Sign in to follow this  
Bier Meister

Strasburg...

Recommended Posts

I think it's great that the nats want to preserve the guy's arm and whatnot, but to sit him in the playoffs seems excessively obstinate imo.

 

thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My thought is that I have no idea what obstinate means, so I'm gonna have to defer here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh and to answer the question based on context clues, I think they made a mistake. I have a hard time believing that there is some magical number of innings and the Nationals figured it out perfectly. Why didn't they shut him down 50 innings earlier. You can't count on winning the division every year. A world series championship is hard to attain and shutting down your best player "just in case" doesn't make sense to me. I understand the other side of the argument, I just don't agree with it.

Edited by Puddy
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh and to answer the question based on context clues, I think they made a mistake. I have a hard time believing that there is some magical number of innings and the Nationals figured it out perfectly. Why didn't they shut him down 50 innings earlier. You can't count on winning the division every year. A world series championship is hard to attain and shutting down your best player "just in case" doesn't make sense to me. I understand the other side of the argument, I just don't agree with it.

 

exactly. them holding a hard line at this point in his career seems unnecessary. they can restrict his innings in the years to come...maybe even spread his breaks out throughout the season.

Edited by Bier Meister

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally think they are making a mistake... But if they go on and win it all this year as they very well could and still preserve his arm then it may be viewed as genius. I think it will bite them in the ass but hey I've seen crazier things happen (Ahem 2010 :whistle: )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another vote for the magical number silliness. And, I would guess that, if there is, in fact, a magical threshold, it would have something to do with amount of work per x number of days. Not work per year regardless of how the work is spread out through that year.

 

Say you're a runner and you want to avoid going overboard. Does it make sense to run 70 miles a week for 15 weeks and then shut it down for the year or run 30 miles a week every week for most of the year? You're running 50% more but I can't help but think that you're less likely to injure yourself because you're spreading out the work.

 

Why couldn't have they stretched out his starts? Oh, and another "magic" number I have a hard time believing is that your body wants exactly x number of days between starts (no more no less) and that there's nothing you can do in terms of how you treat the off days to alter that. OK, to be clear, I understand that you may not be able to alter it shorter, but I can't imagine you can't effectively stretch it by a day through well-designed drills.

 

He might have exceeded the magic innings number, but he would have gotten less work per week while he was active than he did the way they did it. So, logically, it seems like no more wear and tear on the shoulder.

 

Again, if you're truly concerned about not over-working, you should be thinking of that in the short term, like work/week, not in terms of work/year. Thinking of it annually seems like lazy logic.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought it was understandable but uneven, given my being a fan of a team that had not one but two "once in a generation" prospects. It isn't innings it's pitches thrown. End of story. Innings are arbitrary and have no consistent value, pitches by and large do. And if they were that worried about blowing up his arm they could have had him pitching every 6 or 7 days down the stretch, which they should have done, and ramp him back up right now.

 

In baseball, just like the NFL, when you've got the mojo you've got to go all in since making the playoffs next year is never a given. It isn't the NBA.

Edited by Pope Flick
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't innings it's pitches thrown.

 

Yet another fine argument against the whole deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.