Wire Taps: Washington Nationals' Stephen Strasburg's Inning Limit Comes Up Again.
In a mid-October conference call with the D.C. press corps, Washington Nationals' general manager Mike Rizzo told reporters that team hadn't yet decided "in concrete," as he put it, how many innings 23-year-old right-hander Stephen Strasburg would throw in 2012. "I have general parameters of what I think is something I would allow him to throw," the GM said, before explaining that he wasn't, "... going to disclose it to anybody because, obviously, there's strategy that's employed in it and we don't want people to know our business. But we have a good idea of the parameters of where we want [Strasburg] to throw, and we'll adhere to those parameters. Like I said, it's nothing in concrete because we want to see how he comes to Spring Training, how he feels and how he develops throughout the season."
Strasburg told ESPN's Tim Kurkjian last week when Baseball Tonight visited the Nationals' Spring Training home that he knew he'd have an innings limit and though he admitted, "I don't like to have the reins put on me," he said, "I know that they have my best interest in mind, but a lot can change, so I'm just going to go into the season ready to answer the bell every time they ask and I'm going to give it everything I've got until they take the ball out of my hands." When exactly the Nationals will take the ball out of Strasburg's hands they still aren't saying...
While ESPN.com's Mr. Kurkjian had mentioned a 160-inning limit in his conversation with the right-hander, when CBSSports.com's Danny Knobler spoke to the Nats' GM for an article published Tuesday entitled, "Strasburg's 2012 limits are to be determined", Rizzo told the CBSSports' reporter, "... that while people have assumed that Strasburg will be limited to 160 innings," since it's close to the 161.1 IP Jordan Zimmermann threw in 2011 in his first full-year back following Tommy John surgery in late 2009, "... the actual number won't be determined until later in the season."
Before Zimmermann's 26 starts and 161.1 IP in 2011, he threw 39.2 innings in the Nationals' system as he rehabbed in 2010, and threw 31.0 innings at the major league level providing more of a foundation in his recovery than Strasburg got this year when he threw 20.1 IP with the Nats' affiliates and 24.0 innings in the nation's capital and one start in Florida. The Nats' GM says in the CBSSports.com article that 69-year-old skipper Davey Johnson, a 15-year veteran on the bench in his second career after thirteen years as a major league infielder, will be in control of how Strasburg's used on a day-to-day basis.
Strasburg explained to the Washington Post's Adam Kilgore last week that he'd watched closely how his fellow right-hander Jordan Zimmermann had handled pitching on an inning-limit last year and, as he said, "'The one thing I learned from Jordan and what I’m going to try to incorporate is that I don’t expect myself and I don’t want to go out there and say, 'Oh, I know they’re going to take me out this inning because I’m only throwing this many innings this year,' Strasburg said. 'I’m going to go out until they take the ball out of my hand.'"
Johnson told reporters last summer that he'd dealt with players differently in the past and adapted to the way recovering pitchers are handled today. "Those decisions really were solely up to me when I had young pitchers. Not over-taxing them early and letting them go as long as I felt like they were not having a problem between starts." If there were issues, Johnson said, they would, "...kind of skip starts and try to get them to the end. But I've never had a doctor say X number of innings."
Though the Nats haven't told anyone how many innings Strasburg will throw, he will be limited, a fact that Davey Johnson accepts as he told reporters this winter. "I'm going with the medical experts," Johnson said, "Whatever they think is the best thing to do." ESPN.com's Tim Kurkjian found it hard to believe Strasburg would be shut down if the Nationals were in a race for a postseason berth, and CBSSports.com's Mr. Knobler too said that though the Nats were willing to shut Zimmermann down when he was done, "Of course, last year the Nationals were 22 1/2 games out of first place by that point," and, he wrote, "This year, they expect to be much closer to the top."
