Concerned?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: Concerned?

    In Response to Re: Concerned?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Concerned? : Pay attention this year. Doctors rarely talk about injuries -- specific injuries on a specific player. Read closely when you're reading about injuries and the news is coming from the manager, GM, player, agent or trainer. You might read the name of the doctor that the player is seeing, but I guarantee that you rarely are reading a quote from the doctor.
    Posted by royf19[/QUOTE]
    Maybe not an exact quote but the gist of what the doctor said about the nature and extent of the injury. No matter who reports the injury or how, it must be OK with the doctor that it's being done. Right, he has no legal or ethical control over how information that he releases is disseminated.  But if really didn't want the information made public, he could advise or caution against its dissemination.
    Maybe the Dodgers hire doctors who are less fastidious or more gabby, but over the years many of them have talked freely and publicly about their athletic patients, probably with permission. Why not give it? Athletes are public performers, in whom fans and others have a proprietary interest, as in paying the freight. It isn't as if a private health secret of a family is being revealed. If the injury or illness to an athlete demands secrecy for any reason, that's another matter. Discretion trumps the public's need to know.


     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: Concerned?

    In Response to Re: Concerned?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Concerned? : Gee Officer Expitch, Gronk you!  ;-)
    Posted by Chilliwings[/QUOTE]
    Eloquent.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from LadyLake. Show LadyLake's posts

    Re: Concerned?

    Smoke screen by expitch. He hopes that Beckett was 100% healthy and that proves to him that Beckett stinks. That is his agenda. He wants no excuses and hopes that there are none because he wishes the worst for Beckett. He prayed prior to every start in Sept. that Beckett would implode. His credibility in the BDC forum is the most important thing, whether the Sox win or lose takes a back seat. Is he a RS fan - I doubt it.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: Concerned?

    In Response to Re: Concerned?:
    [QUOTE]Expitch hates Beckett and his forum reputation based on two years of bashing him is at stake. He actually hopes that Beckett was completely healthy and stunk rather than being injured and having an excuse. He has nothing to support that notion but that doesn't matter to someone whose debate credibility is at stake. Istead it weird that he supposedly a Red Sox fan and hopes that Beckett was healthy so that he can prove that Beckett stunk instead of having an excuse. Everyone is free to debate such a phony if they wish to but another option is to ignore him. Yes there are many who come here to to debate instead of being a Red Sox fan. It is akin to going to church and having to debate heathens. Time to evict the heathens or put onto ignore.
    Posted by LadyLake[/QUOTE]
    What would the heathens be doing in church?

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: Concerned?

    In Response to Re: Concerned?:
    [QUOTE]Smoke screen by expitch. He hopes that Beckett was 100% healthy and that proves to him that Beckett stinks. That is his agenda. He wants no excuses and hopes that there are none because he wishes the worst for Beckett. He prayed prior to every start in Sept. that Beckett would implode. His credibility in the BDC forum is the most important thing, whether the Sox win or lose takes a back seat. Is he a RS fan - I doubt it.
    Posted by LadyLake[/QUOTE]
    No, I prayed that you would go away and stay away. Or stop making a fool of yourself. Fat chance.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chilliwings. Show Chilliwings's posts

    Re: Concerned?

    In Response to Re: Concerned?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Concerned? : Maybe not an exact quote but the gist of what the doctor said about the nature and extent of the injury. No matter who reports the injury or how, it must be OK with the doctor that it's being done. Right, he has no legal or ethical control over how information that he releases is disseminated.  But if really didn't want the information made public, he could advise or caution against its dissemination. Maybe the Dodgers hire doctors who are less fastidious or more gabby, but over the years many of them have talked freely and publicly about their athletic patients, probably with permission. Why not give it? Athletes are public performers, in whom fans and others have a proprietary interest, as in paying the freight. It isn't as if a private health secret of a family is being revealed. If the injury or illness to an athlete demands secrecy for any reason, that's another matter. Discretion trumps the public's need to know.
    Posted by expitch[/QUOTE]

    So to paraphrase your post above, expitch:  "Maybe not an exact quote .... the gist of what the doctor said .... it must be OK with the doctor .... he has no legal or ethical control over how information that he releases is disseminated .... if .... could advise .... or caution .... Maybe .... many of them .... probably with permission .... If ......"

    You will argue that my selective editing above is unfair - though all are your exact words - but I'd argue it just confirms you've built a paper argument to buttress your beliefs/biases.  But logic is useless against someone that doesn't embrace it so I'll leave you with your maybes, gists, must bes, coulds, cautions, manys, probablys and ifs.  Best of luck in the future with them.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chilliwings. Show Chilliwings's posts

    Re: Concerned?

