David Aardsma Traded To Red Sox

[BSN07]

Didn't JT want to be traded when they activated that option? Any word on that recently?

[elonghigher]

I like this trade, gives us the bullpen help we need.

[RobZombie]

"At some point, though, there's a "survivor effect." Mike Timlin has a pitching motion that has endured for two-plus decades (three-plus counting Little League and similar stuff). I know that around age 40 aging curves shift for pitchers, and you get into the range of the Warren Spahns, Nolan Ryans and Jamie Moyers. Injuries actually diminish--the problem becomes the ability of a human body to endure as it progresses deeper into middle age. Such pitchers lose velocity and can't compete--they don't suffer, as a rule, career-ending injury."

 

Now you are just arguing for the sake of arguing and putting words in my mouth. This is completely obnoxious but due to your history on this board I would accept nothing less.

 

I never said at any point that Timlin would suffer a career-ending injury. I said that due to Timlin's age, and his recent injury history that he would likely be on the disabled list at some point this season just as he has been for the past two seasons. This point really isn't that all that controversial.

 

Oh yes and Nolan Ryan DID suffer a career ending elbow injury.

[RobZombie]

Tavarez is a lock to be in the bullpen as the long man. His 2008 option was picked up for $4 million' date=' hardly think theyll do a buyout[/quote']

 

I wouldn't say he's a lock.

 

He may end up as the fifth starter for a while while they get Clay ready.

 

Also he may end up as part of a trade.

[Jayhawk Bill]

"At some point, though, there's a "survivor effect." Mike Timlin has a pitching motion that has endured for two-plus decades (three-plus counting Little League and similar stuff). I know that around age 40 aging curves shift for pitchers, and you get into the range of the Warren Spahns, Nolan Ryans and Jamie Moyers. Injuries actually diminish--the problem becomes the ability of a human body to endure as it progresses deeper into middle age. Such pitchers lose velocity and can't compete--they don't suffer, as a rule, career-ending injury."

 

Now you are just arguing for the sake of arguing and putting words in my mouth. This is completely obnoxious but due to your history on this board I would accept nothing less.

 

Sorry...I've been away from the forum and I couldn't respond promptly...but I found it striking that you considered a post regarding injury frequency to be arguing. :dunno:

 

I never said at any point that Timlin would suffer a career-ending injury. I said that due to Timlin's age, and his recent injury history that he would likely be on the disabled list at some point this season just as he has been for the past two seasons. This point really isn't that all that controversial.

 

You said,

 

"Pitchers who are 42 tend to get hurt more than pitchers who are 29, its not a criticism its just a fact of life."

 

I continue to remain unsure of that. In many fields, older workers are less injury-prone, largely because their bodies can, for whatever reason, endure the strains prevalent in their vocations. Here's a discussion of "survivor bias" from a NIOSH occupational health reference:

 

An explanation for the lack of an observed relationship between an increased risk for MSDs (musculo-skeletal disorders) and aging may be "survivor bias." If workers who have health problems leave their jobs, or change to jobs with less exposure, the remaining population includes only those workers whose health has not been adversely affected by their jobs.

 

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/97-141/appenabc.html

 

And here's where Will Carroll uses the term with reference to older pitchers:

 

Old guys who can pitch a lot of innings are usually special. (Woody) Williams isn’t and there are actually more and more of these guys. It’s a bit of evolution and a lot of the survivor effect.

[jacksonianmarch]

Arthritis and Tendonitis increase with age. All pitchers eventually break down. It has nothing to do with the fact that they have staved off injury for so long that they are now immune to it. It has everything to do with their conditioning, which has delayed the inevitable. Even the best conditioned pitchers (in terms of arm and legs) eventually wear down. Ask Schilling, Wells, and Clemens. 3 pitchers who pitched into their 40s. All 3 have had serious wear and tear injuries.

[Jayhawk Bill]

Arthritis and Tendonitis increase with age. All pitchers eventually break down. It has nothing to do with the fact that they have staved off injury for so long that they are now immune to it. It has everything to do with their conditioning' date=' which has delayed the inevitable. Even the best conditioned pitchers (in terms of arm and legs) eventually wear down. Ask Schilling, Wells, and Clemens. 3 pitchers who pitched into their 40s. All 3 have had serious wear and tear injuries.[/quote']

 

Yes, but Schilling, Wells and Clemens are all special cases. Schilling pitched on a minor injury, his tendon, messing himself up for the rest of his career: even his injury this winter was probably a result of his changing his motion. Wells is a case of a man who became too heavy for his knees. Clemens appears to be a case of how introduction of muscle-building drugs in a man's mid-30's influences his later history with respect to injury--his previous health was jeopardized by the increased muscle mass acquired around, oh, the time he joined the Yankees.

