To rehash what's been said on other Strasburg articles, the same thing was done with Jordan Zimmerman and Strasburg isn't even the best pitcher on the Nationals. If he was in the playoffs, there's a chance he'll overthrow and/or be forced to throw on short rest, further risking injury.

If he started spring training late, he would've faced major league hitting later and as Behemoth said, if Strasburg had to miss a start or two because of injury, he wouldn't hit that 160 IP threshold. Skipping a start each month would've also thrown off his routine.

Besides, let's say the Nationals kept throwing Strasburg through September and into the playoffs. Which Nationals pitcher sits during the playoffs? And what if, even with all that effort, the Nationals lose the first round 3-0.

The process worked with Zimmerman so it makes sense to use it with Strasburg.

There's very little reason to believe that Nats' "fans aren't happy," as you say. I think I read every major Nats blog, as well as the Washington Post and the Washington Times, and all are overwhelmingly supportive of the decision, as are the reader comments. The Washington Post has editorially endorsed the decision. Every online poll of DC fans shows support in the 75%-plus range. This one today, from NatsGM, shows only 10% opposed to the decision.

http://tinyurl.com/Strasburg-Poll

The fact is that the Nats are at least a full year ahead of most fans' wildest dreams and Mike Rizzo's and Davey Johnson's decisions are in large part responsible for that. If Rizzo and Johnson, who have access to medical information that no one else does, say it's time to shut him down and say that they've considered all the other "creative" options to stretch out his season, few Nats fans will argue.

We're too busy smiling at the MLB standings each morning and muttering "who woulda thunk it?".

So sick of the whole Nolan Ryan thing. Ryan did not throw 200 innings untill he was 25.

The general sediment?

Did I miss a pun?

Let me ask the quorum... who's better, Strasburg or Lannan?

False premise. Most Nats fans aren't unhappy about this. We're just not. I know everyone ELSE is, and that everyone expects the Nats fans to be gathering their pitchforks and torches, but we're not. Sorry.

Awful article. It rests on a false premise- Rizzo DIDN'T set an innings limit, i.e. he did exactly what the author says he should have done. The strict innings limit was a creation of media and fan speculation, based on what they did with Jordan Zimmermann the previous year. I challenge the author to find me a quote from Rizzo or anyone else in the Nats front office setting an innings limit before late August.

It's also blatant Monday morning quarterbacking, wondering why a team that most people picked to maybe challenge for the second wold card in the NL didn't let their #1 starter skip in-season starts or otherwise reserve him for late in the season. By the time it became clear that the Nats were the overwhelming favorites to win the NL East it was too late to stretch him out and get him to the postseason.

Finally, there's no discussion of the fact that Strasburg simply hasn't been very good lately. His starts since the all-star break are very much hit-or-miss. He's gotten shelled in two of his last three starts and four of his last ten. He's struggling with control, which is uncharacteristic for him but characteristic for guys returning from TJ surgert. Bottom line, there's very little chance that Stephen Strasburg going forward in 2012 would approach career-average Stephen Strasburg. SO the loss is not as significant as the author seems to believe.

This is the kind of analysis I'd expect from the simplistic major media outlets, not BP.

Seriously, the Nats aren't going to use Strasburg in the playoffs? Someone should be fired.

This is a poor BP article. Reads more like a Tom Verducci piece where it's clear that the author wants to tell a specific story, selecting a few pieces of "evidence" that are either out of date (talking about his economic impact 2 years ago instead of this year) or irrelevant (quote from Nolan Ryan about pitch count philosophy), finishing off with a restatement of the story that keeps asking questions instead of providing answers.

I had hoped coming from Maury AND being in a Bizball column that it might take a look at comparing attendance numbers from 2 years ago Strasburg vs. non-Strasburg starts to this year (or TV ratings, etc). If there's still an impact, that is a legitimate argument for possibly doing something different as there is a clear economic impact. But you didn't do that. In fact, there is not a single legitimate piece of information culled from this year in the article.

If you are pissed at the decision, right it up as a blog piece...there we (or I at least) expect BP writers to be less formal in analysis and more opinionated.

"Pissed?" I don't understand it, but this is not something I am "pissed" about. And, I'm fine with the article. It's not an entirely objective topic, and I know it. To not cover the topic here at BP would have been to not cover a high-profile issue.