"'[Manager Davey Johnson] has absolutely no limits on how many innings or how many pitches [Strasburg can throw],'" the Nats' GM told the CBSSports.com reporter, "'Davey's going to use his expertise,'" and when the pitcher reaches his prescribed limit he'll be shut down. Johnson told reporters last week (as quoted in an AP/Yahoo! Sports article) that he'd expect Strasburg to throw 150-160 innings. As Rizzo told reporters in Florida last week there won't be any "tinkering" with Strasburg, no late start to the season, no skipping starts to try to extend the pitcher later into the season. "'We’re going to run him out there until his innings are done.'" How many innings exactly? Folks will keep asking until there's an answer...
91 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Gonna try to be subtle here
But you’re missing an ‘n’ in this article ;)
I don't have a very high opinion of southern California, in sports or in general
Otherwise, of course, you’re doing an awesome job, Patrick :)
I don't have a very high opinion of southern California, in sports or in general
by short_shifter on Feb 29, 2012 9:42 AM EST up reply actions
Last one, got lazy...
Thanks.
Vivian Jaffe: "Have you ever transcended space and time?"
Albert Markovski: "Yes. No. Uh, time, not space... No, I don't know what you're talking about."
by Patrick Reddington on Feb 29, 2012 12:24 PM EST up reply actions
Well, that's a bit of a change
I don’t recall previously hearing anything about the cap being determined “later in the season”.
I’m ………… waiting …………… for the INEVITABLE ………………..
Brain: "Pinky, are you pondering what i'm pondering?"
Pinky: "Yes, ... wait, ... no, ... never mind"
In 3....2....1....
Rob
--"Ten percent of nuthin' is...let me do the math here...nuthin' into nuthin'...carry the nuthin'..." -- Jayne Cobb
I think it may make difference if he has to sit due to an injury of sorts
Say he misses a month a pulled groin. Just throwing that out there. Does that change anything?
You guys. You lollygag the ball around the infield. You lollygag your way down to first. You lollygag in and out of the dugout. You know what that makes you? Larry!
I wonder if Rizzo is getting fed up with answering the same question time and time again, he needs to just make a sweeping declaration that 160 Innings is it and never answers this again.
by RossingtonCollins on Feb 29, 2012 10:37 AM EST reply actions
Yeah, but not all innings are the same...
Some are immaculate, and some are a lot more stressful and drawn out…like the guys who know they can’t actually hit off Stras but will keep fouling.
And there will be defensive miscues…dreading the bad reads between LF & CF… just sayn’.
And we know Stras wilts quickly on hot, humid days.
Only Livo seemed impervious to that kind of weather (shedding a small tear for the departed Livo. I’lll be ok when the kidz are pitching lights out…but no more “Throw slowwwwwwwwer!” Sniff.)
So how could Rizzo give an absolute number? And why would he?
"player development" should not be gladiator games. by cat daddy3000 on Aug 6, 2011
by MissB on Feb 29, 2012 12:44 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
I know what you mean, I maybe should’ve said in the ballpark of 160. JZimm ended at 161.1 last year so it isn’t a definite number.
by RossingtonCollins on Feb 29, 2012 1:30 PM EST up reply actions
I don't know if anyone really pays attention to this sort of thing,
or if they even should, but the minimum number of IP for Stras to qualify for the ERA crown is 162, barring rainouts. If it comes down to it, and SS is in competition for the title, I would not object to stretching him in his last start to get to the minimum. One could believe that’s what they did for JayZ last year (though I think he ended up just missing the top ten…?).
Rob
--"Ten percent of nuthin' is...let me do the math here...nuthin' into nuthin'...carry the nuthin'..." -- Jayne Cobb
by RobBobS on Feb 29, 2012 2:06 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Werth out again today
Yeah, this does mildly concern me.
Rob
--"Ten percent of nuthin' is...let me do the math here...nuthin' into nuthin'...carry the nuthin'..." -- Jayne Cobb
Amanda Comak:
Steve McCatty walked away from Henry Rodriguez’s bullpen session on Tuesday with one word: “Wow.” wtim.es/x2PxD9
Yay...cheering LOTS for MPH-Rod.
With a little better control…and less over-use, Davey…he could be a potent weapon for the bullpen. Could be another “Invisi-ball” pitcher.
"player development" should not be gladiator games. by cat daddy3000 on Aug 6, 2011
by MissB on Feb 29, 2012 12:28 PM EST via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
+ invisi-ball!!!