    In Response to Re: Concerned?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Concerned? : Eloquent.
    Posted by expitch[/QUOTE]

    It was obviously a reference to my Gronkowski analogy you chose to ignore.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: Concerned?

    In Response to Re: Concerned?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Concerned? : Let's look at a topical example, though a different sport:  Was Gronk healthy for the SB?  From what I saw, absolutely not.  I think the Pats decided his long-term health wasn't at risk, he might help a bit (really need a 3rd TE!) plus in his case there was a decoy element.  THAT happens all the time.  A terrible example was the Trailblazers ruining Walton's career, but that's another story. September's evidence shows a guy whose performance fell off a cliff the day he left a game injured.  Sure, maybe it's a coincidence....
    Posted by Chilliwings[/QUOTE]
    Doesn't have to be a coincidence. Pitchers get out of sync or lose their concentration or their feel and hit slumps -- bad ones. Or things catch up with them, and they tire early.  There is nothing mysterious about this. It has been known to happen -- early in a season, in mid season, or in late season. Happens to batters too, in case you haven't noticed. It's what makes baseball so unpredictable and, at times, exasperating. Up one day, down the next. Up for a stretch, down for a stretch.
    To guys in tip-top health. 

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: Concerned?

    In Response to Re: Concerned?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Concerned? : Maybe not an exact quote but the gist of what the doctor said about the nature and extent of the injury. No matter who reports the injury or how, it must be OK with the doctor that it's being done. Right, he has no legal or ethical control over how information that he releases is disseminated.  But if really didn't want the information made public, he could advise or caution against its dissemination. Maybe the Dodgers hire doctors who are less fastidious or more gabby, but over the years many of them have talked freely and publicly about their athletic patients, probably with permission. Why not give it? Athletes are public performers, in whom fans and others have a proprietary interest, as in paying the freight. It isn't as if a private health secret of a family is being revealed. If the injury or illness to an athlete demands secrecy for any reason, that's another matter. Discretion trumps the public's need to know.
    Posted by expitch[/QUOTE]

    Bold -- It's not up to the doctor's. That's the point. Doctors probably care less, one way or another, if an injury is made public. They tell the player and the team what is wrong, and it's up to the team and the player what is made public. And for the most part, injuries are made public because of the nature of sports. However, just because a player is a public performer, it doesn't mean that he has no right to any privacy.

    In fact, how often is it that a player's injury, when it's known, isn't made public.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Chilliwings. Show Chilliwings's posts

    Re: Concerned?

    In Response to Re: Concerned?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Concerned? : Doesn't have to be a coincidence. Pitchers get out of sync or lose their concentration or their feel and hit slumps -- bad ones. Or things catch up with them, and they tire early.  There is nothing mysterious about this. It has been known to happen -- early in a season, in mid season, or in late season. Happens to batters too, in case you haven't noticed. It's what makes baseball so unpredictable and, at times, exasperating. Up one day, down the next. Up for a stretch, down for a stretch. To guys in tip-top health. 
    Posted by expitch[/QUOTE]

    Of course slumps happen, but that was obviously not my point.  Was Gronk "healthy" because the Pats played him?  You are claiming Beckett was because the Sox played him.

    Was Gronk "healthy" in the SB in your opinion, or was he just about able to play albeit ineffectively?  Is Gronk a fat, lazy cancer too?
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from LadyLake. Show LadyLake's posts

    Re: Concerned?

    I'm not going to debate someone who hates Beckett andmany other players on the  Red Sox. If Chilli, Notin, and Roy don't realize the futility of it then expitch will always have a podium here for a futile debate. It is a waste of my time.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: Concerned?

    The mention above of Lackey and Crawford deserves separate attention.
    It was reported at least by mid-season that the Sox knew that Lackey would probably need TJ surgery. Thus there was no real risk in pitching him as far as health was concerned. That was not the case with Beckett. If he was thought to be wounded, there was indeed a real risk of further injury.
    When was Crawford's wrist supposedly injured? Is he supposed to have been playing with a bad wrist all year long? If so, is that taken to explain his poor performance? He hasn't said so. Neither has anyone else, as far as I know. 
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: Concerned?

