ptatc

QUOTE (bobryansson @ Jun 19, 2012 -> 11:36 PM) Happens not uncommonly that using the retrospectoscope on an x-ray shows something not seen previously. Tendinopathy seen initially on contrast MRI allows it to then be localized/visualized on prior plain scan, allowing comparison. Perhaps a stretch (No tendon pun intended.), but not necessarily "nonsense" or "crap." This is true. However, They would have done the same MRI the second time they did as the first for comparison. Since they determined it was a grade 1, the only thing you can really look at for the tendon is the presence of fluid in the tendon. The suscapularis is so small and blends with the teres major and lat tendons that regardless if you use T1, T2 or contrast medium, you really can't "see" the individual tendon well. Injuries to this tendon are often misdianosed using imaging techniques, as are many injuries to the shoulder because of the tight space and many anatomic structures present. I'm not an imaging expert but based on my experience and many research articles I refer to MRIs as "More Radiographic Income" as their true purpose. They can be useful to confirm the physical diagnosis but are not really useful on their own.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 20, 2012 -> 08:12 AM) I remember reading a story about Nolan Ryan years ago being one of the very first guys out there to lift weights. IIRC the Angels didn't even have a weight room, and in the mid 70's he turned an abandoned room into a weight room which he used alone. There was a big school of thought that too much muscle was bad for baseball related activities. Yes. The theory was it made you too "tight" and you couldn't get the full motion you need to throw.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 19, 2012 -> 01:51 PM) Isn't the meaning on those basically identical? A severe strain = a moderate tear? sorry I didn't post earlier, we had a late Lacrosse practice last night. The definitions are sometimes used interchangably but they really shouldn't. From what I read there is no tear. The grade 1 strain means there is no tear. This tendon however needs to be handled very carefully. It is the anterior or front tendon of the rotator cuff. It is responsible for slowing the arm down when he bring the arm back during the windup phase and accelerating the arm forward during the acceleration phase. If there is a severe problem with the tendon there will also be some stability issues with the whole joint because as you raise your arm over your head the humerus slides forward in the joint and this muscle needs to absorb some of that force. The grade 1 is a good sign and the 3-6 weeks time frame is a good estimate. The crap about the MRI being being better than before is nonsense. If it was worse before, he wouldn't have tried anything in the minors. This is not a season ending injury. Once the inflammation goes down and the strength up he'll be fine. It does however have a direct correlation to his decreased velocity not so much from strength but pain.

QUOTE (Leonard Zelig @ Jun 19, 2012 -> 03:49 PM) Nobody knows when any of these guys started using. Pretty much in the mid-80's with Canseco and McGwire.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 19, 2012 -> 12:19 PM) Baseball HOF is full of players who cheated to win, its completely hypocritical that they now care about steroids. But I guess doctored baseballs (Gaylord Perry) is less cheating than taking steroids which dont conclusively make you better. It is less cheating than doctoring a baseball, the same as a speeding ticket is less of a crime than murder. Steriods do conclusively make you better. 70 homeruns in baseball proves that as well as performance in most other sports ala Floyd Landis and Ben Johnson.

QUOTE (flavum @ Jun 19, 2012 -> 10:24 AM) The short answer is nobody was hitting 50, 60, 73 homers a year in the 70's, 80's, and early 90's. Ok--George Foster and Cecil Fielder, but you know what I mean. But yeah, we don't know if Rickey Henderson or Paul Molitor juiced at the end of their careers. It's certainly possible. It was institutional cheating. If Mantle and Mays played in the late 90's, they probably would have done it too. He didn't with the Brewers. I was in that clubhouse and would have seen it.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 14, 2012 -> 07:16 PM) Trick question. Osama and Hitler are already dead. Yeah, but it would feel real good to shoot either of them.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jun 13, 2012 -> 06:00 PM) It's definitely working a lot better for the airlines, that's for sure. More people travelling than ever before, fewer airlines and seats, the explosion of "new wealth" in countries like China, India, the Middle East...it used to cost "only" $600-900 to fly from the US to Asia in 2007/2008, and now that price has roughly doubled in the last five years. This is not true. There are many fewer travelers, especially for business. There are many web based meetings instead.This kills the airline industry. There are fewer seats because the number of flights has decreased. The price is increasing in part due to the struggles of the airline industry and fuel costs.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jun 13, 2012 -> 11:54 PM) I just can't get excited about perfect games and no-hitters anymore. These last 3+ years have been ridiculous. I want steroids back in the game. I couldn't disagree more. i love watching pitching duels and great defensive plays. Of course, I also like 13-10 football games where the defense kicks the crap out of the offense.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jun 13, 2012 -> 03:21 PM) So no first basemen? That'll suck. It's the new way to increase scoring in the NL. They hate the DH so they got rid of the 1st baseman. This way if you hit groundballs, should increase scoring. They are beta testing it during interleague play.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Jun 13, 2012 -> 11:51 AM) The other way of looking at it is he can already be quite successful throwing only fastballs mixed in with a few sliders, then imagine how good he could be with a change-up or curveball (see Buehrle, Mark). Essentially, he's a two pitch pitcher, and it's not like he has Jose Contreras' 2005-06 forkball and fastball combination working out there. Or the patented Cooper cutter.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jun 13, 2012 -> 11:32 AM) I still contend that new posters will be confused as hell about this. Not if they know their Aztec history, which is a silly question because who doesn't.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jun 7, 2012 -> 01:14 PM) When you need a spot start or two out of him, he won't be able to go as deep because he has been working in the bullpen. Sending him to the minors keeps his arm stretched out. With the state of the rotation currently, you need a 6th start ready to go. This is true to an extent. But that's not hurting his development. He'll learn more pitching against MLB hitters than MiLB hitters so his development will be enhanced if he stays up. If they use him as a long man out of the pen he'll still be ready for 4-5 innings when called upon.

