World Series

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

The Nats have a much brighter future than the "We'll start trying by the end of the regular season" Tigers.

Much brighter? That's stretching it. Nats may have a bright future, but the Tigers aren't going anywhere. The core of their team is young and should be intact for some time. And remember, the middle of that lineup was supposed to feature Victor Martinez, but he was lost for the season. Should be back and healthy next year.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

That was a truly brilliant move by the Nats to shelve Strasbourg for the playoffs rather than for the opening month of the season or anywhere else during the season. I mean, hey, baseball teams from Washington are always in the playoffs so who cares if they pissed away a chance at a ring in order to make the silliest, most nonsensically arbitrary and unprecedented personnel move in the history of modern American sport?

Who gives a fuck? Nobody will ever know with absolute certainty if it was the right move or not, and nobody will know if they would've gone any further with Strasburg anyway. Got any other random debates from a month ago you'd like to rehash in this thread while you're at it?

Anyway, the Giants proved yet again that most basic of baseball realities: good pitching > good hitting.

I think most would argue Detroit had a better rotation than San Fran heading into the Series. But the Giants did what championship teams are supposed to do -- put it all together when it matters most. Props to the Giants. They were the better team.

[Van]

Those professional hitters for Detroit who looked so good all year long just suddenly became undisciplined, stupid hitters who lost their sense of the strikezone.

Yeah...that same team was 6th in overall average, 3rd in OBP, lead baseball in hitting with RISP, tied for 6th with the fewest strikeouts, had 3 guys hit over .300 and some guy in their lineup lead the AL in the 3 major offensive categories (and several others)...yeah, that crappy hitting team.

Exactly. Those guys can hit like motherfuckers. They didn't just suddenly start having horrendous at-bats. No, their timing was ruined by the effectiveness of the Giants' pitching.

[Van]

That was a truly brilliant move by the Nats to shelve Strasbourg for the playoffs rather than for the opening month of the season or anywhere else during the season. I mean, hey, baseball teams from Washington are always in the playoffs so who cares if they pissed away a chance at a ring in order to make the silliest, most nonsensically arbitrary and unprecedented personnel move in the history of modern American sport?

Who gives a fuck?

Washington's fans, most likely, most of whom weren't even alive the last time a team from their city made the playoffs.

See, that's supposedly the only reason teams take the field from Day One of Spring Training: to win the World Series. You don't jeopardize your chances at an all-too-rare title over the concerns of just one guy, never mind the fact that there isn't a scintilla of evidence to suggest that their move in shelving him when they did was anything but a stupid decision without a single precedent in sport.

Nobody will ever know with absolute certainty if it was the right move or not,

Nonsense. It was absolutely the wrong move. There is no defending it; particularly the timing of it. If they felt the need to do it, great, do it at the beginning of the year when he's still closer to the surgery date, not at the end of the year when he's proven he's fine and the team flat-out needs him in order to help accomplish a singular feat in Washington baseball history.

It was entirely wrong. Everyone in baseball knew it was wrong, including Davey Johnson.

Got any other random debates from a month ago you'd like to rehash in this thread while you're at it?

Nope, just this one. You said, "Let's see how it goes in the playoffs. They can win it without him."

I said, "Doesn't matter. They shouldn't be asking the rest of their roster to try to win it without their best pitcher who, by the way, is perfectly healthy. No fully effective star player in history was every benched for the playoffs under similar circumstances. This is entirely without precedent and clearly a botched handling of the situation."

And now they've gone ahead and lost a Game Five at home, knocking them out of the playoffs.

Case closed.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

Case closed.

Oh, okay. Judge Van has spoken!

Pipe down, you tedious ego-maniac. There is no proving anyone right or wrong here. This argument was based in opinion not fact. It's amusing how long you've obviously been stewing over this, and even more amusing that you predicted the Nats to beat the defending World Series Champions in the NLDS, proving that this "unprecedented botching" wasn't even all that big of a deal to YOU.

[Van]

Yeah, when you have an opinion backed up by facts, it's just a "solid take." When I have the same, it's egomania.

Bottom line, I and the rest of sober America was right. You were wrong. You're just too much of a whiny bitch to admit it.

[Screw_Michigan]

Yeah, when you have an opinion backed up by facts, it's just a "solid take." When I have the same, it's egomania.

Bottom line, I and the rest of sober America was right. You were wrong. You're just too much of a whiny bitch to admit it.

Super rich. Face facts, idiot. You are easily the most pompous a-hole on this board. You give Dins a run for his money.

[Van]

That made absolutely no sense. Jesus, you are so often such an incredible moron.

