Dibble:

. . . this kid is a man.

Microbrew:

facepalm

I read as much as I stomach....die in a fire Dibble.

Was just about to post this, with the lede "FROM THE MOUTH OF THE MONSTER."

What a turd Dibble is. My favorite quotes:

On Strasburg saying the decision is out of his hands

“That’s all you need to know. 'It’s out of my hands. I don’t want it in my hands, even though I’m a professional pitcher trying to — from spring training to the end of the season — win championships'....He’s in a totally different world. Remember the Stepford Wives? He’s a Stepford Pitcher.”

On Strasburg as a teammate

“If Stephen Strasburg is naive enough to think that he’s going out there by himself every fifth day, and the defense and the catcher and the pitching coach and the manager and everybody else isn’t out there pulling, trying to get this guy to win, and then he just goes out there and gets 18 outs and acts like this is the way it’s supposed to be? It’s kind of sad in a way. I feel sorry for someone that thinks that’s all it’s about, getting my 18 outs and going and taking a shower and doing it again in five days, and when I get to 160 innings then I’m just gonna sit on the bench and hope that they can do it without me. That’s sad. That’s what it really is.”

On Strasburg’s talent

“You still talk about Strasburg like he’s a phenom. He won his 14th game [Wednesday]. Look at his numbers: 225 innings pitched over three years, and he did have the Tommy John surgery, but he doesn’t have any type of numbers to back up the whole phenom thing. So for Mike Rizzo to be claiming that we’re protecting this guy? You’re getting paid to pitch, pitch the guy in the postseason if he’s not hurt. If he’s hurt, put him on the DL. I want to stop talking about it, because you know what, no one’s that special. And that got my ass canned when I was in DC, because I would just remind everybody, listen, nobody’s that special....A once in a generation pitcher that can’t even average six innings pitched a start? And now he’s gonna be shut down because he can’t pitch in the postseason?”

Here's mine.

If you haven’t hurt it yet, it’s not gonna get hurt.

If this were true then pitcher injuries would never happen to anyone. Since every pitcher was once at a point where they had not yet hurt their arm.

It really must be read in whole to be believed. It's as concentrated a burst of pure, rage-fueled ignorance as I've read in quite some time. Obviously it's more about the fact that Dibble got fired by the team for being such a retarded turd about Strasburg right before he had to get Tommy John surgery than it is about Strasburg's talent, but he's not just critiquing baseball decisions, he's actually going after the poor kid personally. Calling him a "Stepford pitcher?" Even though he's said countless times that he doesn't want to be shut down, and that they'd have to "rip the ball out of my hand?" More or less declaring outright that Strasburg is a bad teammate who doesn't care about anyone else on the club except himself?

Yeah, #### you Rob Dibble.

That Dibble comes off as spectacularly stupid is no surprise. That he has such a complete lack of ability to grasp anything about human interaction, I was unaware of.

As repugnant as Dibble is, I've got to wonder if there aren't players in the Nationals clubhouse saying the same types of things, questioning the Strasburg shutdown decision. I also wonder if that's going to have an effect on how Strasburg feels about it.

Why does it seem to me as though it was all this crap that led to Dibble being fired from MASN in the first place? Oh yeah, because it was!

It seems like Dibble's plan for his career is just to leech off of Strasburg's fame and get attention by criticizing him every step of the way.

Is Scott Boras gonna come out?

I don't know what kind of inside info Dibble has, but THAT would make some headlines!

On reading more, I especially like this bit:

The manager of the Nationals has a world championship ring, called the ’86 Mets, when he was managing Doc Gooden, who was like 20 years old. I think he knows how to handle young pitchers. He’s not gonna burn them out.

Because everyone knows that Doc Gooden wasn't burned out in anyway whatsoever.

If you haven’t hurt it yet, it’s not gonna get hurt.

Until you hurt it, 'cause then it's already been hurt!

/yogi

Here's mine.

The manager of the Nationals has a world championship ring, called the ’86 Mets, when he was managing Doc Gooden, who was like 20 years old. I think he knows how to handle young pitchers. He’s not gonna burn them out

Sooner or later just like the world first day
Sooner or later we learn to throw the past away
Sooner or later we learn to throw the past away

History will teach us nothing
History will teach us nothing


annnnd diet tab to #11.

