I was listening to a writer who had a Hall of Fame vote. He was saying he didn't know where to put relievers that are eligible for The Hall of Fame.
I have a tip.
Put them in The Hall of Fame.
For some reason, writers can't figure out how history will remember closers and bullpens. How about we take a look at the last time a team won a world championship without a good or great closer and or bullpen. Well that would be in the early '60s. Since then every team that has won a championship has had help down in the 'pen.
If that isn't helping to judge the great relievers, then let's look at the salary increases to some of the relievers just in this off-season. The reason for the money being spent is an indication of how valuable an asset short relievers and closers are. Toronto paid $47 million to B.J. Ryan and he only has 42 career saves, Billy Wagner and the Mets? Try $43 million for his 284 career saves. Kyle Farnsworth got $17 million from the Yankees to set up future Hall of Famer Mariano Rivera.
The Cubs gave Bob Howry $12 million and he saved only <i>three</i> games in Cleveland last year. Before that, he hadn't had a save since 2001 when he was with the Chicago White Sox. He has been great as a set up man in Cleveland the last 2 seasons.
Let's take Braden Looper and The St. Louis Cardinals; he got $13.5 million over the next three seasons but was 28 for 36 in saves last year, and that's why.
Pitchers are used in a totally different way than they were 50 years ago. We take pitchers, mostly with the best arms on a team or in an organization, and make them relievers. These are pitchers who can get loose in 10 pitches or less and can throw strikes in the highest pressure situations o####ame right out of the 'pen. Yet when it comes to voting them into the Hall of Fame we look upon them like they are half of a starting pitcher, or freaks or DH's.
Let's take a look at some of the recent Hall of Famers. Some of them just hung around five or 10 more years, flipping the ball up there just to get 300 wins. Yet many of those games were completed by bullpens. Oh, he won 300, he's in ... please. Lee Smith, the all-time save leader with 478 (and throw in another 71 wins), helped his teams win 549 games over his career. He's the Cy Young among closers, yet writers can't figure out how GREAT he was. Or Goose Gossage, 310 saves and 124 wins and 22 years in the big leagues. Find one of his peers including myself that would say he wasn't the best they've ever seen, but hold on, The writers won't say that. Bruce Sutter, one of the best ever, shouldn't have to beg to get a pass to The Hall.
How come every year history shows us that you can't win a championship without a great bullpen? Maybe we should have history explain it to the writers.
To legitimize relief pitchers, MLB can set up a "Rollie Finger Relief Pitcher of the Year Award". This brings this postion to the level of the other "named" awards, legitimizes the award, and therefore, the postion. Once done, each yer's award winner(s) would receive notoriety, and result in votes to Cooperstown.
I both agree and disagree with the point about relievers. It is obvious that Mariano Rivera will be in the Hall and that's much deserved. Outside of Rivera though can any closer from '90's be considered a Hall of Famer? Gossage and Sutter deserve to be in the Hall no doubt, mainly because they weren't called on to come into the game in the 9th to "protect" a three run lead. That's the key here, the save stat is overblown. Gossage and the relievers of his era came in with the game on the line. It didn't matter what inning it was. If your team was trailing by one with runners on in the 6th a guy like Gossage would come on, get out of the inning and proceed to finish the game. Although Rivera is called upon to get the "mop-up" save on occasion he can also be counted on to get a 6 out save or if truly necessary a 9 out save. That's what separates him from the B.J. Ryan's of the world.
Closers are the most overated position in baseball. Come in the for last inning no runners, get three outs, WoW! No more important and no more difficult than the first 24 outs. Give my vote to the set men who come in with runners on base.
The day Rob gets a vote, the Hall of Fame is going to have to move to an outdoor venue. Yellowstone Park, maybe. If it were up to him, anyone who ever pulled on a big league uniform would be voted in. At least once a week on the radio, he and Kevin Kennedy introduce a guest as someone who "should be in the Hall of Fame." No building will be big enough to hold them all when they're in charge.
Fans of baseball everywhere should be happy that the writers are the stewards of the game's history rather than self-aggrandizing former ballplayers and managers.
Lee Smith as the Cy Young of closers? He saved many games for many teams but was never a sure thing. His career ERA was over 3.00, which ain't great for a closer. He never played on a championship team & had a postseason ERA of over 8.00. He was very good. Maybe even very, very good. But he wouldn't even qualify as the "Cy Young of closers who have not been voted into the Hall of Fame." That would be Goose, I think.