QUOTE (Jake @ Jun 7, 2012 -> 11:21 AM) Quintana should not be in the bullpen, that's a bulls*** thing to do to his development. I am all for demoting Stewart, Santiago and calling up Bruney and a post-prospect age SP from AAA (can't think of the whole rotation right now). I think both of those kids need to be starting pitchers, I'm willing to bet at least one of them contributes to our MLB roster one day if we let them be starters. What more development does he actually need? He's proven he can get MLB hitters out. All he really needs is a spot in the rotation. Until that happens why not let him stay in the pen where he can continue to work on getting MLB hitters out. Staying in the minors and perfecting getting minor league hitters out won't really do him much good.

QUOTE (justBLAZE @ Jun 7, 2012 -> 01:34 AM) Block me. He's such a nice and outstanding guy that Ryan Dempster. Ugh. Dempster is a great guy. I worked with him when he was in the minors for the Marlins. You will not find a better guy or a more entertaining guy. He is just a goofy Canadian. One of my favorite professional athletes to work with of all time.

QUOTE (PolishPrince34 @ Jun 1, 2012 -> 07:38 AM) Jim Callis of Baseball America was just on the score and was ripping apart the White Sox organization specifically Reinsdorf about his spending habits on the draft-shocker. He still believes the White Sox are going cheap and not come close to spending the allotted money ($5.9 million) on the first 10 rounds. If this is true-Reinsdorf needs to be blasted and give an explanation to his fans. The new collective bargaining agreement towards the Draft was pushed mostly by Reinsdorf and we should now take advantage of the system and spend the allotted money given to the White Sox. I'm not sure if blasting this concept alone is the way to go. If you blast this than you cannot complain about a decrease in the MLB payroll. JR's philosophy is pretty evident with KW and wanting to win now. To do this the minors suffers and they tend to use assets to get proven MLB players instead of waiting for prospects of which most don't pan out. It's a philosophical difference. You can't complain about the MLB and blast them for not spending in the draft. This applies to the way it was previously. Now with the new standards of enforced slotting there is no reason not to spend near 6 million in the draft. 1-2 million will not make a difference at the MLB level. People point out the low amount the Sox spent last year but they didn't have the first round or most expensive pick. It will be interesting to see how much they spend this year.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Jun 1, 2012 -> 02:15 AM) That is the idea behind the "Year After Effect," which is the system Rick Peterson liked to use. You stretch out arms over the long haul as opposed to jumping that many innings in 1 season. It's been practiced for about 130,000 years. The problem herein lies in the fact that Rick Peterson laid out two numbers - 30 and 25. Because, naturally, any pitcher over the age of 25 who throws 30 more innings than the previous season will see no regression, and any pitcher under the age of 25 who throws fewer than 30 additional innings will not see regression. That's taking it to the extreme, but those are arbitrary numbers. The Nationals made Stephen Strasburg into a modern day Bubble Boy in 2010 and he STILL tore his UCL. It's not like they were doing anything inherently wrong in the way they handled him, s*** just happened. Another example of "the Year After Effect." Mark Buehrle threw 170 innings between the majors and minors in 2000. In 2001, he threw 221.1 innings, which is almost twice as much. In 2002, he threw 239 innings, but because his ERA increased, he actually failed Verducci's "Year After Effect" formula because his ERA increased. Mark Buehrle was a good pitcher in 2002. Yet, according to his theory, there is no correlation between the 260 innings Mark Buehrle threw in 2005 and his horrendous pitching in the second half of 2006. Why can't the Year After Effect work for pitchers who are over 25? ... I'm ranting. The general thought process behind the Year After Effect is good, it's just extremely flawed, and anybody who takes it for more than the paper it's printed on (I read it only, so the paper is non-existent) is going up creek without a paddle. Oh, and for my guess as to how many innings Sale should throw...I'm going to hope for 160-108. Sounds good to me. That most I'd HAVE him throw is I've had this discussion over the years with many people. Not necessarily the exact years but why to older pitchers seems to handle it better than younger ones. You would think younger ones would be able to handle it physically. We've come up with two possible 1. The older pitcher already has more innings under their belt, whether it be in the minors or majors. Even with the sudden increase the older pitcher usually has a more conditioned arm. 2. the mental aspect. The older pitcher is more mature and probably has learned more about pacing themselves and not throwing "stressful" pitches when they aren't needed. For example there is no reason to throw your hardest and really bear down when you have a 4 run lead in the 6th inning. Older pitchers learn the pacing of a game. These are by no means the only reasons this could happen. But with discussions over the year these are the best 2 that I've heard.