“What the Nationals are doing, they’re doing it on their own, and they don’t have any kind of data to back it up.

I don't think they've revealed all that they know (or at least all the data they're going on), but, from what they've indicated in the press, Dibble's kind of right about this. I've only seen the sports doctors quoted for broader approval of erring on the side of caution, but nothing really firm.

I don't think they've revealed all that they know (or at least all the data they're going on), but, from what they've indicated in the press, Dibble's kind of right about this. I've only seen the sports doctors quoted for broader approval of erring on the side of caution, but nothing really firm.

This is all that I'm aware of as well. However, I'd note that I don't see any feasible way for any data to have been collected. The Nationals are essentially in uncharted territory with their approach. The lack of data shouldn't really be that discouraging - they are the data point. Maybe it won't work at all, but I'd rather a team be trying something that's backed with sound reasoning (even if there's no yet data) than just saying, "well, we don't know how to do better than the normal approach, so normal approach it is!".

As repugnant as Dibble is, I've got to wonder if there aren't players in the Nationals clubhouse saying the same types of things, questioning the Strasburg shutdown decision. I also wonder if that's going to have an effect on how Strasburg feels about it.

Strasburg has made it pretty clear that he absolutely doesn't want to be shut down. WTF else can he do? It is literally not his choice. When Rizzo says "you're shut down," what is Strasburg going to do? Steal Davey Johnson's lineup card before he hands it to the ump, scratch out John Lannan's name, and write in his own?

Adam Kilgore reported out a pretty solid piece on the attitude towards the impending shutdown in the clubhouse a couple of days ago. He said the unanimous opinion from them, both on and off the record, was "we understand why it's happening and we accept it, but obviously we're not thrilled." Jordan Zimmermann has also made it a point to speak up on behalf of the idea, pointing out how critical he now feels his early shutdown last year (under identical circumstances save for a pennant race) was to his remarkable success this year. Paraphrasing him, he said "I hated it with a passion last year, but in retrospect it was the right thing to do."

I've got to wonder if there aren't players in the Nationals clubhouse saying the same types of things, questioning the Strasburg shutdown decision. I also wonder if that's going to have an effect on how Strasburg feels about it.

My guess is there are quite a few players frustrated by it but that their frustration is with the organization, not with Strasburg. He's been pretty clear with the whole "rip the ball out of my hands" stuff that he wants to keep going so unless he's doing a 180 when he's in the clubhouse I doubt the criticisms are of him.

This is all that I'm aware of as well. However, I'd note that I don't see any feasible way for any data to have been collected. The Nationals are essentially in uncharted territory with their approach. The lack of data shouldn't really be that discouraging - they are the data point. Maybe it won't work at all, but I'd rather a team be trying something that's backed with sound reasoning (even if there's no yet data) than just saying, "well, we don't know how to do better than the normal approach, so normal approach it is!".

I can't remember which national writer it was (Olney?), but a week or so ago he wrote a long article quoting a number of orthopedic and sports surgeons who were, in fact, THRILLED by the care and concern with which Rizzo and the Nats are treating their young arms. I specifically remember that one of them called it "the new Moneyball."

In addition -- and this point has been made by a number of writers already -- it gives the Nats a GOOD reputation with agents and players, not the opposite. The message they're sending here is "we will care more about your long-term health and career than our short-term interests. You are not just a piece of meat to us." The father of Lucas Giolito (the HS pitcher the Nats drafted and surprised the industry by managing to sign) specifically said the other day that the main reason he okayed the idea of his son signing onto the Nationals is because of the rep they had acquired for caring for young pitching arms -- important because Giolito already had an elbow problem that caused him to fall several slots in most teams' draft estimations.

Leaving aside purely ethical & moral considerations, that's a damn good reputation for the Nats to have in the game. Especially given the fact a number of teams -- Red Sox, Mets, Pirates -- have developed toxic reputations for the indifference/incompetence/quasi-malevolence of their medical staff.

From a Washington Post article by James Wagner on 8/15:

The Nationals have used fellow starter Jordan Zimmermann as a model for their approach with Strasburg. Zimmermann had Tommy John surgery to replace his torn ulnar collateral ligament in 2009 and pitched 1611 / 3 innings last year in his first full season back, just over his prescribed 160-inning limit. While that proved successful for Zimmermann, who has emerged as one of the league’s best pitchers, Strasburg won’t be held to the same number.

