Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account
  • Byron Buxton's Body Has Betrayed Him Yet Again. It Sucks And It's No One's Fault.


    Lucas Seehafer

    Injuries are fickle. What we know for certain, something that pops up in the scientific literature over and over again, is that the best predictor for future injury is past injury. Beyond that, the world of athletic rehabilitation is a chasm filled to the brim with unknowns.

    Image courtesy of © Joe Nicholson | 2021 Jun 15

    Twins Video

    A sprained thumb. A groin strain. Migraines. A broken toe. Wrist injuries. A concussion. A subluxed shoulder that required surgery. A hip strain. And now a broken hand.

    One would be hard pressed to not find even the slightest bit of sympathy for Minnesota Twins outfielder Byron Buxton after the spate of injuries he has suffered over the first seven seasons of his MLB career. Soft tissue. Bone. Brain. The injuries he’s experienced have run the gamut of both tissue and severity and have many wondering what he did to deserve such terrible luck. 

    The fact of the matter is this: Byron Buxton has done nothing wrong and that makes his 2021 season the height of frustration, not because of himself as an individual, but because his body simply will not allow him to wow the denizens of Target Field on a nightly basis.

    The term “injury prone” gets thrown around quite often, particularly in cases similar to that of Buxton’s. While it is true that some players suffer injuries more often than others, the underlying factors that cause such injuries are often anyone’s best guess. Perhaps the athlete has a genetic predisposition, a “flaw” in their DNA structure that codes for more feeble muscles or brittle bones. Perhaps they indulge themselves on too many cheeseburgers when their body is better at extracting nutrients from fish or plant-based protein sources. Perhaps they simply have just plain bad luck.

    The term “injury prone” is not a neutral term, despite the insistence of many, fans and media members alike. The term often connotes a set of failures on the part of the athlete and suggests that if they had just done something better, they would be able to stay on the field. What that something is is often conveniently left blank - “How am I supposed to know? I’m not a doctor!” - but the implication persists.

    The fact of the matter is that quite often the medical community does not know what can be done to sufficiently prevent injuries from occurring and that is frustrating as hell. The sciences of athletic rehabilitation and injury prevention are not as firm as we’d like to believe. Coming back from injury is not like chemistry. Preventing one is not like theoretical physics. Very infrequently are their concrete formulas that explain the exact best way for getting an athlete back on the field and keeping them there.

    Many treatments and injury prevention programs are educated guesses, at best. There is little evidence that any sort of treatment works better than any other. Ultrasonic waves of energy delivered to a tissue by a specialized machine theoretically warm the tissue and promote blood flow and healing, but the results don’t bear out when tested. In theory, strengthening the muscles of the core, hip, and thighs will prevent catastrophic lower body injuries, but athletes around the world tear their ACLs and blow their Achilles at alarming rates.

    Injuries are fickle. What we know for certain, something that pops up in the scientific literature over and over again, is that the best predictor for future injury is past injury. Beyond that, the world of athletic rehabilitation is a chasm filled to the brim with unknowns. A team’s medical staff may employ the current best evidence and practices and treat their athletes 100% “by the book” and yet see them suffer injury after injury. Another may use unorthodox treatments that have little, if any, scientific backing and be heralded as the best among their peers because their athletes are seemingly impervious to breaking down.

    Injuries are not straightforward phenomena as much as we all wish them to be. Their occurrence is not straightforward. Their treatment is not straightforward. Their prevention is not straightforward. Nothing about them is straightforward and it is exactly this opaqueness that makes them so damn frustrating. 

    By all accounts, Byron Buxton is one of the hardest working athletes in the game. He is revered by his teammates and coaching staff. He’s one of the good ones. And, yet, his body has betrayed him over and over and over again. That is not his fault. It is not the training staff’s fault. It is nobody’s fault. And that makes it all the more unfair.

    MORE FROM TWINS DAILY

    Latest Twins coverage from our writers

    — Recent Twins discussion in our forums

    — Follow Twins Daily via Twitter, Facebook, Instagram or email

     

    MORE FROM TWINS DAILY
    — Latest Twins coverage from our writers
    — Recent Twins discussion in our forums
    — Follow Twins Daily via Twitter, Facebook or email
    — Become a Twins Daily Caretaker

     Share

     Share


    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    Featured Comments

    15 hours ago, TheLeviathan said:

    It came up because it seemed odd as a sarcastic dig at a post that agrees with you.  I think the problem came when you bristled at a completely innocuous post, not with your overall point.  You found (or implied at the very least) disagreement where there really was none.  I think we all share lament that the young man can't play and there isn't much he can do about it.

     

    Nope. I disagreed with the original post, because I don’t think durability is a skill or ability. I think it’s probably more like a physiological trait, similar to being tall. Guys can do some things on the margins to play up that trait, but ultimately I don’t think anyone has agency over their tendency to get injured. Calling it an ability doesn’t simply suggest otherwise—it states it outright. 
     

    But, whatever. I’ve said what I want to say as clearly as I can. I’ll concede. You win the internet debate. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Durability can be addressed, for most people.  Having more muscle mass can protect the body from injuries.   However, I suspect if Buxton's body allowed him to build up muscle easily, he would have done so.  This is the main reason I suspect he has a connective tissue disease.  People who have these diseases have great trouble building muscle mass.  I'm not saying Buxton isn't strong -- he is -- I'm saying he probably puts in a ton of work just to get to where he is now.

