SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Carson Smith/Risk of TJ Surgery
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 26, 2016 15:40:15 GMT -5
Multiple people on this site voiced concern about Smith after the trade, myself included. I still liked the trade, but Smith had multiple warnings predictive of arm injury. Honestly, you seem to have absolutely zero concept of probability. Your whole "nobody can predict...", at least in the terms you seem to be presenting it, is what's known as a fallacy of reason (specifically, a reduction to absurdity). What's really laughable is that you make predictions about players based on all sorts of variables (FB velocity, past performance, command issues, whatever), and treat it like those predictions are written in stone. But here, in the face of actual confirmation of the predictive value of variables re:UCL tear, you make the absurd statement "nobody can predict..." With 100% certainty, no. But with relative likelihood, yes. Seriously, you're wasting everyone's time with this line of thinking. You're directly detracting from the intellectual value of this thread. Please, please stop. So you admit I'm right in saying that it's completely unpredictable and then you say it can be predicted? I'm the troll? I'm pointing out the truth. Please explain to me why Tyler Skaggs had Tommy John surgery. He fit none of the criteria of having Tommy John. I think you're completely hung up on a perception that "prediction" is not 100%. We're discussing probabilities. You're obsessed with binary outcome to the point of pathology. You're not pointing out truth, you're pointing out a ridiculously useless observation, which is that post-hoc "prediction" is binary. What I'm saying, and everyone else is, and which you seem unwilling or incapable of grasping, is that **independent** variables are associated with increased injury risk. That's what prediction is about: weighing probabilities. There's no value in predicting the sun will rise tomorrow (but there is value in predicting the possibility that it won't, say, if an asteroid is headed towards the earth). This is just like your response to the thirty or so pitchers I named as late bloomers in the Kelly thread: "but he doesn't have their command!" Well, duh, if he did he would already be good, and most of them didn't until they, you know, bloomed late. Your focus on outliers without "predictors" without simply acknowledging that **multiple data studies including a scientific, peer-reviewed cohort study** show that certain factors are associated with increased TJ surgery risk is mind-boggling. Please, Google "positive and negative predictive value," and learn just this basic understanding of population statistics. You are simply spouting nonsense at this point.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 26, 2016 15:53:11 GMT -5
I've come to the conclusion that facts and information are useless with him. It seems like he's going to believe what he believes, and that's the end of it. Kind of like anti-vaccination thinking. Evidence is useless. Resistance is futile. There is no useful information on Tommy John. That's the point. The fact that's there's thousand of articles trying to predict it is a complete waste of anyone's time. No one has a clue. Also notice how Henry Owens struggled bad when he couldn't find the plate with his 90+ mph fastball this spring? It's a direct correlation of him having to be perfect to have even a shot at the big leagues. Joe Kelly still hasn't proven anything outside of this spring training either. When you find a point that I have a bad understanding at, I want you to really point it out because anything I have said isn't totally wrong at least so far. Not everyone comes here to learn and be informed either. Some people like to come here to express their opinions and see what gels and how other Sox fans feel about a similar subject. I come in with a strong statement usually, but most times I'm looking for the good argument to take me a step back and realize that I could be mislead. Other times I'm seeing if other Sox fans see if I feel as strongly as I do on a important subject. I feel as though I brought a couple of subjects at hand that are worth the argument. We will see how it plays out in the next year or so. You come to this conclusion on Henry Owens based on what spring training? Have you not looked at his stats from last year in the majors? Owens in no way needs to be perfect, just not crazy wild. We have seen him go through this before and everytime he bounces back. He just has bouts of wildness, still hasn't stopped him from putting up good stats in minors and majors. Chances are he still makes 10-15 starts in majors this year.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 26, 2016 15:57:07 GMT -5