Did Dibble call out Dibble during his career? Per Deadspin - http://deadspin.com/5620583/rob-dibble-is-trying-to-destroy-stephen-strasburg - Dibble spent the entire 1994 and 1996 seasons on the DL due to injuries which eventually ended his career.

However, I'd note that I don't see any feasible way for any data to have been collected. The Nationals are essentially in uncharted territory with their approach.

Very true. But that's pretty much Dibble's point. They're making this up as they go along. Maybe they're right, but they're not guided by any real data (that's been revealed) that firmly suggest that this is the way to proceed. (It wouldn't be a big issue, of course, but for the status of the Nats as significant contenders for it all.)

So Dibble raises an interesting point, however inartfully as he might raise it. Let's say the Nats continue to pitch him throughout the playoffs. That might be negligent in some sense; there's a chance he'll get hurt (now or in the near future). But there's nothing willfully negligent about it -- they're not going against all data and logic. How far, then, has the industry come? Wasn't the whole point of pitch counts/PAP/all that stuff a reaction to baseball management willfully riding their pitchers (young ones, especially) into a higher potential for injury? Now we have a team that is so cautious that it has adopted essentially the opposite approach.

By the way, we're kind of through the looking glass here. A baseball team -- a legitimate WS contender! -- says it will shut down its best pitcher for fear of injury. Meanwhile, Rany Jazayerli(sp?), the inventor of Pitcher Abuse Points, says on his podcast that the Nats are essentially dumbasses. (And Joe Sheehan agreed.)

Baseball teams now are playing it safe (and coddling their players), while the statheads are saying go for it (because it's all about winning now).

[16] The interesting thing in that piece was the divide among the players. The younger ones like Storen were much more ok with the decision, saying "it's what's best for him and the team over the long-term." Whereas oldsters like Adam LaRoche and Mark DeRosa (unrelated, but screw him) seemed much less in favor of it, pointing out that you never know when you'll get that shot to win.

Dibble is obviously a d-bag, but he does have some valid points. A married 23-year man shouldn't have to have his daddy speak on his behalf. This isn't like a Lincecum situation where his dad has been a lifelong pitching coach.

If I were Strasburg, I would also demand to pitch in the postseason, and I would probably be upset with the regular season shutdown if my team were not in such a good position in the standings. If winning a champoinship isn't the most important thing to an athlete, well, I just don't know how to identify with that.

As for the future, what is Strasburg's ceiling now? Its taken him 41 career starts to surpass 230 IP, and he's not particularly economical with his pitches despite excellent control and low hit totals.

Esoteric says:

I can't remember which national writer it was (Olney?), but a week or so ago he wrote a long article quoting a number of orthopedic and sports surgeons who were, in fact, THRILLED by the care and concern with which Rizzo and the Nats are treating their young arms. I specifically remember that one of them called it "the new Moneyball."

Excellent point, I forgot the article already (and it was only a week ago!). It's really a must read for anyone who wants to be well informed on the Nats reasoning. It's from Jayson Stark and can be found here: http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/8253442/shut-stephen-strasburg-just-let-pitch

Here's where the important bit comes in (or, at least important to me):

Nats general manager Mike Rizzo told ESPN he made this call after consulting with one of America's most esteemed orthopedists (and noted Tommy John surgery pioneer), Dr. Lewis Yocum, and other sports-medicine experts. And guess what?

The sports-medicine community couldn't be more delighted to see a team -- any team -- take a courageous stand like this, with a player this prominent, on a team that might be risking its shot to win a World Series in favor of protecting its ace's health.

Let's hear now from three members of that community -- three men who have spent years trying to peer beyond the surface of pitchers and their often-troubled arms:

What follows is strong endorsement from some very credible people.

Back to Esoteric:

In addition -- and this point has been made by a number of writers already -- it gives the Nats a GOOD reputation with agents and players, not the opposite. The message they're sending here is "we will care more about your long-term health and career than our short-term interests. You are not just a piece of meat to us." The father of Lucas Giolito (the HS pitcher the Nats drafted and surprised the industry by managing to sign) specifically said the other day that the main reason he okayed the idea of his son signing onto the Nationals is because of the rep they had acquired for caring for young pitching arms -- important because Giolito already had an elbow problem that caused him to fall several slots in most teams' draft estimations.

