Friday, July 6, 2012

So Much for the Nats

Last night, the Washington Nationals completed a sweep of the San Francisco Giants, running their record to 48-32 and giving them a 4 1/2 game lead in the National League East. For Washington baseball fans -- who haven't had a team with a winning record since 1969 and who haven't seen post-season baseball since 1933 -- these are giddy times.

But the Nationals are not going to win the pennant or the World Series. They have decided that their ace pitcher, Stephen Strasburg, is too fragile to complete the season, and so they will shut him down at the beginning of September. Thomas Boswell, who has long served as the PR men for D.C. sports teams, defends the Nats' decision to throw away the 2012 season here. He does not explain why, if Strasburg is so fragile, the Nats shouldn't have held him out until June -- that way he could have pitched in the playoffs without going over their self-imposed innings limit. Nor does he address the fact that many red-hot baseball teams -- such as the 1969 Mets or the 2003 Marlins -- only get one chance to go all the way. In other words, it seems likely that the Nats are saving Strasburg for future pennant runs that will never materialize. For that matter, he doesn't address the possibility that Strasburg may be fated to have a short career in any event -- and that he should take what may be his one and only chance to pitch in the playoffs.

On the other hand, maybe the Nats' plan will work, and Strasburg's arm will be saved. Maybe he will pitch for years and years. Of course, if that's the case, he won't be pitching here much longer -- after he becomes a free agent, he'll be pitching for a big-money team like the Yankees. If that happens, I hope that when the Yankee fans are cheering for Strasburg, they spare a thought for the National fans who saw their own team sacrifice its season for the sake of a single player.

9 comments:

  1. I was with Kornhieser on this one, why not switch him to a 7 day rotation or something like that. In fact why didn't they do that at the beginning of June when they realized they were going to be in the pennant race.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Here's the Thomas Boswell defense on the extended-rotation dealio:

    There are two things so stupid that you never do them. First, you don’t voluntarily shut a pitcher down for weeks then start him back up, creating, in effect, a second spring training. You also can’t pretend that “skipping starts” is feasible. Why? Because you aren’t skipping anything. The issue isn’t innings; it’s total workload on the arm. While skipping starts, a pitcher stays on a throwing program. For Strasburg, that’s 95 mph. It isn’t “rest.” The stress and risk accumulate. Short of suspended animation, you can’t beat it.

    This whole column is really weird. It's like Boswell feels as though he's responsible for tamping down some brushfire. "Things so stupid that you never do them"? Why is he so angry about this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because Boswell understands that this decision is going to deal a critical blow to the enthusiasm for the Washington Nationals that he has been trying to promote. But Boswell also agrees with the decision -- he thinks it would be immoral for the Nats to put winning the pennant ahead of Strasburg's ability to make huge amounts of money in the future. So he's got to blast away at the critics of the decision, hoping to stake out the position that any true baseball fan will see that the Nats are doing the right thing.

      I don't think Boswell's arguments are going to work, by the way. Most people aren't going to spend very much time analyzing the decision -- they're just going to remember that the Nats threw away their chances of winning the pennant.

      Delete
    2. Well, that and the tenor of the column just totally tunes out anyone who has any sort of dissenting opinion on the matter.

      Delete
    3. Boswell's columns don't usually suggest that he's open to arguments on the other side. He's a pretty close-minded guy.

      Delete
  3. They said total innings pitched for the season, not total pitches or total workload, but total innings. I find it hard to believe that with trainers they couldn't have figured out a work schedule to do 7 day rotations instead of 4 or 5.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For that matter, why couldn't they have had Strasburg skip the first two months of the season, and start on June 1. That way at least you could use him in the playoffs. Under the new system, it's not that hard to make the playoffs -- you just have to be one of the top 5 teams in the league. But once you get to the playoffs, you really need your best pitchers, because the team with the best starting pitching will usually advance.

      The Nats would be better off trying to win the pennant as a wild card with Strasburg than trying to win it as a division champion without Strasburg. So it made no sense to start him in April and May if that means you can't use him in September and October.

      Delete
    2. I agree with you and Kornheiser, by the way, that it would have been much better to spread out Strasburg's starts so that he would be available in the playoffs.

      Delete
    3. I agree with either of these strategies--or even trading Strasburg to a team so loaded with talent and money that they could afford a boutique player--over what the Nationals are doing. This is just jive.

      Delete