Skip to main content

quote:
Originally posted by PurpleHaze:
Andrews wasn't directly involved, and when asked about the decision rightly declined to make any specific comments given his lack of direct involvement. His general tone was supportive of the shutdown, and interestingly also strongly against the "rest and recycle" suggestions that many have made as a possibility of extending Strasburg's season.

PH

Thanks for the info PH.
quote:
Originally posted by PurpleHaze:
Pretty safe assumption these days, don't you think?

PH


Normally, yes, but not necessarily in this case. From what I read, management decided at the beginning of the season to limit his innings. If that decision it not subject to revision after consulation with the physicians, I think it's a bad decision. I have no idea what's going on behind the scenes.
quote:
I have no idea what's going on behind the scenes.


No one does. Strasburg's medical team has been admirably quiet during this fracas. Nats' management has made it clear, however, that the decisions regarding his rehab and innings limit were all medically driven. And most of them were made before he went under the knife. There was no possibility that they'd ask Stras, "How you feelin' big boy" and make a decision based his apparent health in September. With quotes like this from Dr. James Andrews, one of the pre-eminent TJ surgeons in the country:

I don’t think you can criticize that one bit, to be honest with you. If you look at the injury rates on re-dos for Tommy Johns, the highest injury rates they have is during the second year, when they’re coming back and really back up at top form and throwing and getting fatigued.

it's hard for anyone without first-hand knowledge of the situation to have a valid opinion on the medical components of the decision.

The additional fact that Strasburg's surgeon, Lewis Yokum, is in practice with the guy who invented the surgery - leaves little doubt in my mind that the medical support in this case is competent to say the least.

PH
quote:
Originally posted by scbeerman:
I am not sure about this, but I think that Strasburg is a Scott Boras client. Someone told me that Boras is orchestrating this. If so, this is about keeping Strasburg healthy enough so Boras can cash in on the next big contract, be it arbitration or free agency.


Strasburg is represented by Scott Boras. Powerful guy, for sure and has definitely supported the shutdown. I think a claim that he's "orchestrating" this thing is simply off the wall.
I am with PH on this one. The Nats are doing what is best for them in the long term. They shut down Zimmerman last year after 160 and look how well he is pitching now. For anybody who thinks they are making the wrong decision by playing it safe and following the advice of the medical folks I have a couple of thoughts for you: Kerry Wood and Mark Prior.
I think the "early" early shutdown was a good move. Regardless of whether his next to last start was good or bad (and he was lousy and looked tired) I think Rizzo was going to pull him anyway. I don't think they wanted him on the mound knowing that it was his last start. This way there was no chance of him going out and "overthrowing" knowing it was his last chance to prove himself. Onward!!

PH
quote:
Originally posted by PurpleHaze:
I think the "early" early shutdown was a good move. Regardless of whether his next to last start was good or bad (and he was lousy and looked tired) I think Rizzo was going to pull him anyway. I don't think they wanted him on the mound knowing that it was his last start. This way there was no chance of him going out and "overthrowing" knowing it was his last chance to prove himself. Onward!!

PH


I was at that game, and while he had the Heat (fairly consistent 95mph fastball) he didn't have the control he normally has. Signs that he is getting worn down. Remember, this year he threw more innings than he ever has before. He is only 24 for goodness sake. As a Nats fan I want to watch him for years to come. I think that he will only get better and stronger but wouldn't have if they overworked him.
I wonder how the statistics would work if it was limited to how pitchers were used after returning from Tommy John surgery. The point is, the Nationals said they were going to do this before the season started, and it was exactly what they did with JZim. I don't have any problem with what they did, and since I live in the DC area and am a big Nat's fan, my opinion counts more than some punk from Kansas City.
TPE gets like a pit bull on a porterhouse sometimes..... Razz

All the stats in the world don't make a hill of beans in this matter.

As Strasburg clearly stated, he (and the Nationals) are following the advice of his medical team. Case closed.

And it is no surprise that the Nationals' fan base, dinwiddie and I included, overwhelmingly support the decision.

Lannan didn't look too shabby last night, either..... Cool

PH
Wow.. Absolutely scathing criticism of Rizzo on the front page of the USA Today sports page, including by his fellow executives.

One GM said: "if we don't win the World Series, I don't care who does, as long as it's not those guys. They don't deserve to win it. Not after what they did."

Said another GM: "I hope they go down in flames. I hope it takes another 79 years before they get back to the playoffs. That's how strongly I feel about this."

And like I said, if I am Nats player like Ryan Zimmerman, who has played his heart out for a perennial bottom-feeder... I AM PISSED! I think Rizzo is an absolute fool, and if the Nats get bumped in the first round, he deserves to be fired. Good luck leaving the fate of your franchise's season in the hands of Ross Detwiler.
The horse was dead at the beginning of the season.


The shutdown decision was made MONTHS ago. It was based on one primary criterion and supported by two secondary considerations. The driving reason, and the one that supersedes all others is this:


It. Was. A. Medical. Decision.


Period.



We can argue until we're blue in the face whether it was a GOOD medical decision, but it was based on the opinions of the medical people who were charged Strasburg's care. They get to make the call. Not you, not me, not some hack from the USA Today and not the majority of people outside Washington, inside Washington or anywhere else. The informed medical community admittedly has a range of opinions on the Nat's strategy, but the majority of docs involved in this kind of stuff choose to act on the side of caution. The supporting arguments buttressing this decision are the long term business call on the value of a Strasburg who (if his doctors are correct) will likely have a better chance at an extended career, and an underlying moral question: Do we ignore the doctors, and the long term value of this young man to his team and his family because our season has gone better than we expected?


It would be a perfect example of situational ethics if the Nat's management decided to reverse this medical, business and moral decision made a long time ago because having him around suddenly made their chances to extend the season somewhat better. It was either a good decision at the beginning of the season or it wasn't. But it was made, and being made shouldn't become alterable because things got more promising in the Nats' race for the World Series. None of the people who have been so vocal about this decision recently made any kind of fuss when the Nats announced their strategy after the surgery. I'll give a pass to anyone who questioned the decision right when it was made. Otherwise, anyone else who is carping about this within the past month or so, based solely on this year's playoff considerations is kicking a very dead horse.


PH
Look at JZ'mann year this year, and you understand why they did it. True Straus ws having problems, but his last three games have been beauties. He just needed to settle down. Z'mann is now 8-2 with a ~1.70 ERA; Strasburg has a 2.49 ERA and has pitched 23 innings in his last three consecutive starts, is averaging over 100 pitches a start and has thrown as many pitches this year as Justrin Verlander. (Before this, Strasburg had never had more than 20 innings in a span of 3 starts).

Considering that these guys should be anchoring the rotation here for years, I think Rizzo was justified and has been proven right in doing what they did.
In what world has Rizzo been proven right? There was no way to be proven right because by choosing one course of action you can't ever know what would have happened with the other course. He could have pitched the Nationals to the world series and been fine this season or he could have blown out his elbow the next start. We will never know.

Rizzo made a decision in early in the year, when Was wasnt expected to contend and refused to revisit it with the new facts of being a world series contender in Sept. Some people think that's smart, some dont but he will never be proven right.

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×