I concur wholeheartedly with this. That people focus on the effect on player's psyches is entirely reasonable, but the focus being almost entirely on the negative seems somewhat absurd. It seems like almost everyone actually around the team accepts the reasoning behind the decision and grants that it's about doing what's right for the player in the long run (even if we can't know with certainty what that is). The point is, the Nats are trying to do what's best for Strasburg's long term health, and that's sure not something you'll get from every team (as you note).

In addition -- and this point has been made by a number of writers already -- it gives the Nats a GOOD reputation with agents and players, not the opposite. The message they're sending here is "we will care more about your long-term health and career than our short-term interests. You are not just a piece of meat to us." The father of Lucas Giolito (the HS pitcher the Nats drafted and surprised the industry by managing to sign) specifically said the other day that the main reason he okayed the idea of his son signing onto the Nationals is because of the rep they had acquired for caring for young pitching arms -- important because Giolito already had an elbow problem that caused him to fall several slots in most teams' draft estimations.

Alternative read: Giolito signed with the Nationals because they centered their entire draft strategy about carving out the maximum amount of money possible for him to sign. Sure, maybe it was the team's history with recovery that pushed them over the edge. But it was also likely 98% that giant dumptruck full of money.

(related prickish rhetorical kinda question: should an organization get credit for successfully rehabbing all the injuries that seem to pop up in its organization? wouldn't it be better if their players didn't get injured in the first place?)

Not to take away from a discussion of Rob Dibble's assholishness, but to review

• "In baseball, this is as groundbreaking as 'Moneyball' was in 2001," said Stan Conte, senior director of medical services for the Dodgers and a man who has been tracking baseball injury data for more than a decade. "They're taking something off the blackboard and putting it into practice, and I don't know if they're right or wrong. Only the future will tell us. But at least this is not another case where somebody is following tire tracks in the snow off the side of the cliff just because that's the way a lot of people did it before. In baseball, we've done that repeatedly. And there are a lot of wrecked cars at the bottom of that cliff."

• We also spoke with Dr. Jeffrey Guy, medical director and team orthopedist at the University of South Carolina, who trained under Dr. James Andrews at the American Sports Medicine Institute and who, like Strasburg, was a pitcher at San Diego State.

One of Guy's missions, dating back to his work with Andrews, has been a proactive effort to promote pitch counts, innings limits and periods of prolonged rest to protect young pitchers as far down the chain as Little League. And he is gratified, he said, to see signs that "that mentality is spreading … and now it's finally getting into all levels of the game, even with a pitcher like Strasburg."

As part of Guy's work, he constantly preaches to young pitchers the need to be shut down -- to "let your body recover, let your ligament recover, let your elbow recover." And it's "amazing," he said, how well even injured pitchers bounce back from those rest periods, "and how strong they feel because they rested."

• Finally, we spoke with Dr. Glenn Fleisig, who works with Andrews at the American Sports Medicine Institute and is widely described as America's most prominent expert on biomechanics. He cited a remarkable ASMI study of teenage pitchers that showed that pitchers who "regularly kept pitching after they were fatigued were 36 times -- that's 3,600 percent -- more likely to have surgery than not have surgery."

"I've been doing research here with Dr. Andrews for 25 years," Fleisig said. "I've done studies where we find two times, three times, five times. I've never found any other study with a 36-times factor."

[24] What's interesting is if you do a close reading of the Stark and Passan pieces, there's a lot of support from the medical community about this concept. But there weren't many (any?) who said that this specific decision was the right one. Perhaps a bit of semantics, but...

Also, and to be cold-blooded here: the interests of the doctors are different than the interests of the team. Frankly (and this is just the nature of sports), Mike Rizzo shouldn't care whether or not Stephen Strasburg can still lift his arm above perpendicular in ten years. He shouldn't really even care about that in five. That's not to say you do something that was so obviously abusive as to what happened with Prior. But this is almost to the opposite extreme.

