Tag: stephen strasburg

Rob Neyer:

> One thing I keep noticing, though, is this bizarre belief that if only Stephen Strasburg is allowed to pitch, the Nationals will win the World Series, or probably win the World Series, or maybe they won’t win the World Series but they’ll have a lot better chance with Strasburg than without him.

> It’s just not true. With Strasburg, the Nationals’ chances of winning the World Series are somewhere between 10 and 15 percent. Without Strasburg, the Nationals’ chances of winning the World Series are somewhere between 10 and 15 percent. With him, maybe it’s 12.8 percent. Without him, maybe it’s 10.6 percent.

I guess I had not been looking at the numbers that way. I feel better about the Nationals shutting hum down after seeing that[^f4056].

[^f4056]: I would probably feel even better if [the Nationals actually discussed it with Strasburg’s surgeon](http://mlb.sbnation.com/2012/9/13/3326738/nationals-didnt-consult-strasburgs-surgeon).

> But over the past two months, the Nationals have noticed slight signs of normal wear on Strasburg. There has been more inconsistency, for instance, especially with being wild in the strike zone and in getting swings and misses off his fastball. They have noticed in a few starts how Strasburg’s followthrough sent him farther off line toward first base, an indication that he was supplying more effort to generate velocity. Nothing major, but just normal start-to-start inconsistency you find with a guy whose elbow was rebuilt.

> …

> Rizzo deserves credit for protecting the pitcher and for taking full responsibility for the decision. It’s truly a modern decision, one made with the kind of awareness, statistical study and medical information that wasn’t in play in 2003 when the 22-year-old Prior ran up 234 2/3 innings, a 67-inning increase from the previous season. Maybe it’s true, as Padres GM Josh Byrnes likes to point out, that the more we learn about pitching development the more complicated it becomes. What becomes known enlightens the vastness of what is unknown.

I understand where the Nationals are coming from, however, I am going to be bummed if it’s a Nats v. Cardinals NL Championship Series and Strasburg is not eligible to take the mound.

There is a lot of coverage today about how the Washington Nationals are handling their young ace. A [long column by Jayson Stark](http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/8253442/shut-stephen-strasburg-just-let-pitch) got things started:

> No matter how loudly you scream, no matter how eloquently you argue, no matter how many compelling counterpoints you present, the Washington Nationals aren’t changing their minds. Period. That’s a wrap.

> So there is going to come a day, sometime in September, when the Nationals pat their ace on the butt, place his golden right arm in bubble wrap, and say, “Thanks for playing.” It’s as inevitable as the next Kristen Stewart tabloid blockbuster.

Then [Rob Neyer](http://mlb.sbnation.com/2012/8/10/3233801/stephen-strasburg-nationals-innings-limit) and [Fangraphs](http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/strasburgs-innings-cap-revealed-to-be-180-ip/) took their turns[^180]. Though Fangraphs focuses on using the innings count to estimate when the Nationals will shut him down, Mr. Neyer is more critical:

> It seems like the Nationals have replaced an old paradigm — let pitchers pitch until they get hurt, which has actually been out of style for a while now — with something new that’s nearly as ill-considered as the old one. The only way to keep Strasburg healthy is to bench him after 160 innings and no time off? Really?

Pitching too much can be bad, so limiting the amount of pitching is good, right? I cannot wait to see the reaction when the Nationals refuse to their ace as they are playing a key playoff game. What a media circus that will be.

[^180]: Fangraphs cites a tweet from Jeff Passan that Strasburg’s inning limit is 180.