Heezy1323

I largely agree with you @Lucas Seehafer PT. Allow me to play devil's advocate to some degree. What do you think is the SPECIFIC question being asked of the consulting doctors (Dr. Anderson et al.)? I think it is most likely something along the lines of "Do you see anything on this imaging study (xray/MRI) that would indicate that there is the chance of Carlos developing an ankle problem that limits his function in the next 10-12 years?" I don't believe that is a question you can answer using the 'functional model' you are describing. The MD isn't being asked about how he is currently performing or how he has performed in the past. Everyone involved knows the CC of today is an incredible player. If the MD says, "Well, I see some arthritis on this MRI, but he is currently functioning fine," the response is going to be- "OK great. What does that mean for his future?" As such, the MD is essentially forced to make a prediction. Are predictions always correct? Absolutely not. But I don't think that the argument that "He is functioning just fine today" satisfies the question being asked. Also, the MRI here is not 'predicting future injury' to use a term you used. It is, more precisely, 'documenting the current state of the ankle'. This may seem like semantics, but I don't believe it is. The injury isn't being predicted- it is already there (presuming my assumption of some ankle arthritis is accurate). What is being predicted is how this ankle will hold up over time given the amount of arthritis currently present. Now, is there some room for subjectivity as to how an ankle with some arthritis will hold up over time? One hundred percent yes. This is likely (IMHO) where the MDs differed in their opinions. Or, perhaps the MDs said similar things, but team officials chose to utilize that information differently. I don't think we can say for sure. In any event, I thought your article was a very good synopsis. I agree entirely with the last 2/3 of it. Well done.

How do they know exactly what he said? All they know is that the Giants deal seemed to hinge on his feedback about the MRI. Not exactly what the feedback was. Allow me to phrase another way. Why NOT ask him? What is to lose by collecting all available information? You can always choose to disregard it. For $300 million, I am of the opinion that a 15 minute phone call is reasonable.

I think this is a great read of the situation. I agree entirely.

You don't believe the Mets spoke (at minimum) with any of their own physicians? I think this is tremendously unlikely.

Why is it that you find this weird? He is the preeminent foot/ankle physician for professional athletes in the world. The "Dr. James Andrews" of foot and ankle. Essentially every high level athlete seeks his opinion after an injury. I don't think it's weird at all. I would want to know what his concerns were. I may or may not choose to abide by his recommendations, but I sure as hell would want to know what he had to say. He didn't get to his level by accident.

IMO, this is VERY unlikely to be the case. These plates/screws just don’t suddenly come loose after 8 years. If something happened at the slide, the most likely disaster is fracture of the bone directly above the plate (which obviously didn’t happen here). I still like my theory of low-grade arthritis stemming from his original injury. Other possibilities exist, for sure.

I didn't intend my reply to come across as snarky. I certainly didn't take your response disrespectfully. Mine was simply an honest take (as I see it): This was, for all practical purposes, a one year deal. I'm guessing the team reviewed his medicals at hand, but did not require repeat imaging of *all* prior injured areas (again, due to this being effectively a 1 year deal). IMO, this is because anything that is not recently/currently bothering Carlos is unlikely to become important over the course of one year. To be clear, I'm not endorsing this approach as foolproof or the most ideal approach. I'm only giving my thoughts on what may have happened. I don't think I'm able to comment intelligently on what threshold exists for *standard* due diligence and *extreme* due diligence. I think most people would agree that a different level of scrutiny is necessary for a 10-year and what is effectively a 1-year deal.

IMO, this wasn’t a 3 year deal. It was a “3 year deal” in which essentially everyone involved knew it was a one year deal absent extraordinarily unusual circumstances. You’re welcome to disagree with my reasoning. I have no idea if I’m correct or not. It’s just the most plausible explanation to me given what we know.