Paraphrasing him, he said "I hated it with a passion last year, but in retrospect it was the right thing to do."

Didn't he also say that he'd have hated it even more if the team had been in the race last season?

A baseball team -- a legitimate WS contender! -- says it will shut down its best pitcher for fear of injury.

They're not planning to shut down Zimmermann. That was last year.

A married 23-year man shouldn't have to have his daddy speak on his behalf.

I'm guessing you don't have kids. You never stop wanting to protect your kids. I'm in my fifties; my dad's 92; he's still trying to protect me.

The thing that I don't feel like I'm hearing enough in all of this is that while everybody gets to have an opinion, only one guy actually has the responsibility of making the decision. We don't have to agree with Rizzo to appreciate that distinction.

The thing that I don't feel like I'm hearing enough in all of this is that while everybody gets to have an opinion, only one guy actually has the responsibility of making the decision.

Oh, keep listening. He's all too happy to tell you himself that he's the decider.

Cold-bloodedness only gets you so far, Chris. Either (a) players looking out for their own self-interest don't want to play for your team because it curtails their future earning potential or you're paying a shitload of cash to a great team on the DL unless you can time the exploding ligaments & what-have-you to the end of the contract periods.

[24] What's interesting is if you do a close reading of the Stark and Passan pieces, there's a lot of support from the medical community about this concept. But there weren't many (any?) who said that this specific decision was the right one. Perhaps a bit of semantics, but...

Nah, that's just a matter of medical ethics. One of the major rules doctors adhere to is that you must NEVER make a diagnosis of any person who isn't your patient and whom you haven't personally examined -- because while general health principles hold true and are worth expounding, how can you give an opinion on a specific patient without familiarity with his or her particular case? It would in fact be irresponsible (to say nothing of unethical) for them to do so.

That, and nothing else, is why none of the medical experts quoted will state "yes they should shut him down" or "no, they shouldn't." It would be grossly unprofessional of them to offer an opinion on that matter -- and their peers would most certainly notice.

As for the future, what is Strasburg's ceiling now? Its taken him 41 career starts to surpass 230 IP, and he's not particularly economical with his pitches despite excellent control and low hit totals.

The low innings per start thing isn't mostly driven by him not being economical; it is driven more by the Nats not letting let him pitch as many pitches per start as other successful pitchers thus far in his career. His ceiling is best pitcher in baseball.

They're not planning to shut down Zimmermann. That was last year.

Cute.

This take might not be relevant any longer, but Joe Sheehan painted an interesting scenario on the Rany & Joe podcast that was taped a few days ago: Rizzo says, "No, that 180 IP (or whatever) limit was for the regular season." Trickeration!

[30] That's assuming that there's no middle ground.

I think most agree that you don't want to drive Strasburg into the ground. And that pitching him too much this year could do that. COULD do that. Not WILL do that. But what are those odds? And what are the odds that even by sitting him, that he won't get injured any way. I hate how much of this argument rests on a single data point: See what they did with Zimmermann?! But see what happened with Joba? What about with Strasburg himself? The team babied him the first year they had him, and he still got hurt. Crap happens sometimes, even if you try to control it. And in this case, we just don't know one way or another what those various percentages and odds are.

Rizzo's banking that the odds of contention this year won't diminish that much, and that the odds of future contention will increase. That may be true, but without knowing or being able to assess the odds for other scenarios, it's not a question that anyone can really answer definitively.

I'm rambling here, but I guess that that's what bugs me the most about this. Much of the pro-shutdown argument IS being framed as if it is definitive. As if those odds have been assessed, and that this definitely IS the right thing to do. It's probably that, more than anything, that chafes me.

I think the more interesting question is how would you measure fatigue? What would you look for as indications that he should be shut down?

I refuse to believe it's as simple as them counting innings. Are they counting pitches? Are they weighing pitches by pitch type and situational stress? Are they tracking pitchFx for bite on his pitches or changes to release point?

There are any number of ways that you COULD track Strasburg to monitor how fatigued he is to help assess a decision to shut him down. The team, for whatever reason, refuses to talk about it.

(For what it's worth, I pulled down some data on Strasburg's curves from brooksbaseball last night. I don't know if you can draw broad conclusions, but his curves are getting much less bite on them now than they were at the beginning of the year.)

