Dodgers manager Dave Roberts is currently in the running for National League Manager of the Year. Part of his success this season (his team leads the NL West by three games over the Giants) is because of his complete willingness to buck baseball’s common sense and conventional wisdom. He’s done it again, and his most recent unorthodox decision has drawn controversy and skepticism.
Here’s the lowdown: newly-acquired pitcher Rich Hill was tossing a no-hitter through seven frames against the Miami Marlins on Saturday. Hill was coming back after suffering from complications from a blister on the middle finger of his throwing (left) hand. Interestingly enough, this is the second occurrence of the blister, as Hill was forced to miss over a month with the injury after being traded from the A’s at the trade deadline and then a start at the end of August, as well. So it’s not exactly like Hill’s blister wasn’t a concern going into Saturday night’s game. But even with that pretext, Hill reached the end of the seventh inning without allowing a baserunner and having thrown just 89 pitches. So what would Roberts do?
He would decide to remove Hill from the game, making what may very well be the most difficult decision a manager can possibly make.
For one thing, Roberts has demonstrated a willingness to pull the plug on his starting pitchers, even as they have flirted with once-in-a-lifetime feats. In April, Roberts yanked Ross Stripling from his Major League debut after 7.1 no-hit innings. Stripling also happened to be two years removed from Tommy John Surgery. The Dodgers ultimately lost the game in ten innings and Roberts was second-guessed by just about anyone you can imagine. Want to guess who was among those not questioning the manager’s decision? The father of none other than Thomas Ross Stripling.
It’s true: according to reports, Hayes Stripling tearfully thanked Roberts after removing his son from the game. According to that same report, Stripling often eclipsed 120 pitches per start in college, which may have been a factor in his receiving Tommy John Surgery in 2014. So pulling him at that point in the game, disappointing as it may have been, was absolutely the right decision for the young pitcher.
It was also the only decision. The same thing can be said about the Rich Hill ordeal, if only for slightly different reasons.
Hill’s injured blister does not compare to the long-term effects of Tommy John Surgery in any way. However, the injury is one that must be handled delicately, just like Stripling’s elbow was in the early stages of the season. So it would make sense that the Dodgers would want to tread lightly with one of their best pitchers, even though Hill was making his second start since the re-occurrence of the injury.
Let’s think about this, as well: why do we want to see no-hitters and perfect games? We mostly enjoy witnessing them for the raw emotion, the pitcher launching his glove in the air when the game ends, and the players congratulating the pitcher on his achievement. But, other from that, how much do we actually think about the long-term health of the pitcher? In the moment, it’s not something we really consider (unless it’s really obvious, as it was with Johan Santana in 2012). We’re happy when the pitcher finishes off his accomplishment and then we move on. We don’t often consider the long-term effects on pitchers such as Santana and Tim Lincecum, who, three years after throwing 148 pitches in a no-hitter against the Padres, is likely out of baseball for good.
Another thing to consider here is that the Dodgers need Hill down the stretch and potentially into October, as well. As nice as it would have been for Hill to throw a perfect game over the weekend, it’s more important for the Dodgers to prioritize his long-term health and availability over two innings at the end of a game in September (when Hill was removed, the Dodgers led 5-0 and won the game by the same score). Yes, reliever Joe Blanton came in and gave up a hit to end the perfect bid, but the question of “What if Rich Hill stayed in?” contains far worse hypothetical possibilities than that.
For example, what if Hill hadn’t left the game and the blister on his middle finger popped open again? If Roberts employed the tact used by many managers in that position and left his pitcher in, he very easily could have aggravated the injury even further. Granted, there’s every possibility that Hill could have remained on the mound and not suffered an injury, but the possibility of the worst is what likely led Roberts to pull the trigger. If Hill had indeed gotten injured, we would be scrutinizing Roberts for not protecting an important asset to his team.
And that’s exactly what Hill is. With the Dodgers just three games up on the San Francisco Giants for the NL West lead, the team cannot afford to have more injuries to its starting rotation. Both Hill and ace Clayton Kershaw have both missed significant time this season with injuries, and losing either for any more time would be a serious blow to the Dodgers’ chances of making the playoffs and/or playing well into October. When you think about that dire possibility, is it really all that important that Rich Hill finishes his perfect game?
There are many reasons why Dave Roberts was right to pull Rich Hill from his start last Saturday. There are many points of view from which to examine this debate, but the one that matters the most is that of Rich Hill. If he had hurt himself while trying to complete his perfect game, would it have really been worth the trouble to keep him in the game? I would venture to say so, and it’s apparent that Dave Roberts agrees. More importantly, would it have been fair to Rich Hill to risk his long-term health? I’d say the answer to that is no.
Roberts is certainly not your average manager. He makes unconventional decisions, the most notable of which involve his starting pitchers. But he has done the best he can in protecting them, and the curious case of Rich Hill is no different.
Which is why he deserves credit, not blame, for how he handled this situation.