|
Post by dirtywater43 on Mar 27, 2016 14:32:14 GMT -5
That has absolutely nothing to do with your assertion that there is no possible way to predict who is more likely to need TJS because of a few examples you came up with. I really don't know what you're even looking for then. More examples of pitchers who didn't throw a lot of sliders or didn't throw hard? Do you want me to find articles supporting my argument? Because I bet they are out there in my favor too.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 27, 2016 14:36:23 GMT -5
That has absolutely nothing to do with your assertion that there is no possible way to predict who is more likely to need TJS because of a few examples you came up with. I really don't know what you're even looking for then. More examples of pitchers who didn't throw a lot of sliders or didn't throw hard? Do you want me to find articles supporting my argument? Because I bet they are out there in my favor too. Either do your own detailed analysis or shut up. You have no point worth making. It's like saying "Einstein's theory of relativity is full of crap", without saying why. If you don't want to do a detailed analysis, simply putting up one post saying "I don't think I buy that detailed analysis." would be a lot better than going on for 4 pages without any substance other than "I don't believe anything but my own opinion." You are allowed to be wrong. I'll think more of you when you realize that.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Mar 27, 2016 15:11:21 GMT -5
I really don't know what you're even looking for then. More examples of pitchers who didn't throw a lot of sliders or didn't throw hard? Do you want me to find articles supporting my argument? Because I bet they are out there in my favor too. Either do your own detailed analysis or shut up. You have no point worth making. It's like saying "Einstein's theory of relativity is full of crap", without saying why. If you don't want to do a detailed analysis, simply putting up one post saying "I don't think I buy that detailed analysis." would be a lot better than going on for 4 pages without any substance other than "I don't believe anything but my own opinion." You are allowed to be wrong. I'll think more of you when you realize that. "According to the Verducci Effect, teams needed only to avoid extending their young pitchers to maximize their odds of staying healthy. My model doesn't offer as much comfort. Once a pitcher is damaged, he's damaged goods. And it's not like you can tell a pitcher not to throw another pitch; that's what pitchers do. And sometimes they get hurt. That's life." "Injury history was still the top predictor, along with raw number of pitches thrown, and as you might expect, having a previous injury or being older made things somewhat worse." deadspin.com/5985013/time-to-retire-the-verducci-effect-what-really-predicts-pitcher-injuriesIt only took me ten minutes to find this article and he really emphasizes my point all along. Smith had no injuries last year. No mention of sliders in here.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,962
|
Post by jimoh on Mar 27, 2016 15:29:47 GMT -5
Either do your own detailed analysis or shut up. You have no point worth making. It's like saying "Einstein's theory of relativity is full of crap", without saying why. If you don't want to do a detailed analysis, simply putting up one post saying "I don't think I buy that detailed analysis." would be a lot better than going on for 4 pages without any substance other than "I don't believe anything but my own opinion." You are allowed to be wrong. I'll think more of you when you realize that. "According to the Verducci Effect, teams needed only to avoid extending their young pitchers to maximize their odds of staying healthy. My model doesn't offer as much comfort. Once a pitcher is damaged, he's damaged goods. And it's not like you can tell a pitcher not to throw another pitch; that's what pitchers do. And sometimes they get hurt. That's life." "Injury history was still the top predictor, along with raw number of pitches thrown, and as you might expect, having a previous injury or being older made things somewhat worse." deadspin.com/5985013/time-to-retire-the-verducci-effect-what-really-predicts-pitcher-injuriesIt only took me ten minutes to find this article and he really emphasizes my point all along. Smith had no injuries last year. No mention of sliders in here. So an article that doesn't look at whether there's a connection between sliders and injury is proof that there is no connection between sliders and injury. Ok then.