Rob, if I need someone to throw high heat in a beer-league hardball game, I'm calling on you. But if I need someone to help explain the role of the bullpen in baseball history, maybe you can put me in touch with Ken Rosenthal ...
Oh, please, Mr. Dibble! The requirements of a save are pathetic. Jose Mesa, who has a career 4.29 E.R.A. and 1.47 W.H.I.P., has 319 saves in his career. That ranks him ahead of Bruce Sutter, whom you say should be in the Hall of Fame. Does Jose Mesa make the Hall? You would also have to add Doug Jones, Jeff Montgomery, Robb Nen, Troy Percival, and Randy Myers to the Hall, if you wanted Sutter in and love number of saves so much. I don't think that those people are Hall of Famers. No one does. They probably don’t even think that.
Furthermore, Looper stinks and the Cardinals are wasting their money. There were 1,252 saves last year with 1,821 save opportunities. That is an average success ratio of 68.8%. Braden Looper had 28 saves and 36 opportunities, a 77.8% success ratio. Therefore, he was only 9% better than the average guy handed a save opportunity; consequently, he should be paid only 9% more than the average relief pitcher. What’s the average salary? In 2001, the average relief pitcher earned $1,510,000 while the average baseball player earned $2,138,896. Assuming evenly distributed growth amongst all players, using the average 2005 salary of a baseball player -- $2,500,000 -- the average relief pitcher should earn $1,768,929. Looper exceeds that figure by 95%, even though he was only 9% better than everyone. He’s getting paid way too much. Even bumping up what I assume to be the average relief pitcher’s salary to $2,500,000, saying that a closer is as valuable to a team’s success as every other player out there -- and they’re not, they contribute less to
Last edited by DannyBoy on December 19th at 6:33 PM.
every game than the other players -- he’s earning way too much: 80% too much, after crunching the numbers. Oh, and Looper won’t even be the closer next year; some guy named Jason Isringhausen will be. Braden Looper will be setting him up, and with that career 1.37 W.H.I.P., he’ll probably allow a few base runners to score when he comes in to put out fires.
Just because teams are willing to overspend for people like Looper and Bobby Howry does not make them good. After saving 39 games last year in Milwaukee, Dan Kolb failed miserably in 2005. His replacement, Derrick Turnbow, saved 39 games. However, they were paid disproportionately, Turnbow earning $322,000 to pitch well and Kolb “making” (pained Braves fan here) $3,400,000 to do horribly. The Braves, one of the best organizations in terms of measuring talent and getting the most of its players, surely didn’t like having Kolb around, dealing him for Wes Obermueller at the end of the season.
If the best closers are getting paid (and worth) $10 million a year to contribute 70 good innings, then pitchers like Johan Santana and Pedro Martinez should get $30 million a year for contributing 210 good innings. Johan Santana had 27 win shares in 2004, which means if he is getting paid $30 million a year, Barry Bonds (57 win shares in 2004) should be getting a little over $60 million a year. It’s absolutely ludicrous to value closers this much.
Last edited by DannyBoy on December 19th at 6:40 PM.
Baseball writers are the stewards of the game? Maybe that explains outrageous stats? Blame $$'s on greedy owners and player's unions, not on relief pitchers. The HOF is for players who dominate their postion through a long career, who's presence can define, or redefine, the postion they play. Stats get skewed within the era in which you play - to set predefined benchmarks taints both the players of the past and disadvantages the players of the future.
Sutter, Gossage, Fingers, Eckersly, Rivera, Hoffman ... these are names that I can see affixed to HOF Reliever status.
Stewards of the game. Put in those who BELONG in baseball history's museum.
Rob Dibble still hasn't woken up since Lou Pinella slammed him in the Reds locker room back in the 90s. All Dibbs wanted was to be treated like a man. Well, man, relief guys are a dime a dozen and they come and go. Ask Danny Graves and Bobby Thigpen.
Every other position has at a minimum, the best two or three players of their generation in the Hall of Fame. The definition of being Hall of Fame worthy must include whether or not you were among the best while you played, regardless of statistics. That said, Goose Gossage, Bruce Sutter and Lee Smith all belong. Similarly, Jim Rice and Andre Dawson should be equally no brainers.
