ptatc
-
Posts
18,396 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by ptatc
-
-
57 minutes ago, nrockway said:
normal humans don't talk that way but I would hope my doctor uses objective criteria to measure how my treatment is progressing and not use meaningless and arbitrary shorthand analogies for the sake of 'communication'. There's a difference between "your cancer is 90% cured" and "your cancerous tumor has reduced in size by 90%". So I'll ask again, how does one determine the difference between "he's running at 80%" and "he's running at 90%" in order to make the assessment that Robert is ready to resume normal baseball activities? why is 90% the medically-sound cutoff point and not 93.6%? Yeah medicine isn't an exact science but it also isn't an exercise in writing marketing copy. And yes this is the non-MD manager relaying information to the media, but I think there's a pretty strong basis to question whether or not this team's medical staff isn't just practicing quackery.
You are talking about 2 very different things healing cancer can be quantified by imaging such as MRI or VY scans.
Trying to quantify how hard someone is running can only be determined by the athlete. Your 70% effort is different than someone else's 70%. The full quote would probably be, he can run 80% without pain. That is slightly more objective but pain is also subjective from one person to another.
-
38 minutes ago, Paulie4Pres said:
If you asked me to run 80% I would have absolutely no idea how the f*** to do that. The same goes for 90%. How could you quantify a 10% increase in your "running effort"? This is just fucking nonsense.
Athletes are asked to do it all the time for training. You don't train everyday at 100%. You need to adjust your effort each time to train properly.
Even recreational runners learn their pace and effort to adjust daily workouts.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, nrockway said:
Any MDs here? Is there some actual way to quantify the difference between "running at 80%" and "running at 90%" or is it arbitrary bro-science that gets players injured and re-injured? Bulls just s%*#-canned their "Director of Performance Health", ostensibly for mismanaging Lonzo Ball's injury for the last decade, maybe the Sox should follow suit.
Not a doctor but have worked with athletes for 30 some years.
They can do it by watching the time and checking his time to first base when healthy. This is usually the final step though.
Right now it's probably more the athletes reported level of exertion.
There is only so much that the medical staff can do. As much as we try with research there is a reason they say practice of medicine. Everyone's anatomy and physiology can vary. We can talk about averages and likelihood of injury and healing but the athletes anatomy, genetics and their own effort/work all play a significant part.
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, joejoesox said:
if it was the S&C staff,why is it just these 3 guys getting the same injuries multiple times a year. its the players in this case. the trainers cant force these 3 guys to do the proper stretches.
Not stretching, off season training is the issue, I think.
-
2
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, JoeC said:
Sorry to see Yoan go down for so long.
RE: training for athletics vs. aesthetics… there was some article / video I saw a few years ago where they pitted power lifters and bodybuilders against I believe the NFL combine.
It was either in the first or second 40-yard sprint that the first bodybuilder went down.
What it came down to, broadly speaking, was the lack of training of your nervous system that occurs when doing athletic activities. If you’re just training for aesthetics, you’re frequently isolating muscles, rather than chaining together complex movements. By NOT training your muscles to work together (like in olympic power lifting, sprinting, etc.), you’re opening yourself up for having your muscles misfiring / mis-timing their movements, which can exacerbate your injury outlook, especially when you don’t give your muscles an nerves a chance to warm up.
This is why you see more dynamic stretching and warm-ups taking place (the days of static stretching being standard “warm-up” are long gone), and this is why you see stationary bikes on NFL sidelines. You want to activate the muscle chains and neural paths along the muscle groups, and you want to keep them warm and activated so that they don’t crumple like a pile of bricks 10 steps down the field.
I’ll let our resident expert @ptatc fact check me here, but the above is my understanding and working theory of “common” practices these days.
This is accurate especially with the warm-ups. Research shows that one of the most sure ways to injure a muscle is to do passive stretching. Hence the dynamic warm-ups you described.
I don't think any of these issues is related to the in season activities. It's all about what type of training they are doing in the off season. Similar to what you described. What are you training for, strength is great but there needs to be functionality. A basic principle od training is SAID, Specific Adaptation to Imposed Demands. If you don't train for explosive running out of the box, your body won't be able to handle it.