"...I don't want to go watch American League baseball." -Lance Berkman....
I wanna watch the "... tape-measure-testing, laser-throwing, eyeblack-oozing baseball cyborg."
by cat daddy3000 on Feb 29, 2012 2:18 PM EST up reply actions
Mark Zuckerman:
Strong live BP session from Sean Burnett. Hitters really complimentary toward him. Shattered Michael Morse’s bat.
Of course, the Nationals' pitchers tend to look great when throwing to ... Nationals' hitters
Hmmmmmm
by d_c_guy on Feb 29, 2012 11:52 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I almost choked laughing when I read this. Well done sir.
"Just the fact that I knew something was bad, I knew it was probably broken, I knew I'd have to miss some time--that makes me upset more than anything."
by QuintinLainged on Feb 29, 2012 12:03 PM EST up reply actions
Adam Kilgore:
Harper mashes a ground-rule double to left-center off Storen. Almost an opp-boppo there.
So, Harper's batting .500 against Storen now?
Rob
--"Ten percent of nuthin' is...let me do the math here...nuthin' into nuthin'...carry the nuthin'..." -- Jayne Cobb
devious smiles....
http://washingtonnationlols.tumblr.com/

"...I don't want to go watch American League baseball." -Lance Berkman....
I wanna watch the "... tape-measure-testing, laser-throwing, eyeblack-oozing baseball cyborg."
by cat daddy3000 on Feb 29, 2012 2:17 PM EST reply actions 4 recs
i know he's bow-tied and all but this time he's cool.
Ken Rosenthal @Ken_Rosenthal
Sources: Additional wild cards a "go" for this season. Playoffs to expand from eight to 10 teams. Announcement tomorrow. #MLB
Not a fan.
Nope. Watered down is watered down, even it it means my team has a better chance.
You know who probably really hates this? The Braves. They are the “presumptive” second-best team in the league, and a second wild-card actually makes it less likely that they will win the pennant. And it’s not just because they now would have to play an additional “round” (presumably), but that the first round would be determined by a single game, which, in terms of assessing the better team, is about as accurate as an Emily Litella transcription of a Bob Dylan song.
Rob
--"Ten percent of nuthin' is...let me do the math here...nuthin' into nuthin'...carry the nuthin'..." -- Jayne Cobb
MLBTRADERUMORS.com confirms MLB set to announce expanded playoffs for 2012
www.MLBTRADERUMORS.com confirms MLB set to announce expanded playoffs for 2012. As stated above, the two best records that don’t win their dividions will get in from each league. Those two teams will play a one-game play-off. It’ll be interesting to see how they decide where the game is played (best record, head-to-head, other?). So in a tough division, like the AL or NL East, you can now have three post-season participants. I think that this is very good news for the Nats. Good move for MLB to expand the post-season’s interest to more teams and more fans. Obviously money talks…
Now, all we gotta do is get there! Go Nats!!!
-bdbd
I think it won't take very long
for fans to understand how bad this is, once the clearly superior teams start losing in the one-game playoffs (or play-ins, or whatever they call them). This will eventually translate into less interest in wild-card contending teams.
Rob
--"Ten percent of nuthin' is...let me do the math here...nuthin' into nuthin'...carry the nuthin'..." -- Jayne Cobb
No Robs right............
Its great to have a 1 game playoff…………. when the two teams tie for the wild card. Not when one team wins the wild card by 8 games………..
Its bad. It allows NY, Boston Phiily and Atlanta to say “we’ve been in the playoffs for 32 straight years”………….LOL
Yep.
When the world watches an 87-win team play a 95-win team in a single game for the right to “make the playoffs”, it will be very hard to avoid asking “WHY?”
Rob
--"Ten percent of nuthin' is...let me do the math here...nuthin' into nuthin'...carry the nuthin'..." -- Jayne Cobb
Baseball..............
Is a long Haul sport………thats why we love it all SUMMER……..
Another example of “Moneyball”……….Just greed.
