It's a complicated issue. At first, Mike Rizzo sounds like an unimaginative guy. It's just startling that in the languid pace of a 162-game season, that you wouldn't debate this stuff and consider alternatives, or would consider a plan of "running him out there till he's done" to be your best strategy. In a 16-game football season, sure -- you don't really have a ton of time to switch horses in midstream. But baseball? Come on.

At the same time, maybe this is an effective way of boxing themselves in and enforcing that innings limit. Had they shortened Strasburg's outings, given him more rest, moved him to the bullpen or in some other way enabled him to get to the end of September with 160 innings, then what? That's a much harder time to be saying, "nope, not gonna do it."

I guess when you have such a once-in-a-generation pitching prospect, maybe it's best not to try to squeeze every last drop out of him so early, and sticking to "the plan" is the safest course of all. Maybe not the most creative or effective, but the safest. With a pitcher like Strasburg, that's really not such a bad course to choose.

The problem with the late start approach is twofold. Firstly, at the time that decisions were made, the Nats were odds against to reach the playoffs. Secondly, the Nats have an interest in getting Strasburg right up to his cap, so that the jump next season is not so big. In the long term, they'll want 240 innings a year or something like that from him.

Also, I've seen comments from medical folks that being too creative in terms of skipping starts, taking him out early and moving him back and forwards between the rotation and the pen is not ideal. I'm sure there is some flexibility, but perhaps not as much as people think.

Finally, there is huge value in winning the division. The Nats are four games ahead of Atlanta. That suggests a) that they need Strasburg now, and b) that having used him in other ways (a la Medlen), they may not even have the division lead at all.

The only alternative strategy that seems to me to have any merit is to say that he appears to be strong and healthy, and as long as that remains the case, you're going to keep sending him out every fifth day because you don't often get a chance of winning the WS. Not being a doctor, or privy to Strasburg's medicals, I don't know the risks in doing that. The Nationals have that information, and they are choosing to shut him down.

All they needed to do was claim "elbow soreness" or "sore calf", and put Strasburg on the 15-day DL twice this year. This would have meant missing 6 starts, which would have kept him below his innings limit.

Another difference between Strasburg and Medlen is that Strasburg could be expected to put fannies in the seats. I don't claim to know, but I'd expect that the Nats sold quite a few extra tickets for his starts early in the season, before it became apparent that their playoff odds were pretty good after all.

As someone who has attended seven years of games without a single meaningful one in September, I don't want Rizzo to try win at all costs this season. I'd rather be watching meaningful September games for the next seven years.

If all that mattered was winning this year, Rizzo should have traded Harper for Josh Hamilton, and Rendon for Greinke. But there's always a balance to be struck, and I'm glad that Rizzo is thinking about the long-term future of the franchise (even if he's wrong on Strasburg).

When I've heard Rizzo talk about it, the thing that he's emphasized most was getting young pitchers started with a "pattern" that most closely resembles being a major league starter. Starters begin pitching in the rotation in April and pitch every 5th day from then on until they're done. From what I understand, the Nationals FO believes in establishing this pattern with young pitchers will help avoid injuries in the future and make them better starters.

So while there were certainly alternative ways to arrange "160-180 innings" so that Strasburg could be pitching in September and beyond, it's unclear that this was a priority for the Nationals. They believe this particular pattern will be superior to others for the pitcher's performance in future seasons, which was the real concern at the beginning of the year.

Why not keep him around and put him on a pitch count for the rest of the year, including the playoffs? Even just 5 innings of Strasburg in a big game is better than they'll get from someone else. I think shutting him down is crazy, I don't see dynasty material when I look at the Nats. They should go for it now.

All they had to do was make him the #5 starter and started his season on April 14th against Cincy. You would have saved him two starts from the begining without gimmicks. Furthemore, there was a day off and a rain out at the end of May/early June where you could have skipped him there (as what typically happens with #5 starters). Lastly, they could have just kept him as the #5 following the All-star break, saving him another start there. Again, this plan is gimmick free(no Joba or Hughes rules) and you would have saved him four starts.

What's interesting, and something that no one is talking about, is that Zimmerman should be shut down around 180 innings. The Nats need Oswalt.

Any of the "creative" ideas for what the Nats could have done to have Strasburg available to them in the playoffs (short of ignoring medical advice and their judgement on his overall limits) invariably involve reducing innings pitched during the regular season, and reserving them for a playoff opportunity.

Of course, having Stras in the rotation from the beginning of the year is one of the significant drivers in getting the Nats to where they are today. Just how were they to get to his point in the season 4 games up for the division, without his full effort season to date?

I feel like this wasn't the world's worst decision. After all, it's hard to imagine having started him off in the bullpen. Plus, if altering his workload somehow had prevented the Nats from their current lead, then, it would all have been for naught anyways. There are many factors to debate here, but the Nats seem to be making an informed decision. If they become reactionary, I'll be disappointed.

There are so many comments that I haven't read every detail, so sorry if this has already been said.

One problem with starting him slowly or holding him back is if you have a number of innings that you want him to throw, a DL stint during the season (for something totally unrelated let's assume) or something like that could leave you in a situation where you don't have enough of the season left to get him to his innings total because you were saving them. Presumably whatever number they had for him this year, they didn't think it was good for his rehab to fall well short of it either.