Personally, I don't think there is any kind of real "science" or scientific data that can be applied to pitching arm injuries beyond the rather obvious facts that 1) not pitching is safer for the arm than pitching, and 2) some guys' arms are more durable than others.

Is there some kind of "magic number" of pitches or innings or total stress factor within a given time period beyond which the chances of a guy getting injured go up dramatically? There almost certainly is, but I don't think that there is any possible way to ever scientifically prove what that magic number is for any particular individual pitcher. It's nothing but a guess backed up by some anecdotes from the past.

And if you missed it, here's Scott Boras basically threatening the team with a negligence lawsuit if they don't shut Strasburg down.

At this point the Nats are the best choice (not a lock, but the best bet of the bunch) to win the World Series, either with or without Strasburg. They'd be more of a favorite with him, but I'm glad they're shutting him down, for the very reasons they've stated. You don't want to take chances with a pitcher who could very well be your ace for the next 10 or more years.

But see what happened with Joba?

Not sure how much Joba is relevant because Pudge Rodriguez caused the injury that derailed his path to stardom. Though I suppose you could use it to say "sh!t happens, so might as well get the good while you can."

who could very well be your ace for the next 10 or more years.

I keep reading this 10-years line. Sure, it's a hypothetical. But he's only under contract for 4 more years. Again, don't go Prior on him. But where he is in 2019 shouldn't matter to today's decisions.

Oh, keep listening. He's all too happy to tell you himself that he's the decider.

Maybe the guy is the biggest jerk in the history of jerkiness, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a lot easier to spout off about this on talk radio or a message board than it is to actually make the call.

And if you missed it, here's Scott Boras basically threatening the team with a negligence lawsuit if they don't shut Strasburg down.

So Stevie has two daddies? :)

[41] Certainly. But barring something like Detwiler getting pounded in game 4 of an ALDS loss, the whole thing is so unprovable because of all the variables that there's no way to say he's made the wrong decision. Or the right one.

From the link in 37:

would the insurance companies say we won’t cover players that won’t follow physician counsel and advice?

Isn't it more likely that they'd gladly issue a policy and cash the premium checks, but then refuse to pay a claim if you hadn't followed doctors' orders?

I refuse to believe it's as simple as them counting innings. Are they counting pitches? Are they weighing pitches by pitch type and situational stress? Are they tracking pitchFx for bite on his pitches or changes to release point?

There are any number of ways that you COULD track Strasburg to monitor how fatigued he is to help assess a decision to shut him down.

Why would they need to look at game data? The team can examine his pitching arm directly and see how it develops during the season.

[40]

But he's only under contract for 4 more years. Again, don't go Prior on him. But where he is in 2019 shouldn't matter to today's decisions.

If the Nationals think they have the inside track to resign him past those 4 years (and obviously they do think that), then it very much matters how he'll be in 2019. Having Boras for an agent implies that they won't be getting any sort of discount on resigning Strasburg, but it's entirely possible that they'll have the first shot at paying market value.

[45] If it's just as easy as looking at an arm and determining whether it's healthy or not, then there wouldn't be any pitcher injuries ever. It's not like they're going to MRI him after every game. Poke him with needles maybe? "Does it hurt when I do this? On a scale of 1-20, how much?"

35 - Chris, I don't recall who, but someone looked at Stras and made the argument that he appeared to be fatiguing based on diminishing results. If that's a safe conclusion, and if the rule that fatigue increases the likelihood of injury, and if recent injury history (and mechanics) suggest increased likelihood of further damage, then ... no, no guarantee, but further likelihood.

I'm the last person to make claims for medical certainty after my own experience with cancer stats and outcomes, but then again, the flags fly forever argument seems to assume much greater certainty for the Nats' post-season outcome than the crapshoot doctrine implies.

Is Scott Boras gonna come out? If he talks about Stephen Strasburg, so help me God, I’m gonna go bananas tomorrow night,

Too late!

The one thing that is the resonating idea here is you only get one shot at that ring. And you either want to take it, or you just say, you know what, I’ll do what somebody tells me to do.”

You also get only one shot at $200 million. I'm sure every single player in baseball history, including Dibble, would trade a shot at a ring for a better shot at the huge payday.