Year after year it's the same thing. What the heck is wrong with these writers. Find our who these guys are that vote a let them know how we feel about these guys.
I couldn't agree more. Without the established system of the relievers now being signed as CLOSER, and SHORT, and MIDDLE relief work, how many 20 GAME winners would there be? A Game for a starter has been whittled down to 5 or 6 innings and there are pitchers going to the hall who have made a career of 5 and 6 inning work.....
Rob, the problem isn't that baseball writers don't feel relievers are some of the greatest players of all time.
The problem is that the save, taken by itself, is an inherently flawed statistic.
How many of Lee Smith's saves had him giving up two runs in an inning and still closing the game out? His ERA implies that, if he only pitches one inning a game, he gives up a run once every three games. Hardly lights-out. How many of those saves came in the playoffs?
Secondly, aren't there other factors into what goes into a save? Like, how often you are used by your manager? Relievers aren't put into a rotation; some managers put their relievers in every single time they get a lead, while others may choose to give them a rest once in a while. Some relievers may get the chance to work 6 outs, some 9 outs, some only 3. And if the team you are playing for can't hold a lead until late in the game, how often will you get a chance to make a save at all?
Saves as a solo statistic will never make anyone Hall-bound. Voters need to develop a series of criteria which, put together, would paint an accurate picture of a reliever's effectiveness, value to his team, and greatness as compared to those of his generation. Then - and only then - will you will begin to see relievers in the Hall.
Dibs, perhaps the HOF voters were listening to you on
XM---& you're the best guy on XM, but your obsession
against Mariano Rivera may have hurt your case with
Lee Smith. Today, you acknowledge that Mariano will
go to the HOF. But, during the discussion of AL Cy
Young voting, you relentlessly said a reliever should
not win it, allowed comments minimizing closers, or
in Mo's case, a separate category--the greatest
late inning reliever of all time when it counted--
you were so anxious to get Mo off the stage, that
you used his status as a mere closer to disqualify
him from a big award like Cy Young. As your pal
Chuck Wilson, an otherwise smarmy, no-talent slug
would say, you're very loyal. Your loyalty to Hoffman has motivated your diminishing of Mariano.
Now it's another friend, Lee Smith. You've just
finished minimizing closers, now you want voters to
elevate them. The "total saves" stat isn't the single best stat. You just want it to be when it's your pals. PS. Mariano has 413 saves per Baseball Reference.
9% is a lot over a 162 game season. If the avg. guy converts an extra 9% over a season thats an extra 14.5 wins. What are 14 game winners getting on the free agent market this year, Looper probably got less??? The fact that the average guy can convert 2/3's of their save opportunities is a testiment to how difficult it really is. The guys that consistantly save 80% of their games deserve their money. The fact that guys come and go shows how hard it really is to be consistant in this role.
One problem with relievers being judged is the changing role played by them. For instance, both Bruce Sutter and Goose Gossage were NOT 'closers';
rather, they were 'stoppers', often coming in with men on base in the seventh or eighth inning. They got out of trouble started by earlier pitchers and still finished the game.
More recently, especially since Eckersly was so successful, one inning 'closers' have been the standard. Comparing Lee Smith, for example, with Gossage and Sutter is a disjustice to the latter--both of whom belong in the Hall.
I totally agree... for relievers can either make or lose the game... they is a lot of relievers whom don't get honor with being Hall of Famers... shoot I remember in the late 1980's to early 1990's that it was vital to have a great setup man and an excellent closer for it the game on the line.... Bruce Sutter, Lee Smith, Jeff Reardon, John Franco (later down the line), and many others should be recognized as Hall of Famers for they were the guys that made they teams better... Despite ERA's and all that... we are talking about saves... the things that help the team win... ERA's are overrated in relievers, however they got more stress to finish the game flawlessly, but it doesn't always ended up like that.
Last edited by Dark_Medina1 on December 22nd at 9:23 AM.
I agree with you that relievers need to be acknowledged for what they've done for baseball, and that with the game evolving, the roles of the set-up man and closer should be given due worth. But the standards should be made more stringent. As it is now, there are people in the HOF who have less qualifications than several who have been left out.
Someone called writers as being stewards? Puh-leeze! These are the kind of people who would vote for Ichiro Suzuki as ROY, yet disqualify Hideki Matsui, because the latter already played pro-ball in Japan. Yeah, and Ichiro didn't. There's no objectivity in those votes, and there's also that lack of objectivity in the HOF votes.