    In Response to Re: Concerned?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Concerned? : So to paraphrase your post above, expitch:  " Maybe not an exact quote .... the gist of what the doctor said .... it must be OK with the doctor .... he has no legal or ethical control over how information that he releases is disseminated .... if .... could advise .... or caution .... Maybe .... many of them .... probably with permission .... If ...... " You will argue that my selective editing above is unfair - though all are your exact words - but I'd argue it just confirms you've built a paper argument to buttress your beliefs/biases.  But logic is useless against someone that doesn't embrace it so I'll leave you with your maybes, gists, must bes, coulds, cautions, manys, probablys and ifs.  Best of luck in the future with them.
    Posted by Chilliwings[/QUOTE]
    Some of my exact words, save that the clausal connections are omitted.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: Concerned?

    So you are acknowedging that Lackey was injured and the Sox felt continued play would not be effected, which may or may not have been true.

    Obviously, similar evaluations were made about Beckett.  The team felt it was not going to impact his performance, or would at least impact it to the point where he was still better than Weiland.  And even then they may not have been right.

    Or I gues there is your theory, that Beckett was a fat lazy slob capable of throwing 173IP in which he had a 2.43ERA and limited opponents to a .203BAA, but then suddenly his poor diet caught up with him immediately and he was incapable of those last 2 outings. 

    Yes, that makes much, much more sense.  Thank you for setting us all straight...

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: Concerned?

    In Response to Re: Concerned?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Concerned? : Bold -- It's not up to the doctor's. That's the point. Doctors probably care less, one way or another, if an injury is made public. They tell the player and the team what is wrong, and it's up to the team and the player what is made public. And for the most part, injuries are made public because of the nature of sports. However, just because a player is a public performer, it doesn't mean that he has no right to any privacy. In fact, how often is it that a player's injury, when it's known, isn't made public.
    Posted by royf19[/QUOTE]
    I cited a case where in fact a player has a right to privacy.
    That's the point. These things are made known routinely, obviously with consent all around, including the doctor's. 

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from LadyLake. Show LadyLake's posts

    Re: Concerned?

    Expitch just admitted that he is devoid of logic. Case closed. I'm out of here.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: Concerned?

    In Response to Re: Concerned?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Concerned? : Of course slumps happen, but that was obviously not my point.  Was Gronk "healthy" because the Pats played him?  You are claiming Beckett was because the Sox played him. Was Gronk "healthy" in the SB in your opinion, or was he just about able to play albeit ineffectively?  Is Gronk a fat, lazy cancer too?
    Posted by Chilliwings[/QUOTE]
    Oh, my, you're losing it. I said nothing about Beckett being a "fat, lazy cancer."
    I  said -- and still say -- that the Sox pitched him because all indications were that he could perform well and that his long-term health was not at risk. 

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: Concerned?

    In Response to Re: Concerned?:
    [QUOTE]So you are acknowedging that Lackey was injured and the Sox felt continued play would not be effected, which may or may not have been true. Obviously, similar evaluations were made about Beckett.  The team felt it was not going to impact his performance, or would at least impact it to the point where he was still better than Weiland.  And even then they may not have been right. Or I gues there is your theory, that Beckett was a fat lazy slob capable of throwing 173IP in which he had a 2.43ERA and limited opponents to a .203BAA, but then suddenly his poor diet caught up with him immediately and he was incapable of those last 2 outings.  Yes, that makes much, much more sense.  Thank you for setting us all straight...
    Posted by notin[/QUOTE]
    You're losing it, just like chili.
    I have said nothing about a "fat, lazy slob" or about his diet. I have said -- and still say -- that he might have hit a slump at the worst time for the club. Please do not assign to me theories that I have not stated. You're getting too excited. Chill out. Limp sarcasm or forced humor ( Beckett's unferile ankle ) is the last resort of the vanquished.
    No, there is a difference. The Sox knew that Lackey was headed for surgery and were trying to get all they could out of him in the meantime. The Sox had no such knowledge about Beckett, and would not have pitched him if they had even the slightest notion that he would aggravate an injury -- and also require surgery that could not only finish his season but also jeopardize his future.


     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: Concerned?

    In Response to Re: Concerned?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Concerned? : Oh, my, you're losing it. I said nothing about Beckett being a "fat, lazy cancer." I  said -- and still say -- that the Sox pitched him because all indications were that he could perform well and that his long-term health was not at risk. 
    Posted by expitch[/QUOTE]

    Oddly, I don't agree with that statement, however, that does not mean the statement was a correct medical evaluation.

    Also, you have repeatedly denied Beckett ever hurt his ankle in the first place, despite numerous articles/passages/tweets cited to you claiming the contrary.

