, and there's a reasonably good chance that this will have negative repercussions not too far down the line.

Edited August 12, 2012 by TruffleShuffle

[Guest]

my issue is that 160 innings is a completely arbitrary, made up number and the Nats may torpedo their chances based on this completely arbitrary, made up number

 

He threw 24 inning last year. What should be his inning limit?

 

As you say, every opportunity to compete is valuable but your citing the 2003 Cubs is flawed since the reckless use of Prior and Wood - similar to what you want the Nationals to do with Strasburg - torpedoed future Cubs teams' chances of competing in future years.

[Derwood]

my issue is that 160 innings is a completely arbitrary, made up number and the Nats may torpedo their chances based on this completely arbitrary, made up number

 

He threw 24 inning last year. What should be his inning limit?

 

As you say, every opportunity to compete is valuable but your citing the 2003 Cubs is flawed since the reckless use of Prior and Wood - similar to what you want the Nationals to do with Strasburg - torpedoed future Cubs teams' chances of competing in future years.

 

I don't want them to have Strasburg throw 150 pitches every outing.

 

I also don't want them to say "welp, we have the best record in baseball but we might win the WS in 3 or 4 years, so shut er' down, boys!"

[TruffleShuffle]

looking at prior's pitch counts from late 2003 makes me want to punch dusty baker in the throat.

 

here's how many pitches he threw in each of his starts after the marcus giles start:

 

79

116

118

100

116

131

122

109

124

131

133

 

playoffs:

133

116

119

 

 

take out that first start, and he threw 121.5 pitches per start in his age 22 season after suffering a shoulder injury. gee wonder why his career path to cooperstown went off the rails.

[Guest]

my issue is that 160 innings is a completely arbitrary, made up number and the Nats may torpedo their chances based on this completely arbitrary, made up number

 

He threw 24 inning last year. What should be his inning limit?

 

As you say, every opportunity to compete is valuable but your citing the 2003 Cubs is flawed since the reckless use of Prior and Wood - similar to what you want the Nationals to do with Strasburg - torpedoed future Cubs teams' chances of competing in future years.

 

I don't want them to have Strasburg throw 150 pitches every outing.

 

I also don't want them to say "welp, we have the best record in baseball but we might win the WS in 3 or 4 years, so shut er' down, boys!"

 

They're not shutting him down because they might win the World Series in 3-4 years. They're shutting him down because they want Strasburg healthy and pitching 200 innings in 3-4 years.

[Derwood]

my issue is that 160 innings is a completely arbitrary, made up number and the Nats may torpedo their chances based on this completely arbitrary, made up number

 

He threw 24 inning last year. What should be his inning limit?

 

As you say, every opportunity to compete is valuable but your citing the 2003 Cubs is flawed since the reckless use of Prior and Wood - similar to what you want the Nationals to do with Strasburg - torpedoed future Cubs teams' chances of competing in future years.

 

I don't want them to have Strasburg throw 150 pitches every outing.

 

I also don't want them to say "welp, we have the best record in baseball but we might win the WS in 3 or 4 years, so shut er' down, boys!"

 

They're not shutting him down because they might win the World Series in 3-4 years. They're shutting him down because they want Strasburg healthy and pitching 200 innings in 3-4 years.

 

which will be great if they're in 3rd place, right?

[TruffleShuffle]

apparently the nationals have no chance to win in 2013 and 2014 under derwood's derpish scenario.

[Sammy Sofa]

my issue is that 160 innings is a completely arbitrary, made up number and the Nats may torpedo their chances based on this completely arbitrary, made up number

 

He threw 24 inning last year. What should be his inning limit?

 

As you say, every opportunity to compete is valuable but your citing the 2003 Cubs is flawed since the reckless use of Prior and Wood - similar to what you want the Nationals to do with Strasburg - torpedoed future Cubs teams' chances of competing in future years.

 

I don't want them to have Strasburg throw 150 pitches every outing.

 

I also don't want them to say "welp, we have the best record in baseball but we might win the WS in 3 or 4 years, so shut er' down, boys!"

 

They're not shutting him down because they might win the World Series in 3-4 years. They're shutting him down because they want Strasburg healthy and pitching 200 innings in 3-4 years.

 

which will be great if they're in 3rd place, right?

 

Why do you think it's so likely they won't be competing again next year?

[Derwood]

apparently the nationals have no chance to win in 2013 and 2014 under derwood's derpish scenario.

 

of course they have a CHANCE to win, but right now, they ARE winning.

 

This would be like the Bears winning the division, but deciding that Cutler or Forte had to be protected for the future, so they'll just put the backup in for the playoffs

[Guest]

apparently the nationals have no chance to win in 2013 and 2014 under derwood's derpish scenario.

 

of course they have a CHANCE to win, but right now, they ARE winning.

 

This would be like the Bears winning the division, but deciding that Cutler or Forte had to be protected for the future, so they'll just put the backup in for the playoffs

Your analogy is...flawed.

[Sammy Sofa]

apparently the nationals have no chance to win in 2013 and 2014 under derwood's derpish scenario.

 

of course they have a CHANCE to win, but right now, they ARE winning.

 

This would be like the Bears winning the division, but deciding that Cutler or Forte had to be protected for the future, so they'll just put the backup in for the playoffs

 

Yikes.

[Guest]

apparently the nationals have no chance to win in 2013 and 2014 under derwood's derpish scenario.

 

of course they have a CHANCE to win, but right now, they ARE winning.

 

This would be like the Bears winning the division, but deciding that Cutler or Forte had to be protected for the future, so they'll just put the backup in for the playoffs

 

That is such a brutal comparison.