[Mace]

MGO is correct in saying that there is no right or wrong here....just opinions. If he goes on to have a long and successful career, he'll likely thank the Nationals for protecting his surgically repaired young arm. If he remains as dominant as he was this year he'll likely have more opportunities to take the Nationals to the post-season.

[Van]

And there was no reason whatsoever to hold him out at the end of the year rather than at the beginning. Knowing they were going to have him on a finite innings count and not factoring in a September stretch run plus a possible postseason was just remarkably stupid. Even assuming a need for such an innings count, the most beneficial thing for his health would obviously have been to give him more time to recover following his surgery rather than letting him pitch the full season before cutting him off.

How can anyone dispute this? The reality is, they can't. Even Davey Johnson thought it ridiculous, as did every other GM, manager and player who was unfortunate enough to have a microphone shoved in his face regarding this very issue. No one said, "Yeah, I can see it. Smart move, setting up an innings count for him at the start of the season with a plan to shelve him in September and October rather than in April and May."

Nope, there was nothing but people rolling their eyes at such obvious stupidity. Considering the fact that there is absolutely no reliable precedent to help determine what his innings count should have been in the first place, the number they assigned Strasbourg was admittedly completely arbitrary. According to every doctor who weighed in on the matter, it's strictly guess-work. Maybe it helps, maybe it doesn't, and who knows what's the right number? Whatever it might be, someone clearly failed to look at a calendar while doing the math.

Again, no fully healthy star player in the history of American sport was ever benched for the playoffs as a precautionary measure. Once the postseason arrives, it's always been all hands on deck even among the walking wounded, never mind the able and willing ace of the staff.

Just ask Dan Marino how much solace can be found in assuming you'll always have other opportunities to go to the big dance. Chances like the Nats had this season may only come once in a lifetime. For many of the veterans on that team, who knows whether 2012 will have been their only shot at the brass ring?

[M Club]

Right. It had nothing to do with the pitching. Those professional hitters for Detroit who looked so good all year long just suddenly became undisciplined, stupid hitters who lost their sense of the strikezone.

Never mind the fact that Romo made people do that the entire season, or that the Giants' staff is the best in baseball when healthy and 'right.' It was purely a fluke that the Giants held a powerful St. Louis lineup to one run over the final three games of that series before shutting down an even more powerful Detroit offense.

Yeah...that same team was 6th in overall average, 3rd in OBP, lead baseball in hitting with RISP, tied for 6th with the fewest strikeouts, had 3 guys hit over .300 and some guy in their lineup lead the AL in the 3 major offensive categories (and several others)...yeah, that crappy hitting team.

Exactly. Those guys can hit like motherfuckers. They didn't just suddenly start having horrendous at-bats. No, their timing was ruined by the effectiveness of the Giants' pitching.

Jesus, here comes hyperbolic, zero sum Van. Yes, I realize the Giants pitched well. And yes, there's a feedback loop where you make them look silly once, they start pressing, and next at bat they look even sillier. That said, it doesn't matter how great the Tigers hit over the course of the year since no one's going to hit well as a team if everyone's swinging at junk.

But even then, Shoalzie's numbers don't paint a very accurate picture. This team was notoriously hot and cold throughout the entire season. Was actually one of the most frustrating seasons as a fan because of their lack of consistency and inability to hit any 4th or 5th left-handed starter. (Though, yes, I would have killed for this type of season around 2000 or so.) They got off to a 9-3 start and from there went about two months without managing two measly wins in a row. And even if they had the 6th best average in the league that says nothing about whether or not they were stringing hits together. I don't know how the rankings ended but around mid-season they were dead last in production out of the 5th and 6th spots in the order, so you basically got some activity at the top swallowed up by a death trap before the usual bottom-of-the-order shenanigans. This team wasn't the 27 or even 12 Yankees.

But still, props to the Giants. I imagine had the Tigers managed to score runs the Giants would have found a way to score one more.

[Van]

Probably true. They are one gritty bunch.

[Mace]

The Nationals likely decided to pitch Strasburg at the beginning of the season so that he'd have the opportunity to get his arm in shape during spring training, but I wasn't involved in the decision making process, so I don't really know.

The Detroit bats went silent during the Series just as the Cardinal bats got quiet during the final three games of the NLCS, even though the Cards were hitting the ball in the first two games. All teams go through periods of varying length during the season when they don't hit or don't get the timely hit. It's called baseball.

[Mikey]

MGO is correct in saying that there is no right or wrong here....just opinions. If he goes on to have a long and successful career, he'll likely thank the Nationals for protecting his surgically repaired young arm.