You don't want to play the Wild Card Game? Win your Division
How is this worse than the current problem of teams coasting into the playoffs not caring whether they win the division (see, e.g., Yankees vs. Rays yawnfest for the AL East a couple of years ago), or the problem of inferior wild card teams getting the chance (2011 Cardinals, take a bow!) to get hot and run the table. This way at least the wild card teams have a real disincentive, not only in the 50/50 nature of the “Wild Card Playoff” (or whatever they call it), but it presumably will put them back in terms of their pitching staff vs. the #1 overall record holder. Which, incidentally, makes it more useful to BE the #1 seed in the league.
If you’re going to rail against the “play-in” game, rail against the concept of the Wild Card. But of course the Wild Card at least makes it possible that a 93 win team won’t be left out of the playoffs while an 82 win “Division Winner” makes it.
The only real answer would be to do away with the Divisions entirely, equalize scheduling throughout each league, and the #1-#5 seeds make the playoffs with #4 and #5 playing for the right to meet the #1 seed in the first round. I’m not holding my breath though.
Perhaps it's my "East-Coast-bias" bias, but
I always suspected that the only reason they instituted the wild card in the first place was to make sure that the Yanks and the Sox make the playoffs every year. Since that has failed recently, now they need to add that extra layer of protection. After all, we ALL dream of the Yanks/Sox ALCS, right???
Rob
--"Ten percent of nuthin' is...let me do the math here...nuthin' into nuthin'...carry the nuthin'..." -- Jayne Cobb
Well that's not nice.
I was mostly joking.
Rob
--"Ten percent of nuthin' is...let me do the math here...nuthin' into nuthin'...carry the nuthin'..." -- Jayne Cobb
Yes, that is clearly worse than having 4 non-playoff teams in the NL East with better records than the NL West winner aka 2005.
But the current system is no better. There are plenty of times when bad division winners move on over better 3rd place teams. Any system that you create is ultimately going to produce some “unfair” result. Only way to avoid that is eliminate the seperate leagues, divisions, and play a round robin tournament, without any playoffs.
I could live with that.
Like the CWS (but, hopefully, smaller).
Rob
--"Ten percent of nuthin' is...let me do the math here...nuthin' into nuthin'...carry the nuthin'..." -- Jayne Cobb
Well, learn to love the DH then.
I think that system would tear out a good deal of the fun. I like the Division rivalaries. I like that San Diego has a pitcher’s park and Texas has a hitters park. I even like that baseball allows for 4 Yankees to make more than the Royals and Rays entire team. It’s not fair, but it is what it is. As long as the rules are the same as they were when you started the game, so be it.
Yes, clearly spiting the those teams is the best goal we can think of.
Is it really that big of difference that they have only made 75% of the time? Whe was the last time that atleast 2 of those teams didn’t make it?
It might, however, breathe some life into rather down-trodden teams that haven’t made the post-season in 20 years.
This isn't the second-grade science fair
There’s supposed to be winners and losers. Not everyone merits advancement. If Pittsburgh wants to make the playoffs, they have to field a better team, not simply wait around long enough for Bud Selig to expand the playoffs to 20 teams.
Rob
--"Ten percent of nuthin' is...let me do the math here...nuthin' into nuthin'...carry the nuthin'..." -- Jayne Cobb
True. MLB and the NFL are close.
NHL and NBA are off the charts silly.
Rob
--"Ten percent of nuthin' is...let me do the math here...nuthin' into nuthin'...carry the nuthin'..." -- Jayne Cobb
Are you saying you didn't like my daughter's science project?????
Did you even SEE it, Rob???!!! Clearly the best volcano in the entire second grade, if not the whole elementary school. Don’t imply that she didn’t earn her gold star.
;-)
If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding! How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?!
I'm sure she did.
The pyroclastic cloud was a nice touch.
Rob
--"Ten percent of nuthin' is...let me do the math here...nuthin' into nuthin'...carry the nuthin'..." -- Jayne Cobb
by RobBobS on Feb 29, 2012 5:05 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Or the last 2 championships won by the Cardinals?
Weren’t they the ‘clearly inferior team’ against everybody they played in both those runs?