Maury: I generally agree with your basic premise- that this was not handled well. The discussion you provoked seems to me to have covered every issue, but one, which I wiull get to. Whether the Nationals are correct or not, only time will tell. What I woud really like to know, from a BizBall column, is what effect, in your opinion, insurance had on this decision by the Nationals, or on Scott Boras' acquiescence? It is somewhat unuaual for Boras to go along with something like this affecting a client. Just curious.

I'll reiterate what others have already pointed out. The majority of Nats' fans understand this move and are not mad at the team because of it. I've been a season ticket holder from day 1 here in DC, and very few fans that I know are second-guessing the team on this.

And I have to say that the idea of starting him later so that he could have continued to pitch into October is nuts. If they had followed this strategy and the team missed the post-season by a game or two, then you really would have seen the fan base erupt at Rizzo, et al. It would be crazy for a team that had never made the post season not to take maximum advantage of Strasburg during the regular season.

Here's another Nats season ticket holder completely in favor of the decision to shut him down. The inconsistency he's been showing in the second half is very close to what we saw last year from Jordan Zimmermann. Having watched Zimmermann's performance this year, I'm more than willing to go with the Nats' medical crew on this. What I've yet to see is an equally qualified medical opinion in favor of keeping Strasburg going. The "put him in a power dive and see if the wings come off" approach, to me, doesn't cut it. Get him injured again and you're back in Mark Prior territory.

I'll also go with Thomas Boswell to this extent - if the Nats had made the opposite decision, most of the people currently protesting the shutdown would instead be protesting the decision *not* to shut him down: "Oh my God, it's Prior all over again." Not saying that's you, Maury, but it does apply to the MLB Network and ESPN crowd. The so-called controversy is a media creation. No issues at all here in DC.

I think every team that isn't in contention should bench all of its valuable future starters. What if one of them gets hurt?

I predict that we will look back on this era of hyper-sensitivity to pitch counts and innings limits as a time of silly hysteria.

I suspect it was for me. Hahahaha, that's a good one!

For a whole host of reasons, it does not appear that Dusty Baker is a very clever man. But do you know what? We DO NOT know that Dusty Baker ruined Mark Prior's career. I said it! Now where's the bolt of lightning?

Everywhere you go to read about it it is treated as a foregone conclusion that it is true, and I mean everywhere. A decision was made that this is true, and everyone seems to have forgotten that we really don't know that. It's really weird, frankly, given the kind of people who like to visit these kinds of sites. You would think it's a particularly skeptical group, so I find it really strange that the book has been closed on this kind of thing.

People love to pretend that they have control over more outcomes than they have in reality because it makes us feel safe. We have a host of massively profitable industries as the result of this. We feel that if only we find the right combination of supplements, juuuust the right diet, etc, that we can ward off what we see as a terrorizing array of maladies that are all around us, ready to pounce at any moment. We underestimate the chance aspect for our own piece of mind, and the cost is at the very least money and time, and at the very most a not insignificant measure of enjoyment. Ironically, the cost can be piece of mind.

It's the same with pitchers. We pretend that if Prior were used juuust the right way, he could have been simultaneously kept healthy and performing at a Hall of Fame level. It is such a strange thing for a group like this to take for granted.

These Dusty Baker "jokes" are very common in message boards, by the way. Not for me (this is the first time I've ever chimed in on this matter) but any suggestion that maybe we shouldn't be "babying" our pitchers is immediately met with the Dusty Baker jokes, here, at Hardball Times, at Fangraphs, etc. In essence they are saying: "Ha! You medieval DUMMY. You're not in the know like WE are when it comes to pitcher injuries. How can you be so DUMB?"

Call me ignorant, but number one, I haven't seen any compelling evidence that we're doing much at all to prevent pitcher injuries. Number two, we can't control everything. Stuff happens. This doesn't mean Strasburg should throw every day, like Old Hoss Radbourn, but I don't think we should take it as gospel that shutting a guy down at 160 innings is the right thing to do because being cautious is ALWAYS the right thing to do. I don't think it is, and when a guy has a chance to live a dream of his and is healthy, I'd argue that it is not.

I can't believe you guys are still going on about this. But if you would rather have Edwin Jackson start a playoff game than Strasburg, then I have some nice land to sell you.

Sure, all land and real estate have gone up the last 10 years. Ask people living in Nevada or Florida if they got a good deal. And I'll still take Strasburg 99 out of 100 times.

I give up. I wouldn't make that offer, as I'm only comparing Strasburg to Jackson. You never see the other side of the equation and are stubborn as a mule.