-
1
-
1
-
-
58 minutes ago, fathom said:
Don’t forget Hawk blaming the agents
There is something to be said for this in a contract year. They will push it more than a player with a guaranteed contract.
-
1 hour ago, Sleepy Harold said:
This could very well mean we've seen the last of Moncada as a member of the White Sox.
Holy crap. He must have a grade 3 tear. The particular muscle here is a big issue. If it's the adductor magnus or one of the bigger ones, he should heal fine but could be a long term issue. Similar to Robert and the hip flexor.
However if it's the adductor longus, a muscle that is long a relatively thin, that may not heal well at all. He will still have good function but could decrease the strength and change lateral movement. Could be really significant for a 3B.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
10 hours ago, ron883 said:
Is this something that can be a reoccurring issue due to the previous complete tear?
It's possible. The amount of scar tissue will impact both the flexibility and the ability of the muscle to generate force. It's impossible to tell unless you feel the muscle or look at imaging but it's a good possibility.
-
4 hours ago, baseball_gal_aly said:
Probably accurate. 6 weeks of healing then ramping up. They will be cautious due to the previous one and this being a lost season anyways. Sounds like it's a high end grade 2 then.
Probably an early June return.
-
1
-
-
14 hours ago, Lip Man 1 said:
DVS quoted Robert as saying the injury is to the same muscle but in a different area. I don't know if that makes any difference.
Not surprised as the previous spot is probably locked with scar tissue. The overall flexibility of it is decreased due to the previous one.
-
19 hours ago, Sambuca said:
They were both strains of the hip flexor, but in 2021 it completely ripped off the bone and he was on the ground in excruciating pain.
This isn’t good, but it’s definitely not as severe of a strain. Not sure what that means in terms of recovering time and whatnot though.
In 2021, he tore the muscle in the midsubstance not from the bone. That's why there was no surgery. It would have been easier if he would have avulsed it.
This is probably a 6 week injury. They may be more cautious due to the history of injuring the same muscle.
-
1
-
-
On 3/27/2024 at 11:18 PM, WhiteSox2023 said:
It’s gotta be photoshopped, right?
No, it's just an elbow superficial bursitis. He hit it on something. It's all external to the joint. They will drain it and it will be fine. I've seen them the size of a baseball.
-
Just now, Tony said:
And if we’re only going off of actual results, which is what you seem to be basing your entire argument around…the clubhouse was a disaster last year, they were fundamentally flawed and there was nearly zero player improvement, the team regressed in almost every way.
And you have the balls to call Sox fans “impatient?” They haven’t won a playoff series in 18 years. They play in BY FAR the largest market in the AL Central, yet are the only team in the division that hasn’t won a playoff series in that long. And Sox fans are impatient?
Respectfully, get fucked.
Thank you, I appreciate the sentiment. That's pretty aggressive language when answering someone's opinion. And obviously you have no respect for me so that Wil be the end of it.
I'm am willing to give the new FO a chance, you are under no obligation to.
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, fathom said:
It’s an amazing deal for the Cubs, especially if the rumor is true they want to go after Alonso next offseason.
Yes, it's great if they are only looking for one year and he's good.
If he sucks they are stuck for 2 more years with him and if they sign Alonso I'm not sure where bellinger will play. The OF is set and with Alonso at first there aren't many options.
-
2 minutes ago, ChiSox59 said:
Benintendi was worth 2 WAR than Bellinger from 20-22. I’d rather have Bellinger but he’s an extremely flawed player.
I would as well. However that doesn't mean these opt out contracts are good for the team unless they only want him for one year. He leaves if he's good , they are stuck for 50 million if he's bad.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, WhiteSox2023 said:
And because Bellinger has always been a better player than Benintendi. That isn’t hindsight.
I would disagree Benintendi had much better years in 2021 and 2022.
His AAV and the total contract is also less than Bellinger.
-
1
-
-
19 minutes ago, WhiteSox2023 said:
I’ll take this contract for Bellinger over Benintendi’s $75 million dollar contract all day long.
Well of course it is only a one year contact and the people who deal hindsight evaluation will agree.
Lao Tzu said (paraphrased as I am not that eloquent)
Those who live in the past suffer depression.
Those who live in the future suffer anxiety.
Only those who live in the present will be at peace.