"It’s hard to be good. It’s easy to not be good." -Coach Turgeon
Locksley 14:6 "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Terps, except through me."
Lots of people will be against the expanded MLB playoffs
Until their favorite team gets the 5th spot.
Washingtonian and heartbroken Penn Stater -- My blog features the triumph of hope over experience that is being a DC sports fan (especially the Nats) as well as the Nittany Lions, life in BeltwayLand and other things I find interesting. @doubleuefwhy
There should be a requirement
Of the number of games the second wild-card team can be behind the first wild-card team. It really wouldn’t be fair to the first team if they win 95 games and then have to play an 82 win team in a one-game playoff.
Something like 3-4 games back or something, so it wouldn’t happen every year, would be better in my opinion.
And then...
anyone remember way back in late September 2011, when the entire baseball sporting world was transfixed by the four games being played nearly simultaneously as two teams battled to avoid falling out of the playoffs in historic fashion?
With this extra round… ho hum. That’s OK, the Sox and the Braves will live to play another day.
Rob
--"Ten percent of nuthin' is...let me do the math here...nuthin' into nuthin'...carry the nuthin'..." -- Jayne Cobb
A 95-game winner losing to an 87-game winner in the play-in game
would not represent a historic collapse. It would represent the flawed notion that “more teams is better”.
Rob
--"Ten percent of nuthin' is...let me do the math here...nuthin' into nuthin'...carry the nuthin'..." -- Jayne Cobb
No, but the teams could still be battling for the shot to be that 87-win team.
Besides if that 87 win team really is materially worse, they won’t win the WS. If you get through the best teams in baseball, after being further disadvantaged by having to spend your ace in the play-in, then you have a good claim.
Does it really matter if you lose in the NLCS vs. NLDS? If you don’t win the last game of the season, you lost. Period.
Let's pretend for a second,
that a team with a WPCT of x1 will beat a team with a WPCT of x2 with probability (x1-x2) + .5. Thus, two teams with even records should play .500 ball against each other, while a team with a .600 record should play around .600 ball against a team with a .500 record.
In this case, a team that wins 95 games will beat a team that wins 88 games around 54.9% of the time. Suppose instead that 95-win team plays a 90-game winner in a five-game series. I leave it to the reader to verify that under these assumptions, the 95-game winner will win the series 55.7% of the time. Even though they are playing a better team.
Rob
--"Ten percent of nuthin' is...let me do the math here...nuthin' into nuthin'...carry the nuthin'..." -- Jayne Cobb
I don't see your point?
I am willing to concede that a statistically worse team still has a good shot of winning the game. The Astros will still win 50 games next year. What I am saying, is “what difference does it make if the Padres are eliminated by the Pirates in a play-in game versus if they lose to Mets in the NLDS? Or say the Dodgers in NLCS?”
You focus on the examples where so extremely worse team wins and gets in. But what about the statistically better or equivalent teams that are regularly left-out?
Mind you I am not arguing that the new system really makes things better, only a different set of problems and advantages.
Coming up with concrete examples of situations where things actually improve
is not an easy exercise.
Rob
--"Ten percent of nuthin' is...let me do the math here...nuthin' into nuthin'...carry the nuthin'..." -- Jayne Cobb
It's not necessarily about who the statistically better team is
I think the real argument against the expanded wildcard is that it can cause a ‘third best team’ – who is several games up on the ‘fourth best team’ (fourth best being the team that won’t make the second wild card) to gain an advantage by resting their best starter while the two teams directly above them have to go all-out to ensure they’re not the one involved in the one game playoff.
But in any case, settling a 162 game season with a one-game playoff, unless the two teams are tied, is crap.
Of course, when they instituted the Wild Card in the first place
Everyone said "remember back to that great race (in 1993) between the Braves and the Giants? When 103 wins was not good enough?* Nowadays … ho hum, that’s OK.
Their will still be extraordinary finishes to seasons … they will just involve teams with 88 wins where they used to involve teams with 93-95 wins, and before that teams with 100+ wins. The finishes will still be extraordinary, even if the teams aren’t as good.