[kreinbihl34]

Arthritis and Tendonitis increase with age. All pitchers eventually break down. It has nothing to do with the fact that they have staved off injury for so long that they are now immune to it. It has everything to do with their conditioning' date=' which has delayed the inevitable. Even the best conditioned pitchers (in terms of arm and legs) eventually wear down. Ask Schilling, Wells, and Clemens. 3 pitchers who pitched into their 40s. All 3 have had serious wear and tear injuries.[/quote']

 

Wells has never conditioned, ever.

I'll agree the conditioning helps staying healthy. But I add that some people can just do things others can't, plain and simple.

[RobZombie]

Sorry...I've been away from the forum and I couldn't respond promptly...but I found it striking that you considered a post regarding injury frequency to be arguing. :dunno:

 

 

The reason it is arguing for the sake of arguing is that you are making a point that has nothing whatsoever to do with the title of the thread which had to do with David Aardsma, not Mike Timlin. Or older pitchers in general.

 

The entire point of my post is that for various reasons there is a decent chance that, that Aardsma would find his way onto the opening day roster although it currently looks as though he doesn't have a spot. Among those reasons was that "someone always gets hurt". Given his age and recent injury history, Mike Timlin is as good a bet to start the season on the DL as anyone. In fact even if not for his age, given his recent injury history, he would represent a higher than average injury risk.

 

You then proceded to argue that it was unlikely that Timlin would "be out for the season", something that was never stated. This is called building a straw man, or arguing for the sake of arguing and its something that is quite obnoxious. Its also something that you seem quite good at.

 

If you want to start a thread on Mike Timlin and his prospects for injury go right ahead. As far as I'm concerned you haven't convinced me that Mike Timlin's age and recent injury history don't increase his injury risk for 2008.

[Jayhawk Bill]

Sorry...I've been away from the forum and I couldn't respond promptly...but I found it striking that you considered a post regarding injury frequency to be arguing. :dunno:

 

The reason it is arguing for the sake of arguing is that you are making a point that has nothing whatsoever to do with the title of the thread which had to do with David Aardsma, not Mike Timlin. Or older pitchers in general.

 

The entire point of my post is that for various reasons there is a decent chance that, that Aardsma would find his way onto the opening day roster although it currently looks as though he doesn't have a spot. Among those reasons was that "someone always gets hurt". Given his age and recent injury history, Mike Timlin is as good a bet to start the season on the DL as anyone. In fact even if not for his age, given his recent injury history, he would represent a higher than average injury risk.

 

You then proceded to argue that it was unlikely that Timlin would "be out for the season", something that was never stated. This is called building a straw man, or arguing for the sake of arguing and its something that is quite obnoxious. Its also something that you seem quite good at.

 

If you want to start a thread on Mike Timlin and his prospects for injury go right ahead. As far as I'm concerned you haven't convinced me that Mike Timlin's age and recent injury history don't increase his injury risk for 2008.

 

Ah...got it. You believe that, "The reason it is arguing for the sake of arguing is that you are making a point that has nothing whatsoever to do with the title of the thread."

 

Your harping on my post, then, is arguing for the sake of arguing by your own standard.

 

Let's see how Timlin does in 2008. If he suffers major injury despite age, you're golden; if nagging issues and lack of velocity reduce his effectiveness, or if he endures as an adequate relief pitcher another year, I'm supported.

[RobZombie]

 

Ah...got it. You believe that, "The reason it is arguing for the sake of arguing is that you are making a point that has nothing whatsoever to do with the title of the thread."

 

Your harping on my post, then, is arguing for the sake of arguing by your own standard.

 

Let's see how Timlin does in 2008. If he suffers major injury despite age, you're golden; if nagging issues and lack of velocity reduce his effectiveness, or if he endures as an adequate relief pitcher another year, I'm supported.

 

Jayhawk-

 

Would you mind pointing me to the quote where predicted I that Timlin would suffer a major injury in 2008? Putting words in the mouth of other posters shows that you aren't responding to their arguments and are in fact, just arguing for the sake of arguing.

[arbitrary]

"You know, an argument isn't just contradiction".

[Jayhawk Bill]

 

Jayhawk-

 

Would you mind pointing me to the quote where predicted I that Timlin would suffer a major injury in 2008? Putting words in the mouth of other posters shows that you aren't responding to their arguments and are in fact, just arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

"Given that he is now 42 years old its likely Timlin will likely once again have shoulder problems and have to spend time on the disabled list."

[RobZombie]

"Given that he is now 42 years old its likely Timlin will likely once again have shoulder problems and have to spend time on the disabled list."

 

Jayhawk-

 

I think its unfortunate that you have reading comprehension issues. Either that or you are just trying to argue for the sake of arguing.