|
|
|
Post by fenwaythehardway on Mar 27, 2016 15:47:00 GMT -5
LOL at this four page discussion of a simple, established correlation.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 27, 2016 16:00:09 GMT -5
We could all make a pact to never reply.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 27, 2016 16:08:59 GMT -5
We could all make a pact to never reply. That's my current approach. I'll just leave this here, though ("arguments from ignorance" is of special interest in this instance) en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Mar 27, 2016 16:13:13 GMT -5
"According to the Verducci Effect, teams needed only to avoid extending their young pitchers to maximize their odds of staying healthy. My model doesn't offer as much comfort. Once a pitcher is damaged, he's damaged goods. And it's not like you can tell a pitcher not to throw another pitch; that's what pitchers do. And sometimes they get hurt. That's life." "Injury history was still the top predictor, along with raw number of pitches thrown, and as you might expect, having a previous injury or being older made things somewhat worse." deadspin.com/5985013/time-to-retire-the-verducci-effect-what-really-predicts-pitcher-injuriesIt only took me ten minutes to find this article and he really emphasizes my point all along. Smith had no injuries last year. No mention of sliders in here. So an article that doesn't look at whether there's a connection between sliders and injury is proof that there is no connection between sliders and injury. Ok then. He disapproves of Verducci's theory who is one of the lead guy's in trying to predict Tommy John. This person in theory has said that there was nothing to worry about with Carson Smith up UNTIL this injury, especially considering he had a full season last year.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 27, 2016 16:15:41 GMT -5
Since there is absolutely no way to predict who needs TJS, there is an equal chance that both I and Carson Smith will need it.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Mar 27, 2016 16:22:38 GMT -5
Since there is absolutely no way to predict who needs TJS, there is an equal chance that both I and Carson Smith will need it. I'm sure you use your arm a lot less. So no. We are obviously talking about a appedemic among all qualifying pitchers.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 27, 2016 16:30:36 GMT -5
Either do your own detailed analysis or shut up. You have no point worth making. It's like saying "Einstein's theory of relativity is full of crap", without saying why. If you don't want to do a detailed analysis, simply putting up one post saying "I don't think I buy that detailed analysis." would be a lot better than going on for 4 pages without any substance other than "I don't believe anything but my own opinion." You are allowed to be wrong. I'll think more of you when you realize that. "According to the Verducci Effect, teams needed only to avoid extending their young pitchers to maximize their odds of staying healthy. My model doesn't offer as much comfort. Once a pitcher is damaged, he's damaged goods. And it's not like you can tell a pitcher not to throw another pitch; that's what pitchers do. And sometimes they get hurt. That's life." "Injury history was still the top predictor, along with raw number of pitches thrown, and as you might expect, having a previous injury or being older made things somewhat worse." deadspin.com/5985013/time-to-retire-the-verducci-effect-what-really-predicts-pitcher-injuriesIt only took me ten minutes to find this article and he really emphasizes my point all along. Smith had no injuries last year. No mention of sliders in here. Buchholz hasn't needed TJS, so therefore that entire study is worthless.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Mar 27, 2016 16:33:29 GMT -5
"According to the Verducci Effect, teams needed only to avoid extending their young pitchers to maximize their odds of staying healthy. My model doesn't offer as much comfort. Once a pitcher is damaged, he's damaged goods. And it's not like you can tell a pitcher not to throw another pitch; that's what pitchers do. And sometimes they get hurt. That's life." "Injury history was still the top predictor, along with raw number of pitches thrown, and as you might expect, having a previous injury or being older made things somewhat worse." deadspin.com/5985013/time-to-retire-the-verducci-effect-what-really-predicts-pitcher-injuriesIt only took me ten minutes to find this article and he really emphasizes my point all along. Smith had no injuries last year. No mention of sliders in here. Buchholz hasn't needed TJS, so therefore that entire study is worthless. Wait is that your opinion and not fact here? This isn't allowed as I have been told here many times.
|
|
|
Post by pokeyreesespieces on Mar 27, 2016 16:53:42 GMT -5
Since there is absolutely no way to predict who needs TJS, there is an equal chance that both I and Carson Smith will need it. This might be the dumbest thing I've read in this thread. Is this sarcasm? (I hope)
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Mar 27, 2016 17:11:25 GMT -5
Since there is absolutely no way to predict who needs TJS, there is an equal chance that both I and Carson Smith will need it. This might be the dumbest thing I've read in this thread. Is this sarcasm? (I hope) You should read more of this board, then
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 27, 2016 18:20:12 GMT -5
Since there is absolutely no way to predict who needs TJS, there is an equal chance that both I and Carson Smith will need it. This might be the dumbest thing I've read in this thread. Is this sarcasm? (I hope) I'm mocking.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 27, 2016 18:20:49 GMT -5
Buchholz hasn't needed TJS, so therefore that entire study is worthless. Wait is that your opinion and not fact here? This isn't allowed as I have been told here many times. No, it's your logic.