QUOTE (HickoryHuskers @ May 31, 2012 -> 11:27 AM) Why would it be a miracle that a team with a 1½ game division lead and the second best record in the league still be in playoff contention in September? Because I'm superstitious and am not going to proclaim that they need to do this to save him for the playoffs and ruin their chance.

QUOTE (greg775 @ May 31, 2012 -> 01:51 PM) If my comments affected your life where you couldn't "enjoy life" as much ... wow. A message board affects your life?? Hal McRae made a living out of spiking a ton of second basemen and shortstops. It's part of the game. I was thinking that was tank's ball, but no harm no foul. I don't care if one players made a living out of it. He was a pretty good hitter so he had other things going for him. Unnecessarily, injuring someone is not part of the game. It's idiotic and the reason that no one likes AJ. Sliding hard to knock someone over to prevent a double play is part of the game. Doing spikes up is not.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ May 31, 2012 -> 10:05 AM) I don't think an injury is inevitable, but I think jumping him from 80 innings in 2011 (counting ST) to 200+ innings if the Sox give him a playoff start would be a massive stress on his arm. His arm got used to working in short stints last year after having been stretched out the years before, now we're pushing it back to being stretched out, and we already saw him hit one "tired elbow" point. One plausible way to avoid that is to build in some extra rest so that his arm gets extra recovery time and doesn't get hit with the full 200+ innings load right away. Plus, if I'm expecting that he'll hit another "Tired arm" period this season, which wouldn't be surprising, I'd rather be able to schedule that outing than have it happen when the Sox are facing a double-header or already have a tired bullpen, like happened last time. This is correct. The idea is to spread his workload out over the season instead of pitching him until he is too tired and have Sale early in the year and Quintana late in the year. If you spread his workload over the year he may be available at the end of the year if by some miracle the sox are still in playoff contention.

QUOTE (iamshack @ May 31, 2012 -> 09:28 AM) I watched the video of this interview...he was pretty critical of AJ... As he should have. What AJ did was an unnecessary, bush league play. AJ started it and his pitcher paid the price. I think if Beckham hadn't been hit nothing would have happened. But eventually you do need to protect your players if it looks like it's getting out of control.

QUOTE (JPN366 @ May 30, 2012 -> 10:42 PM) Typical when a position player rehabs for the White Sox. First few games, 3 AB's then out. Yes, just like any strength building program. You start out slow and slowly build it. I imagine they also want him to work on his timing for hitting. Any idea on how he did in the field? Any fielding chances? This will be as good of an indicator of health as hitting.

QUOTE (chw42 @ May 30, 2012 -> 01:41 PM) He'd be the one guy on the Rays I would love to see get hit. That guy's a racist hick. Very nice. Calling someone a racist then use your own slur.

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ May 30, 2012 -> 11:30 AM) The Cubs market an experience and have for many years. Wins and losses don't matter. It's all about the sunshine, beer, girls and partying. Their season ticket base has been high for a long time but I think it's starting to come down. The Sox on the other hand have to market the team on the field. Wins and losses matter very much. I think this is true in more ways the one.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ May 30, 2012 -> 01:38 AM) http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/colum...,6714531.column Reading this article, it made me think of all those Sox prospects that have NOT been given playing time in the past like DeAza, Lillibridge (not that he was a "stud" prospect in the same realm as a Brett Jackson or Rizzo) or specifically Dayan Viciedo... Almost the opposite of the article, that the "young phenoms" being promoted wasn't conducive to the "win now/all in" philosophy we've had for much of the Williams tenure. Of course, our former manager had a proclivity for playing veterans over younger players. Some would argue that he was "protecting" them from having too much pressure (like Beckham in 2009/10), others that he was jealous of any new "superstar" threatening his role as undisputed media darling for the Sox. Lots of theories out there as to why Ozzie didn't like MOST young players, exceptions being Beckham in 2009, Fields in 2007 (no choice), Alexei, Chris Sale in 2010, etc. Or maybe it was simply if there was ANY doubt about the relative performance levels, Ozzie would invariably pick the veteran over the younger player. This is true for most managers trying to win. You cannot have too many rookies on a team and win. It's a fine line but teams that win the the World Series do not have too many rookies on them.