Why is everyone so outraged about the Strasburg situation?

Nature–and the MLB postseason–abhor a vacuum. So it was only natural that a day filled with zero baseball games, yesterday, would lead to unecessary drama. 

The Nationals announced yesterday that Stephen Strasburg would not start Game 4. Dusty Baker’s press conference regarding the issue was confusing. I wrote about that yesterday. But that’s Dusty’s style, and to be honest, this decision wasn’t made by him anyway, which explains why he had trouble explaining it. 

Mike Rizzo stepped in right away, however, and was actually pretty honest about the situation. Stephen Strasburg was sick, and the team had a decision to make. Were their chances of winning Game 4 greater with an ill Strasburg or a healthy Tanner Roark?  They decided Roark, and made the the announcement, which they were required to make by MLB. Some may disagree with this decision. Strasburg is the ace, and they want him on the mound no matter his condition. This is fine. You can disagree, but I’m not sure you have a right to be outraged.  As Rizzo noted on the radio. He’s trying to win too.

Nor does anyone have the right to be outraged at Strasburg. He didn’t fly home. He didn’t tell the team he wasn’t pitching. He went out and showed the team what he had in his bullpen session. Mike Rizzo, who is paid to make these decisions, thought a fully healthy Roark gave them a better chance to win. 

The biggest outrage here seems to be the team’s “poor communication.”  I concede Dusty’s pressure didn’t really settle the issue, but other than making their manager skip the league-mandated press conference, I’m not sure what else the team could have done. They were honest, which is probably what threw off the media and public. They didn’t think Strasburg could make the start. Today, he felt well enough to do so, and the Nats adjusted accordingly. 

Some suggest the Nats should have done the opposite, named Strasburg the starter and then switched to Roark if Stephen’s condition did not improve. I suppose this could have been a viable option, but is it really a better one? What happens when they name Strasburg the starter but then word leaks he’s sick and Roark was informed by the team to be ready to pitch? Doesn’t that lead to a bigger circus? It doesn’t eliminate the uncertainty, and it adds a level of deceit to the Nats’ actions. 

The Nats had a bad situation. Their number one starter was questionable to pitch. The Nats had two options. They chose to be honest. The fact that people are so outraged about that speaks more poorly of us than it does them. 

Edit: apparently the Nats weren’t required to name a starter by MLB. Even if that’s true, it still makes sense to announce Roark the night before. It is not ideal for the likely starting pitcher to go to bed having no idea whether he’ll pitch. 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s