How ridiculous is the decision to sit Strasburg really? - jmik58's Blog

Arena Blog Dynasty Scores Sign Up ☰

jmik58's Blog

How ridiculous is the decision to sit Strasburg really? Stuck

Posted on September 5, 2012 at 10:27 AM.

(15)

Does Peyton Manning need a knockdown count?

The Denver Broncos may very well win the AFC West, but if they ran their organization similar to that of the Washington Nationals, Manning would never see a single snap in the latter parts of the season. Following successful Tommy John surgery to repair ligaments in star pitcher Stephen Strasburg's elbow, the 'Nats have threatened an innings limit that is sure to be met before the end of the month -- far before the playoffs begin for the team with the best record in baseball.

Manning -- the Broncos' most prized commodity -- is looking to rejoin the NFL as one of its elite quarterbacks despite a serious neck injury that sidelined him for all of the 2011 season. But could you imagine Peyton Manning leading the Denver Broncos to a 10-3 start only to have John Elway call for him to be benched because he was taking too many hits?

Sure, the comparison isn't exactly analogous. Strasburg is in the beginning stages of his career while Manning is shooting for one last championship. From a business standpoint they are two different types of assets. Strasburg's value is in the long-term while Manning's is immediate.

But how often do you get a serious chance at a professional sports championship?

There is no guarantee that the Washington Nationals will ever put together another regular season like this during Strasburg's career with the club. It's hard to speculate something that doesn't happen, but assuming the decision to sit him prevents another big injury and keeps him at elite pitching status, that doesn't guarantee the team will have another year like this one. In other words, what will the Nationals have to say for themselves ten years from now when they have a healthy Strasburg but no playoff or championship appearances?

Is their goal to have a healthy Strasburg or to reward their fans? If scientific research data or MRI results showed Strasburg was on the verge of another injury, then such a decision would hold more credibility. But at this point the decision looks to be simply a dollars and cents one -- business number one, fans second.

That's one message that wouldn't fly in the NFL with the fans or the players. Neither would allow it.

Imagine Adrian Peterson and the Vikings on the verge of a playoff birth this year (key word imagine) only to have his carries capped at 300 for the year. Or what if Mario Williams was capped at 40 quarters of action? Perhaps Kansas City should limit the carries of Jamaal Charles or the number of times Eric Berry hits the field.

The players wouldn't let it happen. They know their careers are short and injuries can happen at any time. They want to play so badly and crave the competition. The fans also know they deserve to support and cheer for a winner when all the pieces are in place.

The Nationals are planning for next year -- a philosophy that Chicago Cubs fans have become accustomed to. "Next year" -- a phrase used by fans who have given up hope or want to forget the memories of what could have been.

Professional football is the most popular sport in America. From marketing, to the on-field product, and finishing with the fan experience -- the NFL is getting it right. Baseball is struggling to keep pace and stories like this do little to help the game.

At rare times in life is it justifiable to act in fear of failure or calamity. In sports it's much the same -- you play to win instead of playing not to lose.

The Nationals don't get that. This decision epitomizes the overly conservative, sometimes backwards, unhitch-the-plow-for-the-sake-of-progression way of thinking in the MLB. Major League Baseball has an All-Star game with World Series implications, a replay system inferior to that of Little League Baseball, and now one of their greatest assets and stories will be nothing more than a coulda-been.

Justin Mikels is a staff writer for Operation Sports. Follow him on Twitter: @long_snapper.

Comments

# 1 josef @ Sep 5

The decision is nuts. "You play.. to win.. the game." Period. You don't play to save the stars. Dumb.. they will regret this one, big time.

# 2 speels @ Sep 5

Terrible decision!! However, for all your talk about how great the NFL is and how this would never happen in the NFL, I will refer you to the Colt's 2009 season. Chance to be perfect, sit starters, lose game, no Superbowl. I generally like your articles, but this one came across as more of a cut on the MLB and less about the decision.

# 3 jmik58 @ Sep 5

@speels Thanks for reading/commenting. Sitting starters for one game/week is not even close to sitting a star player for the rest of a season and playoffs. Although, I still don't like the idea of sitting starters. I think it kills momentum going into the playoffs. I think you captured my point though whether it's a pleasant one to receive or not -- the mindset of the NFL and MLB is very different in this instance and I have no problem throwing a barb into baseball on this one. The decision is ridiculous and it's fostered by the MLB culture that can be antiquated and overly cautious. My primary question/point is that this would never happen if Strasburg played in the NFL.