The relive pitcher position in baseball is vastly overrated. Any decent pitcher can become a relive pitcher. Take Dennis Eckersley for example, a mediocre starting pitcher, yet when he has to come in for an inning he is a superstar.
I don't think Rob Dibble belongs in the hall of fame. Because the way he talks and puts down the Cincinnati Reds players & staff.Rob Dibble is a cry baby;and he only had 1 good year or maybe 2.Pete Rose and or Eric Davis belongs in the hall of fame other than Rob Dibble.
Has anyone even mentioned Jeff Reardon, who had once held the all-time saves record before Lee Smith? He should have been in the Hall as well as Sutter, Gossage & Smith.
Having said that, today's relievers are more on the category of "What have you done for 'us' (the ballclub) lately?", and unless they have clearly proven to stay healthy and pitched consistently well to close games year after year. They don't belong to the Hall of Fame.
Someone please correct me if I am wrong about this.
Last edited by JCMNShoot on December 24th at 9:31 PM.
You lost me on Lee Smith, but I gotta agree with you on Mo. Anyone who says otherwise is a Yankee hating fanatic, no better than all those fundamentalist clowns we see in Iraq. If you disagree with me , check out his postseason stats (100+ IP, ERA under 1.00, 100 K vs. 12 BB, yada yada yada and all done against the cream of the crop). Closers need to get more consideration IF they have good peripheral stats (ERA, WHIP etc...) because of the nature of their job (i.e. no margin for error) but those who just hang around for year after year compiling saves but nothing else shouldn't be thought of as a anything more than a dude whose padding his stats.
Good job Dibs. Let's not forgtet Bruce Sutter had many 3 inning saves and was unhittable. Check out his strike out numbers. Sutter was the first of the great closers, a pioneer- Cooperstown should welcome him.
Lets start off this easy. How many of these post are listed by people whom have ever been put in the pressure spot of a majoe league closed? Okay, so you have no idea what it means to go out there and get the final outs o####ame. Starters have 6-7 innings to fix where they may have aloud however many runs while closers come in, granted somethimes ahead well enough were they should finish, but otherwise with say a 1-2 run lead and no more help coming the inning after.
I don’t have a problem in general with your saying that relievers should get some more attention for the HOF, in particular Gossage. However I do have a problem with your 5th grade writing skills, vagaries, and odd way of putting together a coherent, compelling argument. I was left with these general thoughts.
1. Tell me the writer, or I’ll think you made him up just to have an excuse to ramble about how wonderful closers are. What position did you play again Rob? Wait, you were one of the extremely valuable relievers that this article is about right?
2. How do 2006 free agent salaries help to “judge the great relievers”? Rob, every major league position makes a #### load of money. $10 million/year closers are generally less prevalent than $10/million year of, oh, every…other…position. This point that you belabored does nothing to help your cause.
3. The best arms in the organization are made into relievers? What are you talking about? Relievers are generally guys who sucked at starting.
4. “Let's take a look at some of the recent Hall of Famers”. Okay cool. What’s that, you don’t want to actually list any out and call them out for hanging around to get to 300 wins. I’d help you out there but you didn’t quantify “recent”. However, I don’t think Greg Maddux and Roger Clemens meet this description at all. It’s nice to know that you can get 300 wins just by “flipping the ball up there” in your later years. Someone should have let Tommy John and Burt Blyleven know that.
Last edited by jeff_hi on December 28th at 2:30 PM.
Also, to the guy above me, since I’ve never closed a game in the major leagues I’m not allowed an opinion on the matter? Peter Gammons, shut up you’ve never hit a slider so you know nothing about comparing baseball greats! Give me a break. You know who played a lot of baseball, Rob Dibble, Joe Morgan and John Kruk. The three biggest #### baseball analysts in the business – so there goes that argument. By the way, what does “put in the pressure spot of a majoe league closed” even mean? Are you like 8?
I would venture to bet that if and when the veterans committee gets to vote on the likes of Gossage and Sutter, they both will be enshrined. Both of these guys were dominant during their playing days and should be compared to others who played at the same time.
No way closers should be in. What do they do? They come in with a three run lead, to start the 9th inning, and if they don't screw it up they've done something special? Give me a break. Mass hallucination is the cause of this nonsensical "position." If you don't have a good closer you're not going to win games. THat's the theory at least. Of course, that only seems to be the case because managers keep going to a closer even when they don't have one.