If MGO goes on the have a long and successful career it'll probably be because somebody gave him his own washer/dryer combo and a lifetime supply of Downy Ultra.

[Mace]

There were a number of options that they could have chosen, including the one you mentioned. I'm sure the Nationals did what they thought was best to protect their investment and to increase the odds of him being on the mound for a good many years. Time will tell if the precautions will work out for him and them.

[Goober McTuber]

Stephen Strasburg bobble-head

[Dinsdale]

the fact that there isn't a scintilla of evidence to suggest that their move in shelving him when they did was anything but a stupid decision without a single precedent in sport.

I agree that the handling of Strass's inning count was horribly done.

That said... you're a fucking idiot.

Nice use of the word "fact," if by "fact," you actually meant "fiction."

"Isn't a scintilla of evidence"? How the fuck could you even type that... shit's based on straight-up statistical analysis.

There's been multiple books written on the subject, asshat.

21 pitchers since 1990 threw 1,500 innings after age 30 and that only one of those pitchers threw more than 500 innings before age 24, Greg Maddux. And another one that has 12 pitchers throwing 600 innings before 24 from 1980-2003, and only one of them lasting to throw more than 1,000 innings after 30. That was Maddux, again.


"Not a single precedent"? When did you make that up? Ever heardof a guy naed Felix Hernandez? (Maybe not, since you obviously don't follow baseball, since all the age vs innings stats get regularly discussed.)


Better be careful tossing out the word "fact" in the future, especially when you're clearly in the wrong... which is FACT.

[Dinsdale]

They announced in pre-season they were going to limit him to 140 innings. By July I think they already had a pretty large lead so the real question is why they didn't put him on a 5 or 6 day rotation so they could have saved him for the playoffs

Yup, was my thought all season -- sign the best starter you can get, even a scrub, and make it a 5 man rotation. Or, limit Strass to no more than 5 innings a start, carved in stone.

Anything, except theoption they chose... I ave a feeling they'll rethink it for next year.

[Van]

Dins, if you're going to try and be scathingly dickish, at least be right. Also, try to understand the basic words you quote before attempting to throw them back in my face.

See, I don't lose here when it comes to words. Ever.



And this would be one more instance where I win and you lose, because the fact is that there isn't a single scintilla of evidence to suggest that their move in shelving him when they did was anything but a stupid decision without a single precedent in sport.

If you care to try and come up with another instance similar to his, including the timing of it, knock yourself out. You will fail, however, so do yourself a favor and don't bother.

[Dinsdale]

There's been myriad "precedents" in the very sport you refer to. While maybe no one has shut down their young ace, guys get shelved all the time.

And again... crack a book. I believe there's been more than one published on innings palyed before the age of 22/24.

If you're going to nitpick with "when they did," then yes, in a convoluted way, I fully agree. The time to shelve him was in the 6th in all of his starts. Or a month off with light throwing in July. Or a 5 man rotation. W#e can get crazy, and go with "or use him in long relief."

I fully agree it was a bozo move, no argument (from anyone with a brain).

But then again, "when they did" was a function of what had already happened, which was playing him too many innings. At the time the decision was made, it was about the only logical one. That isn't in question...

the only thing in question was the moronic "questionable" series of decisions that led to that point.

[Dinsdale]

See, I don't lose here when it comes to words. Ever.

Ever seen The Princess Bride?

Drink up, bitch.

[Van]

There's been myriad "precedents" in the very sport you refer to. While maybe no one has shut down their young ace, guys get shelved all the time.

No, they don't. Not "all the time." Not ever. No fully healthy megastar in any sport who played the second half of the season at a high level was ever benched purely as a precautionary measure for the stretch run and on into the playoffs.

This was an entirely unprecedented move.

And again... crack a book. I believe there's been more than one published on innings palyed before the age of 22/24.

Again, read a post...then comment. The issue isn't with shelving him, it's with shelving him for the latter half of September and on into the playoffs. There is no scientific evidence to substantiate any specific innings count following a (nearly) full season of play, and there is no precedent for shelving a player in a similar situation. This was unheard of, and entirely assfucked.

If you're going to nitpick with "when they did," then yes, in a convoluted way, I fully agree. The time to shelve him was in the 6th in all of his starts. Or a month off with light throwing in July. Or a 5 man rotation. W#e can get crazy, and go with "or use him in long relief."

I fully agree it was a bozo move, no argument (from anyone with a brain).

I guess Mgo doesn't have a brain then, and I'm not "nitpicking." The timing of when they did it is everything. The issue isn't the what, it's the when.