*Incidentally, before there were divisions at all there were great races like this. The 1954 Yankees, coming off five straight WS wins, had their best season in that run. 103 wins for a team that had won 97, 95, 98, 98 and 99 wins in the five preceding seasons, all championship years. Unfortunately for the 1954 Yankees, the Cleveland Indians won 110 (of 154!) games, and the Yankees were done.
I see no problem with great teams losing out to even greater teams
Someone’s got to win. It’s when great teams lose to mediocre teams, that’s when I question it.
I pretty much flatly refuse to watch any NBA or NHL playoff game before the finals. There’s too many teams. I don’t particularly care if my team is among them.
Rob
--"Ten percent of nuthin' is...let me do the math here...nuthin' into nuthin'...carry the nuthin'..." -- Jayne Cobb
How did that work out for the Indians?
Washingtonian and heartbroken Penn Stater -- My blog features the triumph of hope over experience that is being a DC sports fan (especially the Nats) as well as the Nittany Lions, life in BeltwayLand and other things I find interesting. @doubleuefwhy
"The 1954 World Series (September 29–October 2) matched the National League champion New York Giants against the American League champion Cleveland Indians."
"The Giants swept the Series in four games to win their first championship since 1933, defeating the heavily favored Indians, who had won an AL-record 111 games in the regular season. The Series is perhaps best-remembered for “The Catch”, a sensational running catch made by Giants center fielder Willie Mays in Game 1, snaring a long drive by Vic Wertz near the outfield wall with his back to the infield."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_World_Series
"...I don't want to go watch American League baseball." -Lance Berkman....
I wanna watch the "... tape-measure-testing, laser-throwing, eyeblack-oozing baseball cyborg."
by cat daddy3000 on Feb 29, 2012 5:47 PM EST up reply actions
I wish I knew how to post the opposite of that photo of Willie just before “the catch”. It’s “Pafko at the wall”’ watching “The shot heard round the world”. We know what’s happened or is about to happen. Both photos capture moments of games and times long past, when playoff scenarios were different – AKA, the good ol’ days! I suppose that there were “purist” then too, who would have been aghast at the (wild) notion of a “wild card team”; nevertheless (“we must try somehow, someway, otherwise, our journey will have been for nothing”!), MLB has survived.
Praise The Lord!
Here’s the link (I think) to the photo of Pafko, in case anyone cares to see it, or post it. http://www.google.com/search?q=pafko+at+the+wall&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=kdNOT6SRMKLX0QGcrZ2yAg&biw=1024&bih=690&sei=lNNOT8aHHcSU0gHj_4TgAg
these......

"...I don't want to go watch American League baseball." -Lance Berkman....
I wanna watch the "... tape-measure-testing, laser-throwing, eyeblack-oozing baseball cyborg."
by cat daddy3000 on Feb 29, 2012 11:36 PM EST up reply actions
One more point.
Let’s pretend that it’s the Nationals that gets to the one-game play-in because of an 88-win season, and they play the Braves, who won 95 games.
The Nats have been struggling since they moved to DC to gain respect from the baseball community, but even if they win that one-gamer, they are still likely to get crushed in the Division Series. They won’t end up getting any more respect, they’ll probably just get derided more. “Just keep pretending you have a real team, Natinals fans!” We’ll hear it all winter long.
Rob
--"Ten percent of nuthin' is...let me do the math here...nuthin' into nuthin'...carry the nuthin'..." -- Jayne Cobb
On a completely unrelated note.
I think the Nats have a better chance at winning 88 than the Braves do at 95. The division will be too tough this season for any team to run away with it. I wouldn’t be shocked if 95 wins the division.
Aim for the head baby Jesus
I can't see the future, of course,
but the Braves are a very good team, they are hungry and angry, and just as the Nats hope for bounce-backs from Werth and LaRoche, the Braves are counting on guys like Heyward and Uggla to step it up this year after disappointing 2011 campaigns. If I were to bet on the top 2 in the division, it would be Philly and Atlanta with little doubt.(*)
But you are correct though, the NL East is a strong division (even the Mets should be much better this year).
*. Hopefully this means it’s the Marlins and the Nats duking it out in late September!