I have always thought that the real test of who belonged in the HOF was did he put the fear of God into an opposing player during his hey day and was that Hey day long enough to be considered a career. Stats are great, but they can always be inflated. An example is Mariano Rivera's save total, NO I am not saying he isn't great, only he is on a winning team who give him numerous opportunities to get "Mop Up" saves.
Someone earlier mentioned Rob Nen as being one of Dib's so called HOF candidates when he is eligible, well for that matter can you tell me anyother Closer you would've wanted in the game during the late 90's? Sure his career was cut short by injury, but he killed that arm for his team and the chance for another ring. You have gotta love a guy like that.
Back to the point, not only have relief pitchers been getting overlooked by these so called Baseball historian/writers who feel it is their job to keep the Hall pure of TRUE GREATNESS, but many of the great players of the 70's and 80's. Next thing you know they'll be saying Rickey Henderson shouldn't be allowed in because he hung around to long, forget about the records he broke. Just think about all the players from this time period you did not want your team to face in a playoff game or on that payoff pitch if you can say this guy put the fear of God into me and my team he deserves to be in. Simple
Put them in the hall when the designated hitter gets in? Folks can't even figure that into the mixed up baseball equation, when my grandson's little league has "closer" as a viable position, then the closer can be considered viable? What kid grows up dreaming of being a closer?
It is amazing how so many great players get passed up, Goose Gossage, Lee Smith, Bruce Sutter. What Happens when Trevor Hoffman and Mariano Riviara become eligible ? Thanks, now get out of here ? You are right about how 300 wins seems to cement you into the Hall, Now I know I am going to get some flack for this but I cant really see putting Don Sutton in, Sure he won 324 games but where is the Cy Young awards, the 20 win seasons, a handful of World Series wins, No hitters, I dont see any. Now look, If Tim Wakefield won 300 games ( possible with a knuckle ball as far as longevity) I wouldnt vote him in. If you let Sutton in then you have to put Bert Blyleven and maybe Tommy John in ( Man, the guy has a surgical procedure named after him) So, in closing Mr. Dibble I agree with you 100 %......... Drew
Right on, Rob! This commentary regarding the pre-eminent relief pitchers of our time is timely indeed! What we really need is a fans hall of fame to compete with the idiots who consider themselves the keepers of the hall, writers who have never played the game anywhere close to the major league level, and former players who remember themselves as greater than they really were, and who can't see beyond the end of their own pencils to appreciate the skills and accomplishments of their own peers. It reminds me of the general contractor who built custom homes that could never give credit to his ace carpenter who gave the homes he built their character with his masterful trim work or the tile man his due with regard to the incredible flooring and wall creations that made the kitchens, baths, entrances, foyers and patios works of art. Both the tile man and the carpenter are building their own houses now, and the gc is trying to live off the laurals of guys who made him great. To complete the analogy, these "relief pitchers" of the trades made the custom home building team true champions, if you will, amongst a host of average home builders. Anyway, Ron, ah, sorry, Rob, the facts are the facts, but the writers and the so-called second chance committee guys are both confused by facts and blinded by their allegiance to an age of baseball that has ceased to exist. Lee Smith and Goose should have been in on the first ballot just as Rivera most certainly will be and as Eckersley was. Goose and Smith were as dominant and were more intimidating than either of the latter two ever dre
Last edited by fasteddieh2o on January 5th at 9:13 PM.
I think what nickwilson said would be a perfect way to get relievers in the hall. MLB should get a yearly award for closers and relievers and call it the Sutter,Fingers,Eckersly,The Goose,Smith,maybe when he retires the Rivera. I'm sorry Rob, you were a great player but I don't think they will be calling it the Dibble.
Nice research, Dib. When's the last time a team won a championship without a great closer or bullpen? Can you say, 2001? Or do we forget the exploits of Byung Hung a Curveball? The D-backs won in SPITE of their bullpen. Rare is the closer that should go to the hall. The save is a ridiculous stat. I mean, a guy has to basically screw up to NOT get a save.
Bruce Sutter has been elected to the Hall and that's great. However, it's still the case that he's called a 'closer'; he (and Hoyt Wilhelm, Rollie Fingers and Goose Gossage) were much more than that. They were 'stoppers', often coming in with runners on in the seventh or eighth innings to extricate their teams from jams. Don't there exist proper stats to convey the difference?