|
|
|
Post by dirtywater43 on Mar 27, 2016 18:49:02 GMT -5
Wait is that your opinion and not fact here? This isn't allowed as I have been told here many times. No, it's your logic. It's not my logic because Buchholz has had a history of injuries, even without Tommy John.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 27, 2016 19:07:13 GMT -5
We could all make a pact to never reply. Taking my advice now. Please someone ban me if I ever go back on this.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Mar 27, 2016 19:40:44 GMT -5
Can't copy and paste on tablet but search for the fangraph piece called Jarrod Parker on Tommy John surgery and sliders. It's a good read. My biggest take away is that pitchers coming back from Tommy John surgery throw less sliders then before, and sliders is only pitch that decreases after surgery.
|
|
|
Post by jodyreidnichols on Mar 28, 2016 9:26:11 GMT -5
How would you know? You're not looking at it. The day someone/anyone predicts injuries, tell them to buy me a powerball ticket. Predicting when and the exact type of injury? Sure but pointing out that certain players are more prone for certain kinds of injuries, absolutely. You can keep your head in the sand here but it can and has been done. I in fact pointed out that Pedroia for more basic reasons such as his style of play, body size, age and history of injuries all combined to make him more injury prone. I've been right about it for several years now. When we traded for Smith, I was a fan of Miley and believe to many here underrated his actual value however Smith was likely partly available because it was suggested that because of his mechanics or repertoire (don't remember which was stated) he was an injury risk. A rookie pitcher even as a reliever who was as dominant as he was who will be making at/near the league minimum and under control for 5 years do not become available unless there is some kind of risk attached. Even if he misses a year and has TJ at some point I'd still have made the trade. He has the potential to be a dominant closer even if that chance does not come for several years.
|
|
|
Post by thursty on Mar 28, 2016 9:51:43 GMT -5
And of course you were right about Altuve as well.
|
|
|
Post by telson13 on Mar 28, 2016 10:43:51 GMT -5
In addition to the "fallacies of reason Wiki," I'm going to drop this little GB Shaw tidbit in here for those about to re-enter the fray: "Never wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty and the pig likes it."
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,908
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 29, 2016 0:06:08 GMT -5
In addition to the "fallacies of reason Wiki," I'm going to drop this little GB Shaw tidbit in here for those about to re-enter the fray: "Never wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty and the pig likes it." Yeah, but if you get to watch a trainwreck while you wrestle, it's hard to resist.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 29, 2016 9:41:08 GMT -5
I guess the one thing I disagree with on the Carson Smith injury is the word fact. I'm not so sure it's quite at fact status that sliders lead to a higher likelihood of TJS. Maybe for arguments sake there's not a better word to use. Facts are indisputable. Facts aren't theories that people have backed up with some data.
I'm not saying I don't believe that throwing sliders may lead to increased injury risk for certain pitchers. But I don't believe that to be a fact at this point.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,908
|
Post by ericmvan on Mar 29, 2016 10:25:26 GMT -5
I guess the one thing I disagree with on the Carson Smith injury is the word fact. I'm not so sure it's quite at fact status that sliders lead to a higher likelihood of TJS. Maybe for arguments sake there's not a better word to use. Facts are indisputable. Facts aren't theories that people have backed up with some data. I'm not saying I don't believe that throwing sliders may lead to increased injury risk for certain pitchers. But I don't believe that to be a fact at this point. We don't have a good pair of words in the English language to distinguish between facts like "Albany is the capital of NY state" and "global warming is real." It takes a phrase to fully characterize the latter. And where would you place the fact "Obama was born in the U.S."? That's an indisputable fact that some people dispute. It is a pure fact any unbiased observer looking at the available data will find a correlation between throwing more sliders and greater frequency of elbow injury, and a pure fact that any unbiased medical expert will regard a causal connection as perfectly credible, and be able to explain why. The phrase we want to substitute for "fact" here is thus something like "apparent truth, derived from a theory that is both a priori credible scientifically, and well supported by data." And that's why people use "fact" instead. But I think I may start using "truth."
|
|