2012 MLB Regular Season Running Thread

Boswell is a really smart guy when it comes to baseball, but I think he's wrong on this one.

Now, I think it's the safe choice to shut Strasburg down because if you pitch him and he blows his elbow out again, the entire fan base is going to come looking for you with torches and pitchforks. You'll forever be known as the guy who ruined Strasburg's career.

Whereas, if you shut him down, the worst thing that can happen is you don't make the playoffs -- which I'm pretty sure a significant portion of Nats fans didn't really expect this season anyhow.

But it would be an emotional decision, not a logical one because the science just really isn't there on exactly how much "overuse" leads to ligament/labrum/rotator cuff breakdowns. There's no way to know if or when that magic arm is going to come apart again.

Everyone who has ever pitched -- including my son, a pretty promising young pitcher himself -- deals with the reality that the next pitch could be your last.

This Nats team is capable of winning the whole damn thing with Strasburg, Gonzalez and Zimmermann at the front of its rotation. So given an opportunity that is in no way guaranteed to come again, I think you have to cover your eyes and go for it.

Of course, I'm not Mike Rizzo, so that's easy for me to say.

 

This.

Yes, it's easy for me to say, but at some point you have to throw caution to the wind and go have your career.

 

If, by interesting, you mean irritating and exhausting, then yeah. Local radio won't have a problem filling time. But again, by that time, most people will be in full RG3 mode. The city/area has embraced the Nats, but Skins will still be Topic Number One in September.

 

And why did they select 160 innings as the cutoff? Why not 150 or 170? What makes 160 the correct number? It's stupid.

I'm not saying go out and pitch the kid on three days rest every time through the rotation, but if you're in a pennant race, shutting down your best pitcher for a month because he reached an arbitrary number of innings is foolish.

 

That's a very weird argument.

There is a massive pile of evidence that says one of the most vulnerable groups of pitchers to major arm injuries are guys who have a significant increase in their number of innings from one year to the next, especially if they've never reached that total before. A lot of the studies showed a significant increase in injuries the year after a 50+ IP jump over a pitcher's previous career high.

He's never thrown more than 123 IP as a pro. Jumping from that to 175+ would be reckless.

 

Apparently, it's different for everyone. The Nats take input from a bunch of medical people, whatever that means.

Zimmerman was held to 161 last year in the same situation. He's come back better than ever this year.

At first, the media came up with the 160 number. Since, Rizzo, I believe, has said it's going to be based more on how he feels than a specific number, although he did mention the 160-170 number. A lot of it, if you are to believe Rizzo, will depend on daily discussions with Strasburg throughout the season and especially in July and August.

Davey has already floated the idea of putting Strasburg at the end of the rotation coming out of the All Star break. Boz makes a good point, though. Giving him more rest between starts and stretching him out that way really doesn't do you any good because it's not like pitchers "rest" on off days. They still follow a strict throwing regimen, whatever that may be.

I think it's a fascinating deal, but ultimately, it's an easy call. Also, maybe they go after a pitcher at the deadline. We don't know.

 

Sonner, I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think you're going to enjoy your sports winter.

 

Winter? Seems like the teams I like typically suck in the fall.

 

Not really a weird argument. I'm simply arguing that 160 is fairly arbitrary number. Your numbers shed some light on the rationale behind the number, so it makes more sense.

I'm not sure I buy that the bump in innings is as reckless as you say because generations of players came up without pitch counts or innings limits and did not get hurt. That said, I haven't read the reams of evidence you say are out there.

Now, I'll shift the argument a little. I'll concede for the moment that such research may indicate more pitchers get injured when their innings are bumped up so significantly. But, if you're going to limit your pitcher's innings, why wait until the stretch run of a pennant race to shut him down?

Why not have him miss a turn in the rotation every five starts? Or shut him down in August during the dog days when the season really becomes a grind? Doesn't shutting him down in September assure that he'll be rusty if the Nationals are playing come October? And is he going to need to make a few starts in the minors to stretch back out? If so, doesn't that negate the effects of shutting him down in the majors?

It just seems like there are so many more options than shutting down your best pitcher when your playoff lives might be on the line.

 

Because you don't just shut down a pitcher in August and start him back up in September.

I know SHIT about baseball, and I know that.

 

But you shut him down in September and start him back up in October?

Why not have him skip April?

 

Would there be any value to four, five, or six inning starts now?