[Dinsdale]

There is no scientific evidence to substantiate any specific innings count following a (nearly) full season of play

Again... myriad.

I won't even bother any more stats or links... you caqn lead a horse to water, but you can't make it think.

You are straight up wrong... period, EOS.

You keep wanting to attach your outs -- "Following a full season," et al. Shitty debate technique, and I know you know you're wrong... hence you leaving the back door open... don't be a bitch.

Want me to give you the Amazon SKU# for the books written on the subject? One of the authors was on our local sports talk not too long ago, and was sptting longevity stats liuke they were going out of style.

You are, in short... wrong, and made shit up to try and back it up. You claimed "no evidence," and I provided it... and can keep doing it forever, since it exists (in spades, decades worth), and you talked out of your ass, on the assumption you were the encyclopedia of "ever, in any sport"... think about what you claimed...

then apologize to the board.

It's happened very recently.

[Van]

Cite one example. Just one. When you fail to do so, which you most certainly will since there are no precedents that are remotely similar to Strasburg's, go ahead and STFU once and for all.

For all your loud braying and flailing about, you still haven't gotten close to grasping the main point. In fact, you've already conceded it multiple times without even realizing it.

[Dinsdale]

There's no "precedent" for a unique set of circumstances?

Stupid and disingenuous debate tactic.

I'm still waiting on your assertion that there "isn't a scintilla of evidence" to be recinded, since I provided one -- and can come up with dozens of others.

I'll explain this to you, once again:

King Felix never threw more than 200 innings before he hit age 23. And the M's announced that it was going to be the policy before he ever pitched a MLB game. Unlike the inept Nats, they pulled him early from every start, regardless of performance... since apparently, M's management has access to better calculators than the Nats.

Verlander wasn't allowed to pitch more than 200 until he was 26. Wonder if they would have knocked a few off if he was coming off TJ? Oh, and oddly enough, his team was involved in the playoffs at the time... but you probably don't remember that.


There's long been a "magic number" for pitchers 22yo and younger. That number is 200 innings. Anything over that... just isn't done. But obviously, that number gets adjusted, both agewise and inningwise, when said young pitcher has his arm cut on. Some clubs err on the side of caution, and wait until guys are even a little older before they're allowed to crack 200.

How many more examples do you want?


And every manager/GM at every level of pro baseball knows this... since that's kinda where the practice comes from.

There's gargantuan databases that explain exactly why, and the numbers are rock-solid as to why the practice is in place.

So, what you're saying is true... except it's the opposite of true.

You talk "precedent"? Your turn -- name the young pitcher in the last couplefew decades that had TJ and threw more than 160 innings before age 24?

I'll be waiting, Mr. Precedent.

I mean, I understand your embarrasment for being ignorant about young pitchers' inning limits but running your yap about it anyway, making up preposterous "facts" and playing the prove-a-negative game asking for "precedent" (YOU'RE the one who needs to provide precedent, since you're arguing that a common, accepted practice doesn't exist)... but puh-leez.

You're just straight up wrong.

Now, if you want to chime in on the Nats' horrible management of his predetermined inning count, then by all means... you'll be in agreement with everyone in this thread who's offered an opinion on the matter. But making shit up out of thin air ain't going to cut it.


"But they were in a playoff run!" So? What does that strawman have to do with the universal (you know what that word means, right?) practice of limiting young pitchers' innings?

You're arguing that a standard, universal practice doesn't exist. You're talking to a brick wall, since everyone else here seems to be familiar with it. The only thing at issue here is management's distribution of said predetermined innings, not whether the practice exists.

You're looking like a Major League dumbass.

[Van]

Not one of those examples is germane to this discussion. Since I'm the one who framed the topic, guess what? I can't introduce a strawman. You, however, can attempt to twist the subject more to your liking, which is exactly what you've been trying (and failing miserably) to do.

It's really simple, no matter how fucking hard you attempt to move the goalposts. There isn't a single other example in the history of modern sport where a fully healthy franchise-type player was allowed to play the entire season before being shelved as a precautionary measure heading into the postseason. Until the Nats pulled that boneheaded move with Strasburg no team had ever any done such a thing. Every other team looked at the calendar and adjusted their plans accordingly. Not Washington. They completely screwed the pooch.

This has been my sole point all along, and it's irrefutable. You can provide no examples to the contrary. None. Zip. Nada.

Try as you may, you will still lose.

[Goober McTuber]

How about we just give you each a participation medal.

[Dinsdale]

Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics, you know.

[Van]

How about we just give you each a participation medal.

In!