I've come to the conclusion that facts and information are useless with him. It seems like he's going to believe what he believes, and that's the end of it. Kind of like anti-vaccination thinking. Evidence is useless. Resistance is futile. There is no useful information on Tommy John. That's the point. The fact that's there's thousand of articles trying to predict it is a complete waste of anyone's time. No one has a clue. Also notice how Henry Owens struggled bad when he couldn't find the plate with his 90+ mph fastball this spring? It's a direct correlation of him having to be perfect to have even a shot at the big leagues. Joe Kelly still hasn't proven anything outside of this spring training either. When you find a point that I have a bad understanding at, I want you to really point it out because anything I have said isn't totally wrong at least so far. Not everyone comes here to learn and be informed either. Some people like to come here to express their opinions and see what gels and how other Sox fans feel about a similar subject. I come in with a strong statement usually, but most times I'm looking for the good argument to take me a step back and realize that I could be mislead. Other times I'm seeing if other Sox fans see if I feel as strongly as I do on a important subject. I feel as though I brought a couple of subjects at hand that are worth the argument. We will see how it plays out in the next year or so. You realize that you claim Owens' performance has proven something, but Kelly's has not, right? You flagrantly contradicted your own logic, and didn't even realize it. What you also didn't realize is that I'm not revisiting those old arguments, or their validity. I'm commenting on your repeated use of circular logic, which is a hallmark of the "logic" of fixed belief systems. Your argument here is like saying "nobody can predict how they'll die." Maybe not 100%, but I guarantee you that BASE jumpers have a lot higher chance of dying from a fall than someone who's never put on a parachute. Yes, there are people who die from falls never BASE jumping, and yes, many BASE jumpers will die a different way. But your claim that those populations are indistinguishable, and that BASE jumping has no value when predicting means of death...well, I give up. I consider yours a lost cause. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Mar 26, 2016 16:21:52 GMT -5
Hanley Ramirez was terrible defensively + ? = LF in Fenway is hard. Think about it I got it, amused at how many didn't, but I miss sarcasm most of the time. Also, dirtywater is getting a lot of heat for talking like a normal fan. Too strong at times ,but rather read him than be lectured to.
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Mar 26, 2016 17:06:04 GMT -5
Hanley Ramirez was terrible defensively + ? = LF in Fenway is hard. Think about it I got it, amused at how many didn't, but I miss sarcasm most of the time. Also, dirtywater is getting a lot of heat for talking like a normal fan. Too strong at times ,but rather read him than be lectured to. To be clear, I just let people say what they're going to say, unless they throw stuff out there that has no factual basis. My lectures at that point are aimed at bringing those facts into play. Talk is very cheap, with even more discounting these days. Without those facts, or with a counter-factual narrative in play, I price it at $0. If you don't like that, you're welcome to hang somewhere else.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 26, 2016 17:08:28 GMT -5
Hanley Ramirez was terrible defensively + ? = LF in Fenway is hard. Think about it I got it, amused at how many didn't, but I miss sarcasm most of the time. Also, dirtywater is getting a lot of heat for talking like a normal fan. Too strong at times ,but rather read him than be lectured to. A veteran of this board with almost 500 posts isn't just a normal fan though. Too strong at times is a huge understatement. If you wanna make bold statements that the masses don't believe get ready for a lecture. You have to understand that dirtywater wants the lectures and likes the back and forth arguments.
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Mar 26, 2016 17:10:50 GMT -5
I got it, amused at how many didn't, but I miss sarcasm most of the time. Also, dirtywater is getting a lot of heat for talking like a normal fan. Too strong at times ,but rather read him than be lectured to. To be clear, I just let people say what they're going to say, unless they throw stuff out there that has no factual basis. My lectures at that point are aimed at bringing those facts into play. Talk is very cheap, with even more discounting these days. Without those facts, or with a counter-factual narrative in play, I price it at $0. If you don't like that, you're welcome to hang somewhere else.[/b] Not going anywhere unless banned. You should take your own advice. To save space ,also want to agree with UMass grad, I like Miley. Would have kept him and Lester and let Clay go,
|
|
|
Post by ray88h66 on Mar 26, 2016 17:13:56 GMT -5
I got it, amused at how many didn't, but I miss sarcasm most of the time. Also, dirtywater is getting a lot of heat for talking like a normal fan. Too strong at times ,but rather read him than be lectured to. A veteran of this board with almost 500 posts isn't just a normal fan though. Too strong at times is a huge understatement. If you wanna make bold statements that the masses don't believe get ready for a lecture. You have to understand that dirtywater wants the lectures and likes the back and forth arguments. I get it, he's stirring the pot. He admits it.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,963
|
Post by jimoh on Mar 26, 2016 18:21:29 GMT -5
Tyler Skaggs and Tim Collins also had Tommy John surgery. Neither throw hard or even threw sliders. The thing about Tommy John is that it's unpredictable. .... I had a relative who smoked. She would say that some people smoke for sixty years and it never bothers them, and some people get cancer without ever smoking. Those facts are both true. But her conclusion, that you never know exactly what's going to happen, so why worry?, was not so good. The last ten years of her life were very rough.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Mar 26, 2016 20:10:31 GMT -5
