Stephen Strasburg had a brilliant season-starting performance for the Washington Nationals, and it prompted an interesting but debatable reaction from USA Today, which called it “the first step in vindication for general manager Mike Rizzo, who took much of the heat for shutting down the right-hander in the year after elbow surgery.”

Lest there be any doubt that Rizzo should endure criticism or receive credit for ending Strasburg’s 2012 season prematurely, the general manager himself made it clear last year that the decision was his. He most likely sought input from others – manager Davey Johnson for one –but the final decision was his.

It was a controversial decision made more controversial by the Nationals’ loss to St. Louis in the division series of the playoffs.

But whether or not you agreed with Rizzo’s decision – I disagreed – how could Strasburg’s April 1 performance vindicate it?

Because Strasburg’s right arm was still attached to his shoulder? Because his elbow hadn’t become his wrist? Because he was still breathing? I don’t have an answer, but I can guess that the person offering that assessment had concluded that since the pitcher was healthy enough to pitch that well, allowing no runs, three hits and no walks, Rizzo made the right decision.

All right, if that was a fair assessment of the shutdown decision, what can we say about Strasburg’s second start? Pitching against Cincinnati six days later, Strasburg didn’t get out of the sixth inning, allowing six runs, nine hits and four walks in a 6-3 loss.

If Strasburg had pitched that game first, would anyone have concluded that Rizzo made the right decision seven months earlier? Not likely. More likely, nothing would have been said about the early shutdown other than “Strasburg pitched for the first time since the Nationals ended his season early last Sept. 7.” No one would have concluded that Rizzo had made a mistake.

Why make more of a game than the outcome itself? One exception: If a pitcher is returning from an injury, say elbow transplant surgery that put him out for the entire previous season, it would be fair to offer an initial assessment.

Strasburg, however, was healthy. His return that warranted scrutiny was a year ago. Rizzo didn’t warrant special scrutiny in this instance either. No matter what Strasburg did in the opener, it would have had no ramification for Rizzo’s decision.

“I don’t even think about it,” the general manager said in a telephone interview this week when asked about Strasburg’s first start. He reiterated that he made the decision because he felt it was best for Strasburg and the Nationals. Winning or losing didn’t enter into it.

Asked about the second start, Rizzo said, “His stuff and velocity, his breaking ball against the Reds were good. He just didn’t have a good day. We’re definitely happy where he is.”

No one can argue with where Strasburg us today. His arm is healthy, and that was the aim of Rizzo’s decision – don’t overuse him so he will be healthy this year and in future years.

The Nationals, however, don’t know how Strasburg would be had they allowed him to finish the season in the rotation or adopted a different pattern of pitching during the season.

For example, Strasburg started 28 games and pitched 159 1/3 innings. When they ended his season after his three-inning Sept. 7 start, Johnson said he had become distracted by the fuss made over his shortened status. But it was the Nationals who created the fuss. Had they not raised the issue as the season neared the end, the 24-year-old right-hander would have had no distraction.

Had the Nationals not talked about ending Strasburg’s season early, reporters would have had no reason to ask Johnson and Rizzo about it. No questions, no distraction.

As for their wanting to preserve the health of Strasburg’s right arm, which had elbow surgery Sept. 3, 2010, the Nationals cannot be faulted for their precautionary measures, but they can be questioned. There is no right or definitive answer, and there can be no do-over. Strasburg is healthy, and the Nationals feel that’s what’s important.

After his Sept. 7 start, Strasburg could have started four more regular-season games, or three if Johnson wanted to give him a pre-playoff break. That would have given him a full season’s complement of 31 or 32 starts.

Had the Nationals planned ahead, they could have skipped Strasburg’s turn once a month, reducing his total number of starts to 26, leaving some post-season starts in his arsenal.

The Nationals won the National League East title and lost a five-game post-season division series to St. Louis. With Strasburg serving a team-imposed shutdown, 21-game winner Gio Gonzalez started Games 1 and 5. The Nationals won the first game and lost the fifth.

There is no way of knowing what the outcome of the series would have been had Strasburg pitched Games 1 and 5 and Gonzalez Game 2. Would it have been worth risking Strasburg’s elbow to find out? That’s easy for me to answer, but I don’t think we have to assume that the Nationals would have been risking any part of Strasburg’s body by pitching him beyond Sept. 7.