    As has been said before numerous times, players do play hurt.  And sometimes, it is becuase the team did not properly diagnose the injury, or becuase it felt fine at the beginning of the day but was aggravated as the game wore on.  These are not novelties, and certainly a strong possiblity with Beckett.  However, you have repeatedly denied that it is even possible for any of this.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from law2009a. Show law2009a's posts

    Re: Concerned?

    m
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from expitch. Show expitch's posts

    Re: Concerned?

    In Response to Re: Concerned?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Concerned? : Oddly, I don't agree with that statement, however, that does not mean the statement was a correct medical evaluation. Also, you have repeatedly denied Beckett ever hurt his ankle in the first place, despite numerous articles/passages/tweets cited to you claiming the contrary. As has been said before numerous times, players do play hurt.  And sometimes, it is becuase the team did not properly diagnose the injury, or becuase it felt fine at the beginning of the day but was aggravated as the game wore on.  These are not novelties, and certainly a strong possiblity with Beckett.  However, you have repeatedly denied that it is even possible for any of this.
    Posted by notin[/QUOTE]
    I have referred to Beckett's "injury."  For goodness sake, everyone knows that he was removed from a game because something went wrong. I have never denied that. After that is where the real issue begins. Of course, players play hurt, a condition normally referred to as "dinged up," not flattened or nearly incapacitated. ( They came close with Lowell, but he wasn't a pitcher. Pitchers are a different kettle of fish. )  It's pretty clear the Sox finally decided that Beckett's injury was no more serious than that. 
    Was Beckett removed from any of the games after his return because the problem became more aggravated as the game wore on?  Not that anyone has said. He was removed because he was not effective. The ankle must have been checked between starts. Good to go. Out he went for his next start, from which he was not removed because his ankle acted up, or we would have heard about it. And so on. 
    The handling of the case by the Sox indicates that the club believed the injury to be minor and not likely to affect the man's performance. They sent him out, it has been said, because they were growing desperate to win the wild card and figured even hobbled he would do better than the others who were available. Quite apart from the possibility of further complications, a pitcher hobbled, no matter how good normally, is liable to get lit up, owing to adjustments and distractions that can take him down several notches. Delicate business, that pitching. ( See Dizzy Dean. )  They took proper precautions by holding him out of two starts, and probably had him wear a brace and tape just to be sure. The latter is standard procedure. You should know that, given all the time you've spent in ML locker rooms and club houses. It does not mean that the club thought the player close to hamperingly injured; it is to prevent injury where one, even a minor one, once existed.
    Our perspectives differ. I think that the stronger possibility is that a Beckett quite healthy enough to perform close to par hit a slump. You see it otherwise.
    Done. 

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from UticaClub. Show UticaClub's posts

    Re: Concerned?

    In Response to Re: Concerned?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Concerned? : My motive is hardly mysterious. I am after the truth. Your definition of a Red Sox fan is a credulous fool who can abide no criticism of anyone on the team. Or even hard-headed analysis. My "solid evidence" is that the Sox pitched Beckett. There is no evidence whatsoever that he was hampered physically by a bad ankle. Beckett's record in September is not a matter of "speculation."
    Posted by expitch[/QUOTE]

    Yes there was. About 20 links were posted that he was diagnosed with a sprained ankle and then you moved the goalposts. Typical.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from UticaClub. Show UticaClub's posts

    Re: Concerned?

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from kimsaysthis. Show kimsaysthis's posts

    Re: Concerned?

    In Response to Re: Concerned?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Concerned? : [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Concerned? : With all the patchwork that needed to be done to the starting rotation, do you really believe that Beckett would have been kept out of a game because of pain in his ankle at the end of the season when the team was trying to make the playoffs? Posted by kimsaysthis[/QUOTE Pain in the ankle of the push-off foot is a sign of weakness and vulnerability. It would also be a distraction and could cause a pitcher to hurry his delivery. I doubt that Beckett would have been cleared to go if that had been the case. The Sox still expected to make the playoffs, where Beckett would really be needed. Why out him out the injured and risk losing him for the rest of the year?
    Posted by expitch[/QUOTE]

    There were a lot of questionable moves by the medical staff IMO, and a lot of it has been discussed on this board. I'm not sure all their decisions were for the benefit of the player as opposed to the benefit of the team. You can also link that to the problems with the starting rotation and who was available to fill in, which may have been their main concern.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from UticaClub. Show UticaClub's posts

    Re: Concerned?

    Expitch forgets what he said every hour. It is tough to debate amyone who can't recall what he just insisted was true and then changes his mind. Let the old coot be.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share