Not everyone comes here to learn and be informed either. That's pretty obvious. Thanks for the effort. Why does everything have to be a conversation where you have to "learn something new" on this forum and not forming your own opinions? The world is filled with objective opinions and deserve to be heard. Wasn't really trying there but thanks for going out of your way to clarify I must of been.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Mar 26, 2016 20:12:20 GMT -5
So you admit I'm right in saying that it's completely unpredictable and then you say it can be predicted? I'm the troll? I'm pointing out the truth. Please explain to me why Tyler Skaggs had Tommy John surgery. He fit none of the criteria of having Tommy John. I think you're completely hung up on a perception that "prediction" is not 100%. We're discussing probabilities. You're obsessed with binary outcome to the point of pathology. You're not pointing out truth, you're pointing out a ridiculously useless observation, which is that post-hoc "prediction" is binary. What I'm saying, and everyone else is, and which you seem unwilling or incapable of grasping, is that **independent** variables are associated with increased injury risk. That's what prediction is about: weighing probabilities. There's no value in predicting the sun will rise tomorrow (but there is value in predicting the possibility that it won't, say, if an asteroid is headed towards the earth). This is just like your response to the thirty or so pitchers I named as late bloomers in the Kelly thread: "but he doesn't have their command!" Well, duh, if he did he would already be good, and most of them didn't until they, you know, bloomed late. Your focus on outliers without "predictors" without simply acknowledging that **multiple data studies including a scientific, peer-reviewed cohort study** show that certain factors are associated with increased TJ surgery risk is mind-boggling. Please, Google "positive and negative predictive value," and learn just this basic understanding of population statistics. You are simply spouting nonsense at this point. It's funny you think I'm spouting non sense when you completely avoided the question I gave you.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Mar 26, 2016 20:13:49 GMT -5
There is no useful information on Tommy John. That's the point. The fact that's there's thousand of articles trying to predict it is a complete waste of anyone's time. No one has a clue. Also notice how Henry Owens struggled bad when he couldn't find the plate with his 90+ mph fastball this spring? It's a direct correlation of him having to be perfect to have even a shot at the big leagues. Joe Kelly still hasn't proven anything outside of this spring training either. When you find a point that I have a bad understanding at, I want you to really point it out because anything I have said isn't totally wrong at least so far. Not everyone comes here to learn and be informed either. Some people like to come here to express their opinions and see what gels and how other Sox fans feel about a similar subject. I come in with a strong statement usually, but most times I'm looking for the good argument to take me a step back and realize that I could be mislead. Other times I'm seeing if other Sox fans see if I feel as strongly as I do on a important subject. I feel as though I brought a couple of subjects at hand that are worth the argument. We will see how it plays out in the next year or so. You come to this conclusion on Henry Owens based on what spring training? Have you not looked at his stats from last year in the majors? Owens in no way needs to be perfect, just not crazy wild. We have seen him go through this before and everytime he bounces back. He just has bouts of wildness, still hasn't stopped him from putting up good stats in minors and majors. Chances are he still makes 10-15 starts in majors this year. Henry Owens lack of a fastball and lack of control stems way beyond spring training numbers but he does have a good chance to see that many starts this year due to injuries.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 26, 2016 20:19:23 GMT -5
To be clear, I just let people say what they're going to say, unless they throw stuff out there that has no factual basis. My lectures at that point are aimed at bringing those facts into play. Talk is very cheap, with even more discounting these days. Without those facts, or with a counter-factual narrative in play, I price it at $0. If you don't like that, you're welcome to hang somewhere else.[/b] Not going anywhere unless banned. You should take your own advice. To save space ,also want to agree with UMass grad, I like Miley. Would have kept him and Lester and let Clay go,[/quote] Some people like to stare opinions based on facts and evidence, some like to state opinions because that's what they think and they have no intention of changing their minds. If you think about it, it's actually the first person who engages in discussion. The latter person is the lecturer, because for them it's a one-way street. No amount of evidence will change their mind. So they just deny the validity of any counterpoint, regardless of how ridiculous or illogical the denial. They will repeat, over and over, an illogical, emotional *belief*, and present it as incontrovertible fact.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Mar 26, 2016 20:22:03 GMT -5
Hanley Ramirez was terrible defensively + ? = LF in Fenway is hard. Think about it I got it, amused at how many didn't, but I miss sarcasm most of the time. Also, dirtywater is getting a lot of heat for talking like a normal fan. Too strong at times ,but rather read him than be lectured to. Wow someone gets me. Thanks for the approval. I do get strong, but it's because I actually care a lot.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Mar 26, 2016 20:34:44 GMT -5