Here's my $0.02: (I have no insider info) I think the most likely scenario is that Correa fell into the Twins lap quickly last year, and everyone recognized it was most likely a 1 year arrangement. So the level of due diligence required by the medical staff is lower. Imaging of all prior nicks/bruises isn't necessary in that case. This time around given the commitment of 10+ years, teams were being more diligent and likely getting new imaging of any body part that had ever been treated for an injury (surgically or not). My guess is that the imaging of his ankle shows some early arthritis related to the ankle fracture that was fixed 8 years ago. This is something that is essentially impossible to "fix" in the traditional sense. And it may be mild enough at this point in time that it isn't causing him any significant symptoms (hence no issue made of it last offseason). But imaging can still show some early signs of arthritis, even before a person has symptoms. My guess is that the Giants docs saw this, and said something to the effect of, "This ankle has some early arthritis. This is something that generally is going to get worse over time, at a rate that is impossible to know. As it worsens, it is likely to affect Correa's ability to perform quick movements and may require a position change. Worst case scenario, it could be progress more rapidly and be a significant hindrance to him playing at an effective level." There are certainly other possible explanations. This is the one that seems to fit the circumstances best as I think about it. Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays all.

I appreciate your further explanation. My response was perhaps a bit unfair, in that there were a few posts that questioned the aptitude of the medical staff, and I just chose yours to quote. My response was probably a more generally directed response to that notion, rather than a specific retort to your post. IMO your concerns are valid, and also highlight the incredibly complex nature of this type of decision-making. These are tough problems to solve. I would argue that they are even tough problems to 'measure' in any consistent or meaningful way, much less 'solve'. Thanks for your response.

That's an interesting question. My assumption has been that the force generated at the wrist is primarily from the swing itself, not necessarily the contact with the ball. But I would say I don't honestly know the difference in forces across the wrist on a swing and miss vs. a swing that makes contact. My best guess (and I would call it a guess) is that the gloves probably wouldn't make a difference unless they were quite thick/cushy, in which case they probably aren't realistically useful for an MLB hitter. Would be an interesting study...

I understand the frustration with injuries on the Twins. I understand the tendency to look for systems or people to blame. But the unfortunate truth is, it just doesn't work like that. The WWII analogy would be great, if baseball players were made from identical parts on an assembly line and reacted exactly the same way to the same adverse conditions. But the challenge of medicine, sports science/performance and similar fields is that there are hundreds, probably thousands of unknowns. And not just unknowns that exist because they haven't been studied- unknowns that cannot possibly be known under any circumstances. Is it possible that the medical and/or training staff of the Twins is underperforming? Sure, I suppose that's possible. I am not a Twins physician, but I know those who are. They are admirable docs, among the brightest in the field. Isn't it also possible that there is bad luck involved? Or that the scouting department is choosing to draft or trade for players who are prone to injury? Or not weighting the input from the medical team heavily enough? Or, is it possible… juuuuuuuuust possible, that this stuff is really frickin' hard. And despite having brilliant people working tremendously hard to solve these types of issues- some injuries are inevitable. I'm not trying to carry water for the Twins or anyone/anything else here. I have no vested interest in others' opinions of Twins or their team physicians. But I am familiar with the challenges of solving these types of problems- I do it on a daily basis. It's hard. An in my opinion, assuming it is due to incompetence undersells the difficulty of it by a substantial margin.

I'd be speaking out of turn if I said I am intimately familiar with the rehab of this surgery, but February puts us about 7 months from surgery. I think that's a very reasonable time frame for something like this. It's possible I'm wrong here, and there's more to it than I know, but I feel comfortable with that timeline.

I can assure you this is not the case.

I would humbly suggest that this part is actually the easy part. We know how long the ulna is 'supposed' to be, relative to the radius (the bone next to it). A fairly straightforward calculation can be made to identify the amount of bone that needs to be removed to 'normalize' the length. And there are jigs that can be used that account for the amount of bone, thickness of the saw blade (kerf), etc to obtain a precise removal. In my view, the more challenging things here are: 1) Deciding when to pull the rip cord and go ahead with the surgery 2) Predicting for Alex exactly how his body will respond and what effect this will have on his swing mechanics going forward 3) Identifying a timeline for recovery (as this can sometimes vary substantially from patient to patient) 4) Worrying about potential complications that can arise For the most part, as a surgeon I feel like the surgery is the thing I have 'control' over, where as so many of these other things are out of our control (either partially or entirely). I tend to stress about things I can't control (rightly or wrongly, I suppose one could argue).