I'm not trying to be snarky, unfair, or irritable.
But Will Carroll is considered, by sportswriters and sabermetricans, to be a "baseball injury expert." His articles are punctuated with anatomical explanations of injuries, implying that his understanding of human anatomy equips him to provide better prognoses than you or I.
Is this wise? Does that qualify Carroll to offer prognoses, that he counts up recovery rates based on his own arbitrary study criteria, mixes in his own knowledge of the human body, and has talked to doctors?
Would a surgeon at the UW take Carroll's prognoses seriously?
...............
Will Carroll is a very fine analyst. I'm just wondering whether our saber community is on solid ground, taking whichever sabe knows the most about subject X, and declaring that sabe an expert on subject X.
................
I'm not trying to be critical. I'm asking a question. Is it a good idea to consider Will Carroll an authority on these medical issues?
Article out today pronounces Erik Bedard, dead, referencing this article that declares Bedard-types to have "a 3% chance of becoming Rocky Biddle."
Um, no.
A 3% chance of becoming almost worthless, and a 97% chance of becoming totally worthless. Then what's this? Gil Meche had a badly torn labrum in 2001, among several other serious problems.
The surgery was NOT successful on Meche. He went back, IIRC, 6-8 months later, and had the shoulder re-done. Along with the labrum they repaired at least two other problems, although I forget what they were.
Gil didn't have a 3% chance of becoming almost worthless, and a 97% chance of becoming totally worthless. He returned to 100% form and then some -- he pitched better after the surgery than before, and threw as hard after as he did before.
....................
Roger Clemens had catastrophic shoulder surgery early in his career -- a rotator cuff, which at the time was considered a death sentence.
.....................
A torn labrum is the last thing a pitcher wants, unless it's a rotator cuff, but it's not a death sentence.
And that's one more example of why you don't want to follow a guy when he says ...
"Of 36 pitchers diagnosed (who counted the 36?!)
in the last five years (why should five years be the golden milestone and why does Meche not count?!)
returned to their previous levels (who judges the return? Does a 117 ERA+ compared to a 121 previous norm mean you failed?)"
I learned to stop taking "name" writers as gospel long ago. How do I know whether their mini-"studies" are edited and massaged to exaggerate their points?
The article was written in 2004. I notice that Meche was included in the group of pitchers who died under labrum surgery. At the time the article was written, the implication was that Gil Meche was done.
......................
Another issue is, how torn is torn? I know for a fact that a doctor, told that Bedard is having labrum surgery and that he can't possibly come back, would ask this question first: "What degree is the tear?"
Bedard's tear escaped detection by Dr. Lewis Yocum. Do you suppose that means it's a complete tear? Bedard was throwing 92 mph with this tear. Does that mean it's an 80% tear?
If the tear is (say) 15%, why compare the prognosis to that of a man with a 70% tear? You don't.
......................
Another issue is, what is the state-of-the-art? Medical technology is a moving target. Can you compare a prognosis for 2009 with a prognosis back in 2005?
...................
Richie Sexson had labrum and rotator-cuff surgery and we were all assured that the Mariners had committed a horrific medical blunder in re-signing him. He was actually coming off surgery when he signed with the Mariners.
The opinions of the surgeons who passed him on his pre-contract physical were considered much less seriously than the opinions of the bloggers who tried to count the BABIP's on hitters who'd had the surgery.
Richie, of course, had zero shoulder issues after the surgery, hitting 39 homers in Safeco the season after his surgery, and experiencing zero problems after.
We don't get to go back and say, "But he wasn't a pitcher!", because at the time we were dogmatically proclaiming the effects of labrum tears on hitters' power. So what are we proclaiming now?
....................
The bloggers pronounced Sexson a writeoff. The doctors said he was fine. You'll forgive me if I ignore the bloggers, and listen to the doctors, as to Erik Bedard's prognosis.
.......................
You don't want major shoulder surgery, that's for sure. But a 3% chance to come back? And even then your upside is Rocky Biddle?
Reality check time, babe. I'll wait for the doctors' prognoses.
.
=== UPDATE Dept. ===
We wrote the above after reading the first paragraph of the local article and clicking over to the Slate article and reading all of that.
Returning to the local article, we see that one of the readers pointed out Brandon Webb, and Carroll's later medical opinion :- \ that technology has indeed advanced and that prognoses are not as dire.