A veteran of this board with almost 500 posts isn't just a normal fan though. Too strong at times is a huge understatement. If you wanna make bold statements that the masses don't believe get ready for a lecture. You have to understand that dirtywater wants the lectures and likes the back and forth arguments. I get it, he's stirring the pot. He admits it. I'm not looking to stir the pot but if I feel strongly about a subject, I will come with my point and be passionate about it. Especially if I SEE it and it's clear to me.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 26, 2016 20:40:45 GMT -5
I think you're completely hung up on a perception that "prediction" is not 100%. We're discussing probabilities. You're obsessed with binary outcome to the point of pathology. You're not pointing out truth, you're pointing out a ridiculously useless observation, which is that post-hoc "prediction" is binary. What I'm saying, and everyone else is, and which you seem unwilling or incapable of grasping, is that **independent** variables are associated with increased injury risk. That's what prediction is about: weighing probabilities. There's no value in predicting the sun will rise tomorrow (but there is value in predicting the possibility that it won't, say, if an asteroid is headed towards the earth). This is just like your response to the thirty or so pitchers I named as late bloomers in the Kelly thread: "but he doesn't have their command!" Well, duh, if he did he would already be good, and most of them didn't until they, you know, bloomed late. Your focus on outliers without "predictors" without simply acknowledging that **multiple data studies including a scientific, peer-reviewed cohort study** show that certain factors are associated with increased TJ surgery risk is mind-boggling. Please, Google "positive and negative predictive value," and learn just this basic understanding of population statistics. You are simply spouting nonsense at this point. It's funny you think I'm spouting non sense when you completely avoided the question I gave you. I presumed your question was rhetorical, because you're going to believe what you believe no matter what I say. But since you asked, NO, I think you're dead wrong. I also think you don't know the distinction the English language makes between "predict" and "guarantee." I think you make a lot of opinionated statements that completely lack any logical rationale. I find it very dull, so I'm just going to accept that that's who you are and spend my time in conversations I enjoy.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Mar 26, 2016 20:42:23 GMT -5
[/b] Not going anywhere unless banned. You should take your own advice. To save space ,also want to agree with UMass grad, I like Miley. Would have kept him and Lester and let Clay go,[/quote] Some people like to stare opinions based on facts and evidence, some like to state opinions because that's what they think and they have no intention of changing their minds. If you think about it, it's actually the first person who engages in discussion. The latter person is the lecturer, because for them it's a one-way street. No amount of evidence will change their mind. So they just deny the validity of any counterpoint, regardless of how ridiculous or illogical the denial. They will repeat, over and over, an illogical, emotional *belief*, and present it as incontrovertible fact.[/quote] I do change my mind on certain things. That's what you don't realize either. Kelly has actually proven me that he actually cares about his job this spring. Not every fact you've have proven is based off fact either. You gave percentages and risk like with the Tommy John argument. Do I realize there's a lot of stress throwing sliders? Of course. I'm not brain dead but I do realize getting injured isn't based off throwing those sliders in the case of fact. Actually it'd be pretty ironic if Carson Smith threw a sinker when he threw his last 2 pitches. How would you even know?
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Mar 26, 2016 20:48:18 GMT -5
It's funny you think I'm spouting non sense when you completely avoided the question I gave you. No, I think you're dead wrong. I also think you don't know the distinction the English language makes between "predict" and "guarantee." I think you make a lot of opinionated statements that completely lack any logical rationale. I also think this, and nearly every, conversation with you is like talking to a wall, which is incredibly dull. I'm dead wrong *yet* you still can't answer the question. Thanks for proving my point.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,963
|
Post by jimoh on Mar 26, 2016 20:54:11 GMT -5
I got it, amused at how many didn't, but I miss sarcasm most of the time. Also, dirtywater is getting a lot of heat for talking like a normal fan. Too strong at times ,but rather read him than be lectured to. Wow someone gets me. Thanks for the approval. I do get strong, but it's because I actually care a lot. Wait, this is now a place for "talking like a normal fan"? Check, please.
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Mar 26, 2016 21:03:05 GMT -5
It is somewhat amusing (disconcerting?) to read all the pedantic critiques of the folly of predicting pitcher injuries (which is not to suggest that the arguments of the other side presented here are not scorn-worthy).
There is certainly no publicly available model that does so with any effective reliability (and if you could provide one, you could become a very rich man; and/or if an extant FO has developed one, they're not telling).