    We can assume Buxton puts as much into keeping his body in tune as he puts into his play on the field, yet he is still very skinny.  This would have been understandable as a rookie, but he has now been around for a long time.

    On another note ... for a bit of fun, take a look at how skinny Gardenhire was when he was playing.  

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    37 minutes ago, prouster said:

    Nope. I disagreed with the original post, because I don’t think durability is a skill or ability. I think it’s probably more like a physiological trait, similar to being tall. Guys can do some things on the margins to play up that trait, but ultimately I don’t think anyone has agency over their tendency to get injured. Calling it an ability doesn’t simply suggest otherwise—it states it outright. 
     

    But, whatever. I’ve said what I want to say as clearly as I can. I’ll concede. You win the internet debate. 

    You are literally agreeing with the original post but continuing to claim you disagree with it.  It's nonsensical. At best you devolved to pure semantics about the words ability and trait which is fallacious and unfair.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I will disagree with the fact that this injury is not Buxton's fault.  Below I have 2 screenshots from the pitch that hit him.  The first shows him with his hands protected behind his triceps and the second is from a fraction of a second later when he had brought his hands in to start a swinging motion.  He obviously massively misjudged this ball and instead of protecting his hands during a non-swing he had to instead try to protect them mid-swing which is why they were out there in plain sight.  Better pitch identification and him reacting by turning his left shoulder in instead of bringing his hands into the zone would have prevented this injury.  

    buxtonBefore.jpg

    buxtonHit.jpg

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    3 hours ago, jharaldson said:

    I will disagree with the fact that this injury is not Buxton's fault.  Below I have 2 screenshots from the pitch that hit him.  The first shows him with his hands protected behind his triceps and the second is from a fraction of a second later when he had brought his hands in to start a swinging motion.  He obviously massively misjudged this ball and instead of protecting his hands during a non-swing he had to instead try to protect them mid-swing which is why they were out there in plain sight.  Better pitch identification and him reacting by turning his left shoulder in instead of bringing his hands into the zone would have prevented this injury.  

    buxtonBefore.jpg

    buxtonHit.jpg

    A batter has less than 1.5 seconds to recognize what the pitch is (which is not always possible), to recognize where it's going, and to react accordingly. The argument that Buxton did not plan his reaction properly is borderline ridiculous, IMHO. I suppose you also think that it was Ray Chapman's fault that he allowed himself to be killed by Carl Mays.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    34 minutes ago, Nine of twelve said:

    A batter has less than 1.5 seconds to recognize what the pitch is (which is not always possible), to recognize where it's going, and to react accordingly. The argument that Buxton did not plan his reaction properly is borderline ridiculous, IMHO. I suppose you also think that it was Ray Chapman's fault that he allowed himself to be killed by Carl Mays.

    I don’t think he said it is easy. But compared to his peers, Buxton’s aggressiveness at the plate (and in the field) might be making him more vulnerable to these kinds of injuries.

    Of course, Buxton’s aggressiveness also helps him be a better hitter and defender than his peers, so it really is a difficult situation!

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    On 6/25/2021 at 7:35 PM, Nine of twelve said:

    A batter has less than 1.5 seconds to recognize what the pitch is (which is not always possible), to recognize where it's going, and to react accordingly. The argument that Buxton did not plan his reaction properly is borderline ridiculous, IMHO. I suppose you also think that it was Ray Chapman's fault that he allowed himself to be killed by Carl Mays.

    From what I can see in the link below it is actually less than 1.5 seconds.  

    Washington Post Baseball Swing Study

    Quote

    Information about the pitch — its speed, trajectory and location — takes about 100 milliseconds, or a tenth of a second, to go from eye to brain. It takes another 150 milliseconds for the batter to start a swing and get the bat over the plate.

    This leaves 150 to 250 milli­seconds — a quarter of a second at most — for the hitter to decide whether to complete the swing and, if he opts to do so, where to place the bat.

    I'm not saying that this is easy, it is incredibly hard.  But being able to identify a pitch is part of what distinguishes a professional from a minor leaguer and is a defined and recognized skill in major league baseball.

    In regards to Chapman, from what I can read his injury was caused as a result of the ball being excessively darkened by spit, dirt, and other substances plus the fact the game had extended into the late afternoon with no artificial lights.  Not being able to react because you can't see the ball vs. not reacting well to a ball that is fully visible and is well-lit are two entirely different things.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    On 6/28/2021 at 12:23 PM, jharaldson said:

     

    In regards to Chapman, from what I can read his injury was caused as a result of the ball being excessively darkened by spit, dirt, and other substances plus the fact the game had extended into the late afternoon with no artificial lights.  Not being able to react because you can't see the ball vs. not reacting well to a ball that is fully visible and is well-lit are two entirely different things.

    Then he should have taken that into account and bailed out at the very earliest sign the pitch was not going to be a strike. It was all his fault and he deserved to die. Of course, I am speaking sarcastically. I'm simply not in agreement with the blame-the-victim viewpoint presented in the earlier post.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites




    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

    Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...