Sep 2, 2010, 8:50 AM EST
Rob Dibble’s firing was the subject on Mike & Mike this morning, and both Greenberg and Golic were scratching their heads at it. Greenberg’s quote evinced his confusion at the move: “you just fired Rob Dibble for being Rob Dibble.”
That’s one way to think of it. Another way is to acknowledge that when you shouldn’t have hired Rob Dibble for an analyst’s job in the first place, “being Rob Dibble” is more than enough grounds for termination. Better that MASN finally come to terms with that than to continue thinking that Dibble is suited to explain baseball’s nuances to television viewers.
And that’s really what this is about, I think. It’s not that he said something insensitive about the Nats’ big phenom. I’d like announcers to get more critical of players than they are, actually. It’s that his comments about Strasburg’s injury were just wrong and dumb. They showed Dibble’s utter failure or to understand and communicate (or refusal to acknowledge) information about pitcher injuries to fans. That’s Dibble’s job there. If he was simply unaware of how serious it is when a pitcher has to immediately leave a game due to an arm injury, he’s unqualified to be an analyst. If he knows better but is just trying to stir the pot, he’s being a talk radio host, not doing his job to inform and enlighten viewers.
I don’t think MASN would have fired Dibble for being Dibble if he had done it with respect to some big issue of the day or whatever. But when you’re personality prevents you from simply and accurately addressing the game in front of you, you’re not doing your job as an analyst.