Surely those who have at least a modicum of academic background in statistics are aware that null-hypothesis rejections are fraught (it is trivial in that way to "prove" that somnambulism causes cancer; or is that cancer causes somnabulism?). Any gathering of Bayesians (2 is enough) would be incomplete without more than a tablespoon of scorn for the classicists and their t-tests and p-values and null-hypothesis rejections (clinical studies are especially (justifiably) favorite targets for mockery and derision).
The central point is that we can't as of yet say much more about pitcher injuries than: if X is a pitcher ==> X will suffer injury
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 26, 2016 21:18:30 GMT -5
No, I think you're dead wrong. I also think you don't know the distinction the English language makes between "predict" and "guarantee." I think you make a lot of opinionated statements that completely lack any logical rationale. I also think this, and nearly every, conversation with you is like talking to a wall, which is incredibly dull. I'm dead wrong *yet* you still can't answer the question. Thanks for proving my point. You asked a rhetorical question (I'm presuming you're referencing your "So you admit..." question). You already made up your mind what the answer was. I gave you a detailed explanation of how your presumption was based in a false premise. And I re-explained it here, with brevity. I, and others, have provided multiple examples of why what you're saying is flawed, badly. Maybe you meant something else, hence my distinction between "predict" and "guarantee." If you need to think that that proves whatever point you were trying to make, that's fine, think whatever you like.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 26, 2016 21:34:30 GMT -5
It is somewhat amusing (disconcerting?) to read all the pedantic critiques of the folly of predicting pitcher injuries (which is not to suggest that the arguments of the other side presented here are not scorn-worthy). There is certainly no publicly available model that does so with any effective reliability (and if you could provide one, you could become a very rich man; and/or if an extant FO has developed one, they're not telling). Surely those who have at least a modicum of academic background in statistics are aware that null-hypothesis rejections are fraught (it is trivial in that way to "prove" that somnambulism causes cancer; or is that cancer causes somnabulism?). Any gathering of Bayesians (2 is enough) would be incomplete without more than a tablespoon of scorn for the classicists and their t-tests and p-values and null-hypothesis rejections (clinical studies are especially (justifiably) favorite targets for mockery and derision). The central point is that we can't as of yet say much more about pitcher injuries than: if X is a pitcher ==> X will suffer injury I said as much long ago at the start of this discussion of Smith, with the caveat that there is a substantial, growing body of evidence both associating and correlating UCL injury with FB velocity and high-frequency use of sliders/CB. While the former could potentially (though it would take some contorting) be a chicken-egg phenomenon, the latter is a lot less likely. Pitchers do not throw more sliders because their arm is injured (at least, not over the extended times studied). At some point, it makes sense to start trusting the preponderance of evidence. There will never be an RCT, so cohorts are the best possible evidence. As to when that evidence becomes "compelling" or a "preponderance," that's debatable. I do think it's at the point where we can say "the evidence suggests X has a greater risk of injury than Y because X has risk factors A and B."
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Mar 26, 2016 21:35:07 GMT -5
I'm dead wrong *yet* you still can't answer the question. Thanks for proving my point. You asked a rhetorical question (I'm presuming you're referencing your "So you admit..." question). You already made up your mind what the answer was. I gave you a detailed explanation of how your presumption was based in a false premise. And I re-explained it here, with brevity. I, and others, have provided multiple examples of why what you're saying is flawed, badly. Maybe you meant something else, hence my distinction between "predict" and "guarantee." If you need to think that that proves whatever point you were trying to make, that's fine, think whatever you like. I'm not coming in with a made up mind. I'm open like anyone else. It's everyone else that have made up their minds about the Tommy John articles based on their findings. Plenty of non hard throwing/non slider throwing pitchers have Tommy John surgery. Their false pretenses are based off of someone's findings and want to believe 100% in those findings. I'm saying don't believe everything you read. Brian Johnson had a scare with his elbow. Tyler Skaggs wasn't a hard throwing pitcher. There are plenty of other examples too. I think the original Tommy John wasn't even a hard thrower. I wouldn't know because I wasn't alive back then.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 26, 2016 21:36:40 GMT -5
Wow someone gets me. Thanks for the approval. I do get strong, but it's because I actually care a lot. Wait, this is now a place for "talking like a normal fan"? Check, please. Maybe Boston.com is the new place for rational discussion.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Mar 26, 2016 21:46:53 GMT -5
For the record. I have never called anyone dead wrong here. Usually if you go into a conversation with the pretense of thinking someone else is dead wrong, usually you're the one with the closed mind.
But hey if Fangraphs and other places write about it. It must be 100% accurate.
|
|
|