Newsletters

Get Well+Being delivered to your inbox every Monday Morning.

Why the Nats Shouldn’t Put an Innings Limit on Stephen Strasburg
Management needs to stop with the helicopter parenting and let its ace pitch in the postseason. By Brett Haber
Comments () | Published July 10, 2012
Stephen Strasburg in June of this year. Photograph by Flickr user Keith Allison.

An innings limit for Stephen Strasburg? That’s hardly sufficient. Not nearly enough of a safeguard to protect Washington’s most sacred and fragile possession. Just to make sure we keep him hale and hearty, let’s roll up the right-hander in a giant cocoon of bubble wrap before he leaves his house for the ballpark each day. Let’s have one of the bat boys taste his food to ensure he hasn’t unwittingly let his dairy products pass their expiration date. I mean, if we’re going to protect the guy, let’s not check our swing.

The notion that the Nationals—or anyone else—can guarantee Strasburg’s long-term health is insupportable. They can’t. He can’t. Nobody can. The unsavory truth is that Tommy John surgery is a crapshoot. Some pitchers recover fully; others regain only partial arm strength; still others can never pitch at the Major League level again. Strasburg appears to be on the good end of that equation, but the totality of his comeback will not be measurable for years. In the meantime, the Nats are about to make the playoffs for the first time, and have a reasonable chance to do some damage in October. Isn’t that why the team drafted Strasburg in the first place? It certainly wasn’t so he could pitch in April.

The Nationals are talking about a limit of 160 to 170 innings for Strasburg. They slammed the brakes on Jordan Zimmermann after 161 innings last season—his first following Tommy John surgery. As of this moment, Strasburg has thrown 99 innings. If he pitches one in tonight’s All-Star Game, it will be an even 100. Assuming his activity continues at the current pace, Strasburg would get shut down by the Nats right around September 10, or three weeks before the end of the regular season. Talk about a tease.

Here’s what would be asked of Strasburg if he were allowed to continue through the duration of a postseason run: roughly four more starts in the regular season, then six starts in the playoffs (two each in the division series, LCS, and World Series). Assuming Strasburg averages six innings per start, that’s another 60 innings on top of his team-prescribed limit. Is it worth the risk for a possible deep postseason run? For a possible world championship?

The 60 extra innings cited above assume the Nats go the distance. Subtract 12 innings for each level of the postseason the team fails to reach. The figure could be further lowered if Davey Johnson and pitching coach Steve McCatty arrange their rotation with Strasburg as the second or third starter. In that configuration, if the Nats are able to close out any of the three postseason series in fewer than six games, Strasburg would make just one start, not two.

But where is it written that Strasburg has to pitch continuously between now and October? Why not give him a four- to six-week vacation starting in late July? The Nats could bring him back for the stretch run, and that way everyone is happy: The team and its fans get their ace when it matters most, and the Nats adhere to their innings limit.

Opponents of this midseason break will say it’s risky to shut down Strasburg for an extended period and then ramp him up again. The thing is, teams do it all the time. Players routinely go on the disabled list and come back in the same season. The Nationals just did it with pitcher Henry Rodriguez. He missed a few weeks, went down to the minors for a rehab assignment, and now he’s back in the majors (however dangerous that might be for batters in the on-deck circle).

If the Nats had given this a little more forethought, they could have avoided the need to give Strasburg a midseason break by delaying the start of his season in the first place. If Strasburg had stayed in Viera for extended spring training and not pitched his first Major League game until mid-May, this entire conversation would be unnecessary. Surely the team could have managed without him for the first six weeks of the season to ensure his availability for October. The fact that Nats upper management never considered this option reflects that even they were caught off-guard by the team’s success this year.

Counting innings is a futile exercise in the first place. Between spring training, bullpen sessions, side workouts, and all the other miscellaneous throwing a pitcher does over the course of a season, the actual arm stress he endures is effectively immeasurable, making a strict innings limit somewhat arbitrary. Hard to imagine 40 to 60 innings could be the difference between perfect health and abject structural disrepair. If Strasburg is going to break down again, that eventuality has been preordained. It’s in his skeleton. It’s in his DNA. It’s going to happen or not happen irrespective of what he does this September and October.

The fact is this: Strasburg is healthy until he isn’t. The Nats brought him back last September for the expressed purpose of accelerating his full readiness for 2012. By the time this September rolls around, he will have been back pitching in the bigs for a year. It’s time to take the training wheels off. It’s laudable that Nats management is looking out for his long-term future. But for all we know, Strasburg’s long-term future could be with another team. His present is in Washington, and we have a chance to win now.

Categories:

Sports
Subscribe to Washingtonian

Discuss this story

Feel free to leave a comment or ask a question. The Washingtonian reserves the right to remove or edit content once posted.
  • Nats6245

    Between the experience of surgeons and baseball teams managing Tommy John recoveries, and the developing body of evidence of the Verducci effect (SI writer sees a pattern of diminished effectiveness when young pitchers increase their workload by more than about 25% per year until about age 25) - I think the Nationals are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT to take a conservative approach with Steven Strasburg.

    Strasburg is under club control through 2016, before anyone even discusses extensions beyond his arbitration years. Baseball players and agents, (and, for that matter, fans) have long memories. No one will forget that, in 2012, the Nationals were willing to risk their franchise pitcher and franchise reputation for a chance to "win now", in spite of the fact that Strasburg's future with the Nationals in 2012 included 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016.

  • BeCreative

    Why not set an innings limit of 5 per game starting NOW and add one game between starts? That would extend Strasburg through the entire season.

  • Guest

    You cannot shut a pitcher down for a break and allow him to come back. It will ruin the arm. Even when a pitcher is out there are still throwing sessions every five or six days. So he would still be throwing and therefore not resting or missing any innings to allow him to be available later on in the season. Shut him down as science and medicine have shown gives a much better chance or a strong arm into the future and past players have done across the league as well. I would rather have great baseball in DC through his contract in 2017 than a one run this year and have his arm ruined. You cannot recover from two Tommy John surgeries. It doesn't happen.

  • Guest

    Do you even know what your talking about? They're putting a limit on him because they don't want him to end up like Mark Prior or Kerry Wood. Would you rather have Strasburg available now for a postseason that might end early and then with that his career? Or have a Strasburg that rests up and is able to pitch when he's past 30 after winning a World Series or two for the Nats?

  • Guest

    Any talk of a late July break isn't logical. It's more taxing on an arm to start and stop and then ramp it up all over again. I'm with Boswell on this one - shut him down and roll with Gio, JZimm, Edwin, etc. Let's have another fun season next year, too, and then the next, and the next, and the next.....

blog comments powered by Disqus

Posted at 02:15 PM/ET, 07/10/2012 RSS | Print | Permalink | Comments () | Washingtonian.com Blogs