The local article links to this article that points out Schilling and Carpenter as other examples of successful labrum surgeries.
So, that's commendable moderation after-the-fact.
Which leaves us back at home plate. I want to hear what a surgeon says about Bedard's future.
BABVA,
Dr D
Comments
If you were Erik Bedard, how would you feel about an article that says "I hope that you realize that you are done as a pitcher", immediately following an article that says "I hope you realize that the severity of your injury is your own moral failing"?
Do the local writers have blank checks to stomp the ballplayers with sharpened cleats, as many times as they like?
I don't have anything against this particular writer, but this personal vendetta is pretty off-putting.
Doc, I had read those blog pieces by Stone as well. Regarding the labrum injuries article, I think it was just poor journalism, though I suppose the poor quality could have been intentional to get in a dig at Bedard. I don't think it is likely, but it's certainly possible.
Regarding the "I hope you realize that the severity of your injury is your own moral failing" article, I hadn't gotten that impression when I read it, so I re-read the piece and still don't see it that way.
Let me ask you a hypothetical question. Is it not plausible that pitching with a minor injury could lead to a more severe injury that would not have happened with appropriate rest and rehabilitation? Why would asking such a question be out of bounds or indicative of a vendetta? If Stone has a vendetta against Erik, why make the following points:
I actually feel sorry for Bedard on a human level. There's no doubt his injuries were legitimate, and I'm not one of those who question his heart or his commitment or anything like that. He had a bum shoulder. It happens to pitchers all the time.
And...
I do admire Bedard's determination, and I'm sure that his motivation in staying quiet was simply to try to help the team as long as he could. No question he felt the burden of being the guy for whom the Mariners paid such a high price in hopes he would pitch them into the postseason. He was also no doubt aware that he had the reputation as being injury prone, and bailing out after 100 pitches. It's understandable that he tried to gut it out.
I would agree with you if the article read like, "No offense intended, but...," since that is not other than an admission of rudeness to follow. But that is not the tone I am reading and that is not Stone's MO in my experience.
Certainly Stone's questions are legitimate, in a vacuum.
Of course a pitcher can be courageous/dumb and hurt himself. Asking whether that's what happened is, in principle, fair.
I'm thinking more of the pattern over a period of time.
................
When Stone says "I actually feel sorry for Bedard on a human level," I take that as a small attempt to buffer all of the other hostility. You know the drill: "In a way I hope that Carl Everett can find peace in his personal life." with the latent idea being, "This man has been a nightmare for our city and aren't we glad the nightmare's over. But don't get the idea that I'm a hater."
The first two paragraphs of the article are typical of what he, and other media personalities, have been burying Erik Bedard in since he got here.
.................
But, I allow for the possibility that perhaps you're right and there's no anti-Bedard agenda, either there or anywhere else in Seattle. Your own interpretation of Stone's last couple of articles is, to me, a piece of evidence towards that possiblity.
From Stone:
"The article is from 2004, but I don't think much has changed from a medical standpoint."
If there is a flaw in his piece, it's that. He shouldn't just assume that nothing has changed in five years - even in a blog post. Stone is better than this but he was sloppy on this one.
Using a 2004 article (Slate) to analyze recovery from labrum surgery is akin to using a 2004 article to analyze a mobile phone's ability to stream video. Five years is a loooooooong time in a market that is being changed by innovative technology. I can imagine reading an article written in 2004 about cell phones and their inadequacy to handle streaming video. Doesn't mean that article would have any validity in 2009, other than as a historical place marker.
Just imagine the difference in the diagnostic equipment that was used on Ryan Anderson vs Gil Meche vs Eric Bedard. Tons of technological innovation in that span, 2001-2009. Think about the PC you used in 2001. Or the cell phone. It's pretty safe to say that medical innovation - particularly in medical instrumentation - has been just about as dramatic.
Bias or just bad journalism?
Is pretty suggestive.
Three years ago, we bought a TV for $3,000 that supposedly cost $30,000 (!) eighteen months before that. Now it's $900 or something.
You add up the advances in instrumentation ... the advances in treatment ... the difference in degree in tear (15% vs 70% or whatever) ... and the arbitrary way that the 3% figure was counted up ...
It all comes back to the same thing. It's the doctors we'll want to listen to on Bedard.
A DOCTOR from 2004 wouldn't be able to make a prognosis on a 2009 patient.