There are two schools of thought that have to be taken into account when assessing the Carl Crawford and Stephen Strasburg preemptive measures to capitalize on the value(s) of the certain players.
The forward thinking aspect:
Mike Rizzo (Nationals) and Ben Cherington (Red Sox) have the (un)fortunate job of trying to prognosticate for a baseball team. Not only do they have to try and forecast how good a player will be over the duration of a contract they have to try and maximize the values of the exorbitant contracts that are already in place.
With this predicament the Nationals have chosen to shut down Stephen Strasburg at 160 innings (albeit to preserve his long-term health/value to the franchise) despite leading the NL East and are destined for a playoff appearance, their first since becoming the Nationals re-branded the Expos franchise. In a slice from the same bread, the Red Sox have decided to shut down Carl Crawford so as to get ready for the beginning to 2013 because clearly 2012 is over for the Boys from Beantown.
If I'm the GM of these teams, this only seems to be the correct decision in one of these cases. You are taking player safety/health into account first and foremost and probably bolstering the long-term health of your club into consideration, which is admirable. However, given the circumstances I'm not positive how you can sell the Strasburg decision as a baseball mind to the rest of the team not to mention a fan base. This decision should have been based on overall health of the player involved and the standings at the time of the eclipsing of the innings limit.
With regards to Crawford, from a GM standpoint, it's the correct way to go. The Red Sox are facing an uphill battle that they will not win, and will not see October baseball this year. Therefore the correct decision is to have Crawford get the surgery. The one misstep is that they knew about this elbow issue as far back as April and tried to rehab him until now. Now there is a chance that he isn't ready for Opening Day 2013 where this is a 6-9 month recovery process for position players. Why was this not taken care of when it first came out instead of having the cat & mouse media game between Crawford, Valentine and Cherington?
The Ballplayer aspect:
If I'm a player on the Nationals I'm going absolutely bat-shit insane if they shut down Strasburg for the year at 160 innings. Most of the players on that team have never experienced the playoffs, and given the parity of the Major Leagues you never know if they will have that chance again. The Nationals have very capable number two and three starters in Gio Gonzalez and Jordan Zimmerman but Strasburg is the epitome of what wins in the post season, Power Pitching.
If Stephen Strasburg is indeed fully healthy he would gain more respect in my book if he went to ownership/Rizzo and said, "Do not limit my innings, I'm healthy, I want to win a World Series."
I wonder how Scott Boras feels about this. On the one hand, he is the second most electric pitcher in baseball, and you should want to limit him one year out of surgery. But in the heat of a pennant race is where you can make buco bucks as far as cementing a legacy. And if what Rizzo says is true he won't be tested on the biggest of stages, at least not this year. My guess would be that Boras could care less about overall record rather than individual performance because he doesn't get more money when his players make the postseason.
In the case of Carl Crawford I think that this is the biggest example of the Pussification of America. As a player, your job is to play, unless you physically can not. This has had little or limited impact on his hitting ability so yes his arm will hurt after every game but he needs to keep his bat, legs and ass in the lineup. I am under no circumstances saying that his elbow does not hurt, I am however saying that if you are able to play, you play. If it means that instead of constantly overthrowing the SS you hit your cut-off man for the first time in 2 seasons than so be it.
I understand that his elbow has discomfort, but the whole notion of preemptive surgery is the biggest crock of garbage I've ever seen. That is like saying that you rolled your ankle once and now you need to put a brand new ankle there just because it hurts from time to time. If this were twitter I would say "#pussbag".
I understand that baseball is a business, but let's be honest here. He has a guaranteed 142 million dollar contract, does there really need to be that much more negotiating throughout his career? He has his money already bankrolled right in front of him, and if I were in the same situation I'd owe it to my teammates first and my fans second to go out there until I physically can not. Call me a hardass if you want, but one of the reasons that people enjoy all-time players like Dustin Pedroia and Derek Jeter is because they play through it. It's mind over matter and the numbers don't mean a thing. And when the numbers don't matter, at the end of the day, that's usually when there tends to be consistency in your stats at the end of your year/career.