 

You are aware of course that a player can have shoulder problems AND spend time on the disabled list and NOT suffer a major injury aren't you? In fact, in the past two years, Mike Timlin has had shoulder problems, and did spend time on the disabled list, yet did not suffer a major season ending injury.

 

So which is it, are you illiterate or argumentative?

 

I'd appreciate it if you stopped putting words in my mouth.

[Jayhawk Bill]

Jayhawk-

 

I think its unfortunate that you have reading comprehension issues. Either that or you are just trying to argue for the sake of arguing.

 

You are aware of course that a player can have shoulder problems AND spend time on the disabled list and NOT suffer a major injury aren't you? In fact, in the past two years, Mike Timlin has had shoulder problems, and did spend time on the disabled list, yet did not suffer a major season ending injury.

 

One can go on the DL for illness or injury. If you consider a non-illness DL trip to be the result of a non-major injury, and that only season-ending injuries are major, that's a semantic choice with which others might disagree.

 

So which is it, are you illiterate or argumentative?

 

I'd appreciate it if you stopped putting words in my mouth.

 

I am neither illiterate nor argumentative.

 

IMO...YMMV.

 

I think that what you'd really like would be for me to stop commenting regarding aspects of your posts with which I might not agree. See, my perspective is that you've blown a comment regarding "survivor effect" way out of line, and that you're now casting personal insults in my direction. I'm puzzled at your motives, to be candid...the point regarding Timlin and "survivor effect" was minor enough that it wouldn't have really affected the overall credibility of your position.

 

I don't quite get your frustration, but I'm eager to see how Timlin does this year.

[RobZombie]

One can go on the DL for illness or injury. If you consider a non-illness DL trip to be the result of a non-major injury, and that only season-ending injuries are major, that's a semantic choice with which others might disagree.

 

 

 

I am neither illiterate nor argumentative.

 

IMO...YMMV.

 

I think that what you'd really like would be for me to stop commenting regarding aspects of your posts with which I might not agree. See, my perspective is that you've blown a comment regarding "survivor effect" way out of line, and that you're now casting personal insults in my direction. I'm puzzled at your motives, to be candid...the point regarding Timlin and "survivor effect" was minor enough that it wouldn't have really affected the overall credibility of your position.

 

I don't quite get your frustration, but I'm eager to see how Timlin does this year.

 

Jayhawk-

 

I have no problem with you disagreeing with me. What I have a problem with is people like you who get their jollies from playing word games and starting arguments about stuff they don't even believe in just to boost their own sad egos.

 

#1 There is no evidence that there is any such thing as a "survivor effect". You made it up just to argue. If one were to study such a thing, one couldn't just dismiss the data points that go against the theory. In this thread you have already dismissed major injuries to Roger Clemens, David Wells, and Curt Schilling for various reasons. Anyone who has any background in statistics knows this.

 

#2 If Mike Timlin made it through the season unscathed, it would not in and of itself be evidence that a "survivor effect" existed. Its just one data point.

 

#3 First you equate my prediction that Mike Timlin will be on the disabled list with a prediction that Mike Timlin will suffer a major injury. Then you say that a major injury is a matter of "semantics". Mike Timlin himself has spent time on the disabled list the past two years for a non-illness related issue. So either you've already proved your own idea of a "survivor effect" wrong, or you admit that you put words in my mouth.

 

I've encountered jokers like you before. You get your jollies by starting arguments over nothing and misstating the views of others. Like its some sort of game. Its always the same modus operandi. Call them on it, they act innocent and say state that the real problem is not their game playing, but that others don't want them to disagree.

 

Baloney, you know darn well that there is no such thing as a survivor effect, and only started the entire argument to play some sort of game. If you are going to do that, the I agree you should stop responding to my posts.

[Jayhawk Bill]

Jayhawk-

#1 There is no evidence that there is any such thing as a "survivor effect". You made it up just to argue.

 

Except that I've linked to where the term is used in professional discussions of workplace safety and repetitive-stress injury, and I've also linked to where it was used by Will Carroll describing an aged pitcher.

 

 

I've encountered jokers like you before. You get your jollies by starting arguments over nothing and misstating the views of others. Like its some sort of game. Its always the same modus operandi. Call them on it, they act innocent and say state that the real problem is not their game playing, but that others don't want them to disagree.

 

Baloney, you know darn well that there is no such thing as a survivor effect, and only started the entire argument to play some sort of game. If you are going to do that, the I agree you should stop responding to my posts.

 

Actually, that's not what I posted--I said that, "I think that what you'd really like would be for me to stop commenting regarding aspects of your posts with which I might not agree." What you would like and what I intend to do may differ.