# 4 thescoop @ Sep 5

If it was just sit him during his last two starts and still use him in the post season I wouldn't be as upset. (Still wouldn't agree, but more understandable.) But to sit him and keep sitting him during the post season is beyond stupid. If I was Steven I'd be demanding a trade THIS offseason because I'd want to be on the field. This is a joke and if the Nationals do this they deserve to lose and never to have a shot again. You don't mess around during magical season and upset the apple cart.

# 5 ewig @ Sep 5

I understand, and even agree with Justin's sentiment...just not sure I agree with the comparison. Being a passionate soccer fan, as well as a baseball and football fan, I may just be oversensitive to the continual barrage of vitriol that soccer receives from fans of other sports; but at the end of the day, efforts to compare different sports really does fall into the apples vs. oranges category.

# 6 jmik58 @ Sep 5

@ewig Thanks for reading/commenting. I agree it's not easy to compare sports but that's where my perceptions/opinions come into play. It's not a fact that MLB or NFL culture is "X" or "Y" as much as I or any blogger wishes was the case, and I honestly could say what if Strasburg played _______ (basketball, soccer, hockey, etc). It certainly is a ridiculous decision by itself, but I feel there are more silly and backwards things about the MLB than other sports. And I'm a very passionate baseball fan. I get nothing out of knocking the MLB, but I can honestly say there are more things about the MLB that bother me than other sports. So naturally, I have to pick on them in this case

# 7 THE YAMA @ Sep 5

Although I understand the decision to sit him, it's a season breaking decision for the Nats. I just don't see them winning without Strasburg.

# 8 speels @ Sep 5

Regardless what they choose to do, if the Nationals don't win the World Series, they will have made a bad decision. However, if they sit him and lose then if Strasburg has the career they think he can it will diffuse some of the hate.

I think the main problem is the fact that they said anything at all!! They could have sat him near the end of the season for some other reason and we wouldn't be discussing this at all. This is just a case of bad PR.

# 9 jmik58 @ Sep 5

@speels Excellent point. They could have kept it in-house and done much better PR work. All they had to do was make an announcement that he's had some discomfort and they're going to take it day-to-day. Sometimes complete honesty isn't the best policy. This sends a horrible message to the team in regard to morale. If children can pick up on inconsistency and call their parents on it, then I'm sure grown men on a professional baseball team catch on as well. They'll say it doesn't affect them because that's what professionals do, but like an old coaching colleague of mine used to say, "If it doesn't help you, it hurts you." Handling this the way they did will not help them this season, the best in club history.

# 10 Retropyro @ Sep 5

So what happens if the Nats just miss out on a WS title because of a lack of pitching in order to protect his future, but when he starts his first game next year and blows out his elbow.

When you have a chance, you go for it. Wins in any pro sport are difficult to come by. You just don't pull the plug when your winning. The Nats decision here is just idiotic.

# 11 cgalligan @ Sep 6

Its a complete joke that they shutting him down... What does that tell your fan base? It tells them your not trying to win RIGHT NOW!

There is no guarantee that the Nationals will ever be this good in the future... You can't predict magical Seasons like this one...

I'd ride him until his arm fell off if it got me a World Series Championship...

# 12 cgalligan @ Sep 6

@retropyro - you are 100% correct... Injuries are apart of any sport, and they can happen at any time, on or off the field... Remember that guy that pulled a Back Muscle from Sneezing too hard? lmao...

# 13 Layoneil @ Sep 6

Even if Strasburg doesn't get hurt in the future this is a mistake. Dan Marino had his one and only chance in 84 and never again, there are no guarantees the team will be this close ever again even with a healthy Strasburg.

# 14 bigdoc85 @ Sep 8

If I were a Nationals fan, I would cease being one on this decision alone.

# 15 dodgerblue @ Sep 9

When a team is thisclose to a championship you lay it all on the line. There is no sense in waiting to see if your chances will be better in a future year! For example, many teams make trades of their farm system to win now (possibly trading future success for the present).

The only way this works out for the Nats is if they win it all without him anyway. Otherwise they will always think back and wonder what might have been.