First Look - At the Plate 2 | Seattle Sports Insider

=== FIZZLER Milton Bradley ===

This is really day trading, but I'm a little anxious about Bradley's power. I'll feel better once he jacks a few. If he's going to.

.............

The way the umpires treat him, makes me genuinely sad. It's going to spoil the games for me, about 40% of the way, each time a plantation umpire makes it a point to break proud Milton to the yoke. I'm not charging racism. I'm charging insensitivity - to Bradley's circumstances and background. Now he has to behave better than everybody else?

Call the game. That's what you're paid to do, ump.

Bradley's livelihood depends on the strike zone ... not sure what you can call, but Fizzler...

.............

Wak was out arguing with the umps quite pointedly. Last year, 2009, he put up with wayyyyyyyy too much abuse from umps who did not take the Seattle Mariners seriously. He figured, he'll put in his rookie year, and then we'll have a gentlemen's understanding.

So far this Spring Training, it's much worse than in 2009. The be-super-nice-to-the-umps backfired in 2009, and it's backfiring again.

It's a problem for the M's. I mean, Wok is who he is, and we respect that. But it's a problemo.

=== FRAZZLER Franklin Gutierrez ===

Fanned a coupla times, but that's just timing.

On TV they said that Guti has gained 10 pounds, without raising bodyfat, except fractionally.

The kid was already capable of going 430 feet, and if he's added upper body, that's pretty interesting, now isn't it.

How such weight would affect his footspeed is another question. Some track guys are faster when they bulk up, such as Ben Johnson. Arm strength can help you stride faster. But other guys get slower. We'll see.

All told, it's great if Gutierrez has become an even better athlete.

=== SIZZLER Jack Wilson ===

I forgot just how take-no-prisoners this man's body language really is. What a gamer. After his early soccer training, baseball must seem like a very safe sport...

Wilson has consistently protested that in 2009, he was thrown off by the league full of new pitchers. He said that quite a few times. And one thing that he does have going for him offensively, is a real good contact rate.

My worry about Wilson has not been that he might be mediocre; my worry is that he might be Cedeno-esque. If he posts an 80 OPS+ in 2010, he's a championship SS, no argument.

=== SIZZLER Rob Johnson ===

Jumped out of his crouch to peel Julio Borbon off the bases like a flippin' banana. (Borbon is the pheenom that Bill James said he likes better than any player of his type since Tim Raines and Rickey Henderson.)

Johnson said on a TV interview he feels good, that his legs "feel free" for the first time in years, and in a jobshare with Adam Moore he might well hold up for 60, 80 games.

The guess around the blog-o-sphere has been, wow, Josh Bard didn't show much, and lost his job. Nada. The M's knew who Bard was before he got here, but Moore and Johnson were the plan all along.

..................

Here's something that really got me: in the Baker interview, James revealed that he lobbied the Red Sox to acquire Rob Johnson, believing that Johnson was going to be one of the AL's top-hitting catchers. James has been surprised by Johnson's lack of development with the bat, but hasn't lost confidence that he'll hit eventually.

On TV tonight, we find out that Johnson just had lasik. Surprise!, says Johnson, it looks weird to see the laces on a pitch....

BABVA,

Dr D

Printer-friendly version

Add new comment

Filed Under

Sports

Wilson

Rob Johnson

Gutierrez

Bradley

Replies

LASIK and Baseball Vision

Dr. B here, an optometrist who loves baseball, and all things related to eyes. Had the pleasure of meeting the two eye docs who performed the study mentioned in the link below, who are working my dream job of working closely with MLB teams for the past 15 years:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16298317

Basic gist states that no significant improvement in performance could be attributed directly to the LASIK procedure compared to wearing glasses or contact lenses. Subsequent studies by Laby and Kirschen have actually demonstrated a decrease in visual function after surgery, and now their reccommendation is to hold off on surgery until your professional playing days are over.

Vision of course is only one part of the equation for a player like RJ, who could stand to make significant strides just by being up with the big club day after day learning what it takes to be a major leaguer. Just thought I'd throw my 2 cents in.

Dr. B

Interesting...but...

...after LASIK, Johnson was actually tested for acuity and his eye doc says he's seeing 20/10 now...which jives with his comments about finally seeing the laces on the ball. If he deteriorates after this point, which is possible, I'm not sure you can blame the LASIK.

It's so arbitrary...

I love that Johnson is now 20/10. For full disclosure I wish all the players on my teams were using AAS, IGF-1, and insulin, for example.
But, how is going from a deficit to above average, and more importantly above what your own abilities would allow from LASIK kosher but other means are "evil". A bit of consistency would garner the PED's=SATAN crowd credibility they currently lack on multiple fronts.

Totally agreed.

I don't see why PEDs are evil but unnaturally gifted sight post-surgery is cool.

Thanks Dr. B

Which leaves the question as this: was Johnson playing both without contacts and without Lasik in 2008-09, leaving his vision at (say) 20/30?

In your experience, is it likely that a hitter is stepping up there with less than 20/20 vision and unaware of his available remedies?

Johnson did say, wow, I can see the laces now, so apparently he perceives an improvement relative to his own recent past -

20/10 vision

The whole subject of optometry could almost be a subject in school :- ) but just real quick Dr. B... Johnson stated that his vision tested as 20/10 after the Lasik.

I'm guessing you could give a contacts prescription that was 20/10, 20/5 or whatever magnification you wanted to... without reading the study above, I assume that the doctors gave whatever prescription they judged best? It wasn't controlled to study a given prescription of 20/20 or whatever?

.............

My first thought would be, if my natural eyes could be corrected to 20/10, that would be much preferable to 20/10 with contacts, just because the contacts move around in your eyes, could give different refractions at changing angles and so forth...

But, as you say, this study got to the bottom line and measured end performance, so if well-designed and with a high coefficient of confidence, then sure...