-
4
-
-
27 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:
Good deal for Cubs, but Bellinger will almost certainly opt-out after the coming season.
I always wonder why teams sign these deals. It's really a no win. I guess they are willing to pay 27 million per year for a bad player. This is what they pay if he is bad. If he's good he's gone.
-
6 hours ago, reiks12 said:
Shame on anyone who pays for a game this season
I have my season tickets and will enjoy the game of baseball.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
26 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:
https://www.yahoo.com/sports/cody-bellinger-reportedly-agrees-80-073706612.html
Bellinger reportedly back to Cubs…3 years for $80 million
That's a great deal for the Cubs. If he goes back to being bad, it's only for a short time. Score one for the Cubs over Boras.
-
1 hour ago, caulfield12 said:
At the rate they’re going, it’s going to take at least three more seasons to get back to .500 barring a minor miracle.
Yet that would mean five full seasons passing while withholding a fair assessment based on lack of talent to compete with. At the very least, four.
Results can be measured by more things than wins. How he handles the clubhouse with his veterans, his teaching of the game, his input on game descions, how he handles the coaches.
I know many people are only concerned with wins bit there are many other aspects to the game that can tell you if he is going in the right direction.
-
2 hours ago, Balta1701 said:
Results like a team the GM thought was competitive in a weak division that spent a season at each others throats, where basically everyone underperformed, where they were sloppy and unfocused, and where they lost 101 games?
Tell me how I shouldn’t judge Grifol based on his team’s underperformance last year. They had the talent of a 75 win team. Fine, this wasn’t where they wanted to be, but they played like a 67 win team in the first half, so bad that they had to trade people away. Multiple veterans ripped them after they left, all the way to literally yesterday.
How many seasons do we have to wait for before judging him? In spring 2025 do we have to hear that we can’t judge the coach until we see the results? 26? 27? Is Grifol still someone we are waiting on in 2028? 2029? Maybe he gets better in season 8, after all it’s unfair to judge any coach based on their first 7 seasons.
You definitely can judge him by last year. It wasn't good. I said earlier I'm willing to to give him another chance as it was his first year and I want to see if he learned anything and shows he learned from it. Since this is a "retooling" they aren't going to do much anyway.lets see if he can be better and possibly be good going forward.
-
14 minutes ago, WhiteSox2023 said:
There have been a multitude of decisions that prove Grifol is a clueless manager, not just his decision to play Sheets in RF. If his failed promises and outright lies aren’t bad enough for you, it’s obvious that we aren’t going to agree on this topic. How you give a terrible owner, a terrible manager, and a terrible team the benefit of the doubt the majority of the time is amazing to me. JR hires people that fall in line. This has been obvious for years. We have a new GM that was gifted the job and did not do enough for player development in his previous role to deserve the promotion. We have a total of two good positional prospects. Our GM wasted millions on dumpster diving for ex-Royals (another losing ball club) and other garbage players this offseason that won’t move the dial. Why does anyone associated with the Sox right now deserve the benefit of any doubt?
Because they are all new at the job and let's see what the results are.
Again, I realize most people here are very impatient and are automatically going to not like anything that happens.
I'm going to wait for the results and base my judgemental on that instead of going with the "well it's the White Sox so everything they do sucks."
Just because you disagree with it doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong. It very well could be but I'm willing to wait for the results before condemning everyone.
-
18 minutes ago, WhiteSox2023 said:
Fletcher is the obvious choice to me. He’s a lefty that showed he could play RF and hit in a small sample size last year. My point was that we already know Sheets is terrible in the outfield so why continue with the charade?
No your point was that Grifol is a terrible manger because he started Sheets in RF in the second Spring training game of the year.
My point has been that this single event is not an indication of that for many reasons.
I still disagree but that's OK.
Luis Robert right hip flexor injury
in Pale Hose Talk
Posted
They didn't say he was 80% healed. They said he was running at 80%. That doesn't mean he is 80% healed. That means he is running at 80% effort. He could be 90% healed but the rehab protocol they set is protecting the muscle on a set time line.
He is currently training at an 80% effort with no lasting soreness. The next step is to train at 90% effort and see if soreness lasts more than a day. If he can do that, he will return to games.
If he is too sore after 90% effort they will back him down to 80% and try again. This is how rehab works. It's not linear.