Stay Tuned
Norton
I agree mostly with your take on Strasburg. The Nationals GM is acting as though he's the GM of a major market team where the playoffs come around much more often. We're talking about a program that hasn't seen the playoffs or even any kind of contention in decades. His fastball has not lost velocity and curve ball has as sharp of break as ever. His consistency this season does not hint that he should be shut down. Once the mechanics go and velocity drops is when Rizzo should look to shut him down. Each pitcher is unique and giving him a set number of innings without taking that into consideration I believe is wrong.
ReplyDeleteAlso to harp one more time on one of my earlier points the Nationals by no means have been a successful franchise. To have 3 pitchers (Strasburg, Gonzalez, Zimmerman) at or approaching their primes and a solid line up you can't pass up a shot at the World Series. These opportunities don't just happen and you have to take advantage of them to the fullest when they do. It is deflating for the whole team morale to shut down their ace in the middle of a pennant race where they have real hope at reaching what many of them have only dreamed of for their years with the team. Plus what says Strasburg won't get injured again regardless of if they stop him at 160 innings.
Given Crawfords lack of production I think the Red Sox have nothing to lose by shutting him down and giving him a fresh start next season. Barring an incredible comeback/collapse the Red Sox season is over before October and if he's going to need the surgery regardless they might as well get it over with so that he can hopefully be back in the spring. It does him and the team no good to play through an injury when there is nothing on the line for the team. Give him an opportunity to live up partially to his contract by having a second full season to produce and fit into the lineup comfortably.
I agree with it from a GM perspective, it's definitely the right move,it's just the baseball side of me says this guy doesn't get it.
ReplyDeleteI'm not questioning his work ethic at all he will work his ass off to get back.I'm wondering however how much of this is Red Sox brass related. I wonder how much Crawford's "presence" in the lineup was a TV ratings thing to keep fans interested, in which case the surgery was pushed back. If that's the case than I blame the front office more than the player. But right now no one knows.
Ryan, my only comment about the Nationals is that they have known all year that they were going to shut him down at 160 innings. Given that, why would they have allowed him to get to that point in August or early September? They mismanaged the 160 innings that they wanted from him. How do you NOT want Strasburg in September and October vs April and May? Those 6 and 7 innings games should have been limited to 5 innings. If he had not pitched more that 5 innings in a game to date, he would have 117 innings for the season right now. That would leave him 40 before he would get to 160. Now they are in a tougher situation, because instead of 117 he has pitched 139 innings. My guess is that they extend him to 180, but even that isn't going to get them much when you consider he has another 6 or 7 starts in the regular season (unless they skip a couple). If I'm the GM, I skip him a couple times and only have him start 3 or 4 more times in the regular season and limit him to 5 innings. This is gonna get you close to 160, but after that you can look at whether 180 makes sense.
ReplyDeleteDarryl I couldn't agree more. Also what they could have done was every 5th time through the rotation you skip him. So you have to keep an extra long-man on your staff that's not the end of the world. This would have limited the innings about the same.
ReplyDeleteI'm also someone that isn't necessarily a proponent of pitch count. Yes I always keep it in mind, however, I believe that the flow of the game needs to be taken into context. High leverage pitches (men on base, deep counts and late inning jams) are more of a thing to be wary of than say the 100th pitch as long as the mechanics are still sound and fatigue isn't noticeable.
I've heard that it's not necessarily only the innings pitched but also a combination of how much rest he'll get between the end of the season and beginning of the next, which would be the reason that they decided against skipping starts or limiting his innings earlier in the year.
ReplyDeleteTotally agree with the point about high leverage pitches though a 2nd inning pitch with none on isn't nearly the same as a 6th inning 2 on 2 out pitch.
And how about bringing him out after a 51 inning rain delay? They're looking out for his safety and innings yet bring him out after that much time off? Could've saved a few innings there if they had wanted to I belies.