Rob
--"Ten percent of nuthin' is...let me do the math here...nuthin' into nuthin'...carry the nuthin'..." -- Jayne Cobb
Hungry and angry doesn't generally work
See, e.g., the Mets teams after their spectacular September folds.
Although what concerns me about the Braves is not that they are hungry and angry. It’s that they are young (except for Chipper and Hudson) and potentially very, very good.
It's also possible that the team they play in the division series won't be much better than they are.
If they keep current playoff rules they couldn’t play the Phillies in the Division series. The one game playoff wouldn’t hurt the Nats rotation that badly either, the way MLB schedules things I’m sure whoever started the 1 game playoff would be ready for game 3 of the division series.
Aim for the head baby Jesus
You put up 88-wins with a young team that has 99% of its stars returning; people will notice.
As is the Nationals get more coverage than most teams with our record.
They enjoy the presence of two very intriguing young players
But if these players to bring more winz, that interest will fade quickly.
Rob
--"Ten percent of nuthin' is...let me do the math here...nuthin' into nuthin'...carry the nuthin'..." -- Jayne Cobb
"if these players FAIL to bring more winz..."
Rob
--"Ten percent of nuthin' is...let me do the math here...nuthin' into nuthin'...carry the nuthin'..." -- Jayne Cobb
Live Nats baseball, on the TV this Sunday
Cant wait!
http://nationalsprospects.com/2012/02/spring-training-broadcast-schedule-updated/#comments
MOAR SEVERINO!
Very nice.
And the Saturday game is on the radio!
Rob
--"Ten percent of nuthin' is...let me do the math here...nuthin' into nuthin'...carry the nuthin'..." -- Jayne Cobb
Thought I would share this one... I almost split my gut laughing
Here’s some poor person’s comment on a Nats Ad I just read….
-——————
February 29, 2012 4:52 am - Get Strasburg on the mound every 5th day, get his pitch count up and find a decent 2nd starter. Then this team will go far.———————
-
ahahahahahah…. some people have nooooo clue! Folks we’re going to take a lot of people by surprise.
I hope, for that guys sake, he was being sarcastic.
by RossingtonCollins on Feb 29, 2012 5:58 PM EST up reply actions
All this wild card debate...
Do the phrase “tilting at windmills” strike a familiar note?
Yawn… zzzzzzzzzzzzzz
It do.
“What Extra Wild Card?” asked Sancho Panza.
“The one that they’re adding to each league,” replied his master, “to make sure the Yankees and Red Sox both make the playoffs? 88 win teams, one each from two leagues?”
Vivian Jaffe: "Have you ever transcended space and time?"
Albert Markovski: "Yes. No. Uh, time, not space... No, I don't know what you're talking about."
by Patrick Reddington on Feb 29, 2012 7:47 PM EST up reply actions
Are we talking purely innings or pitch count too?
The reason I ask is that Zimmermann was far less efficient as far as pitch counts go last year compared to Strasburg’s win in Florida to end the season. Isn’t it possible that Strasburg could go 180-190 innings and not throw as many pitches overall?
Isn’t that really what this is about? The stress the arm gets by the number of repetitions it does in the first full year back?
Agreed.
Of course, there are the off-day pitches and the warm up pitches and all of that, but your point is spot-on. Now, though, one game in Florida isn’t exactly great data, and since pitching more to contact (as Jordan did last year versus his past) actually gets you out of innings more quickly on a general basis than going for Ks, we shouldn’t necessarily expect Stras to breeze more quickly through innings. But you are right on the main point, that # of pitches should also be considered as well as # of innings…
by William.Hatheway on Feb 29, 2012 9:55 PM EST up reply actions
Are you sure?
Strasburg and Zimmermann had almost identical P/PA numbers, both at around 3.71 as I recall. Now, more of Stras’ PAs end in outs than does Zimmermann’s, but it’s not that different.
Rob
--"Ten percent of nuthin' is...let me do the math here...nuthin' into nuthin'...carry the nuthin'..." -- Jayne Cobb

by 




























