Opinions, the saying goes, are like assholes: everyone has one. Consider the debate over whether global warming is yet another artifact of human arrogance. Throw a pebble in any direction and you will bruise someone spouting random facts supporting or opposing the theory.
It's an analog for a baseball discussion now raging. We'll ride that bull in a minute.
The pertinent question is not whether the voting masses are believers or deniers. The question is whether the people who study this for a living, people with actual knowledge of the data and, more importantly, its context, believe it. There seems (to me) to be a consensus among climate scientists worldwide that global warming exists, it's our fault and we ought to do something about it.
I have a friend who, having armed himself with a handful of readings and a pile of facts committed to memory, believes he knows otherwise. He argues that the data demonstrates that atmospheric carbon levels blabbidy blah blah blah. I tune him out because he's not a scientist and so really, what the hell does he know? He's found some interpretations that support his point of view and may or may not have any idea what they mean. Moreover, I have no way of judging their validity or evaluating their context.
He also claims that there is no consensus among scientists about global warming, that alarmists are organized and can collectively claim a consensus, while skeptics are legion but unconnected and therefore unable to put the lie to that claim. To this, I'm inclined to listen. The experts' opinions matter.
Which brings us to the novel pitcher handling system installed by the Washington Nationals. Concerned about the health of second-year phenom Stephen Strasburg in his return season from Tommy John surgery, GM Mike Rizzo has steadfastly intoned all year long that he would limit his hurler to 180 innings come what may. What's come is a World Series run at which, by Rizzo's determination, Strasburg will serve as spectator.
There is clearly a consensus with respect to this decision: derision. There appears to be near unanimity that Rizzo is a blithering moron who will cost Washington its first World Series since 1924. Radio hosts, former pitchers and ticket buyers are all loudly proclaiming the pending shutdown unmitigated folly.
The criticisms come in many hues. Let's take a summary view of the most prominent.
1. In 120 years of baseball, no one has ever done this before.
2. The Nats will shut down their best starter during the stretch and playoffs -- just when they need him most. They have the best record in baseball and might never have this chance again.
3. There's no evidence that a kid-gloves approach will avoid future injuries. (See: Joba.)
4. Innings limits are stupid. Walter Johnson didn't need an innings limit. Neither did Lefty Grove or Whitey Ford or Tom Seaver or Roger Clemens or Justin Verlander.
5. If they knew he'd have an innings maximum, the Nats should have employed some other strategy, like skipping every other start, limiting his innings in each start, resting him mid-season, or something else to allow him to pitch in the playoffs.
Although the 180-inning plateau seems arbitrary, there is method to Rizzo's madness. More to the point, there's expertise in the Washington front office that radio host, former pitcher and Joe Sixpack don't have. For example, Rizzo and his team know that:
1. Just because it's never been done before doesn't make it a bad idea. The iPhone had never been done before. Duh. (Besides, the Nats did exactly the same thing with Jordan ZImmermann in 2011 and he's been healthy and effective since.)
2. Washington has a long-term investment in their star and has built a team to win for the foreseeable future.
3. There is quite a stockpile of evidence that young pitchers, particularly those who've endured significant injuries like torn elbow ligaments, can be easily over-worked. It's likely that Nationals brass has done a lot more homework on the subject than radio host, former pitcher or you. (The research that is public knowledge suggests that pitch counts are more important than innings counts, and that their relationship to fatigue and injury is complex and not fully understood.)
4. Mark Fidrych could have used an innings limit. Having never tossed more than 171 innings in the minors, The Bird threw 24 complete games and 250 innings his rookie year until his arm fell off and his career crashed. Blue Moon Odom, a star of the '68-'69 Oakland A's, could have used an innings limit. In his first full big league season at age 23 Odom added 130 frames to his workload, pitched two more good seasons and was washed up by age 28. The list of examples would make Billy Martin blush, except Martin wore out pitchers with impunity.
5. Many of these suggestions miss the point. What research exists suggests that the kind of rest described by critics would not have the desired effect. The Nats believe they need to allow Strasburg to throw a reasonable number of pitches each game -- say, no more than 100 per game and no more than 190 in two consecutive games -- until he meets his innings limit and then enter his off-season program.
The point is, maybe the people who have millions of dollars and multiple World Series rings invested in Stephen Strasburg, the people whose careers depend on his success, the people who have been scouring the globe for the best information in his case, maybe they know something the rest of us don't know. Have a little humility and consider that before you join your drinking buddies in excoriating the Nationals.
Giancarlo Stanton threatening the 60 home run mark, which only two players have met unsupported by chemical enhancement?