I believe that one of the innovations that Tony Larussa had much to do with was the use of Eckersley as a 'closer'. It changed the game and
that change seems to be here to stay. How voters judge will be interesting, very interesting. For sure, Eckersley is an excellent example of a deserving 'closer', an example that sets a high benchmark. BUT Gossage, for one, should be viewed as a 'stopper' not as a 'closer'.
Rob, I understand the importance of relievers in the game of Baseball, and it is obvious that the way ball players of the likes of Rice, Dawson, Goose, Blyleven, and new comer Albert Belle have no chance to get their much deserve place in the Hall of Fame. The way I look at the HOF voting is not how productive you were during the time you play but how are the “Bonds, McGuire, Palmeiro” are doing.
I remember my uncle Victor Cruz (Pitch in the majors for about 5 years in the 80s) once told that he would rather pitch to the Reggie Jackson, Winfield, or Murray (all more then well deserve HOFr) then that of “Jimmie” Jim Rice or Andre Dawson. I got to see them play old including Goose and Blyleven. To this day I don’t think there is a player in MLB that excite fans and race more hair in the back of people’s neck than they did when your team face them. Every kid, myself included, in Dominican Republic wanted to be Jim Rice or the El Arcon (the Hawk). It’s not fair to compare Willie Mays numbers with those of Bonds, or Sosa because of the era, same goes for these two great HOF, in my mind.
If I have to pick a Closer to come in a put the game away there is no doubt Goose is the man, (sorry Mo). And if you put Blyleven in let say Toronto, NY (both), Boston, St Luis, KC’s teams in his era you might be talking about not only 12 more wins but perhaps 20, 30 or even 50 more wins.
Kirby Puckett had to retire because of an injury. Well what about Belle? Wasn’t him force to retire because injury too. I understand the inflation in the numbers from the late 80s to today because
If Phil Rizzuto got in, then most should. For Gossage, Rice and Dawson should all have been in by now. This will never change until they split up the vote between a panel of coaches, managers and former players and some writers and drop the minimum amount of votes to get in. Gossage was the first real closer their ever was, he should be in.
I echo Dale. Phil Rizzutto actually makes Pee Wee Reese and Don Drysdale look like bona fide Hall of Famers. But take a close look at those three names and compare them to Goose Gossage, Bert Blyleven, and Jim Rice. What a crock. What Gossage said today to the New York Post was right on. Gossage had a better and more significant career than Sutter. Sutter is borderline, as was Eckersley; Smith doesn't belong. Gossage was better than all of them, despite a few weak years at the end of his career. At least Gossage has the comfort of knowing there is always at least one pitcher more deserving than him who won't get in before him, namely Blyleven. But here's a suggestion: let's vote guys OUT of the hall with 75% of the vote, and start with Drysdale, Rizzutto, and Reese.
Here is a thought...Let the players nominate who goes to the hall of fame and not the writers. Baseball is ruined ever year by politics and writers. Let the boys play and choose their own.
Maybe there can be a way of evaluating pitchers based on how childish they behaved, eh Dribble? Nothing makes a pitcher look better than trying to kick his managers butt in the locker room.. right Rob?
I can't believe anyone bothers to read this clown.. He was a pretty decent pitcher, for like 2 seasons.. The perfect example of million dollar arm and a 5 cent head, something that has no place reporting and especially commenting on baseball.
Mr Dibble, heres some links about you! Qouting you, It seems earlier you did not think Steroids were so bad huh?
http://firejoemorgan.blogspot.c om/2005/08/dibs-for-us-senate.html
http://blogs.foxsports.com/Dibb le/2006/02/27/Stop_the_hating
Have you now decided congress was right to fix Baseball? Are you now saying that steroid use is a problem after dismissing it as less then important in earlier columns? I think thats hypocritical. I would NOT be surprised if you did use as a player now! You have shown yourself to be hypocritical. Maybe it was your fault,,,maybe you used them too!
Rob Dibble was named a full-time co-host of BEST DAMN SPORTS SHOW PERIOD in April 2005. The outspoken, all-star reliever is a perfect fit for the most irreverent sports show on television.
Dibble, who is best known as one of the Reds' hard throwing "Nasty Boys," along with Norm Charlton and Randy Myers, won a World Series with the Reds in 1990.
