Ramirez Injury Thread

[wade]

Another Cubs Blog estimates the Cubs lose about 1 win by replacing Ramirez with Freel for about 6 weeks. It's a bit more considering Miles gets a few more PA's, and there's the risk that Ramirez drops off a bit when he comes back or takes longer than 6 weeks. Still, losing even 3 games because of the injury isn't the end of the world, though it definitely removes a lot of the margin for error with other injuries and underperformance.

How robotish does one have to be to believe all these versions of win shares? Any science that has Freel as one game less than Armais over 6 weeks is flawed beyond belief.

 

I believe them, and I'm about 62% robotish. (I'm really more toward the cyborg end of the spectrum, but that's splitting hairs.)

[dew1679666265]

The reason for there to be more worry about Aramis than the bullpen is because it's far easier to patch together a decent bullpen than it is to find a very productive third baseman. We all expect Bradley, Lee, Soto, etc. to start hitting closer to their career norms, but what if two of those three don't?

 

There's ample reason to believe that Soto and Lee won't get back to what we expected and without Aramis, the offense isn't nearly as imposing as it once was.

Yeah, it's real easy to patch together a good bullpen. That's why there are so many good ones in baseball.

 

The point is, you can bemoan Aramis' loss all you want, but a bad bullpen has been giving away leads even while he was playing. You can't do anything about Aramis, but you can try to address the bullpen. It won't replace Aram, but a bullpen that does the job will make the hurt much smaller.

 

I never said it was easy to patch together a good bullpen, but it is easier to find 2-3 more decent arms (or rotate a few in and out) than it is to find a third baseman who can OPS in the .800-.900 range. Keep in mind, we've already cut two decent bullpen arms this season - Gaudin and Vizcaino.

 

In a perfect world both the bullpen and Aramis are just fine, but when we have some pretty major questions with key offensive pieces (Lee, Soto, Bradley) the potential is there for the offense to be crippled (though I don't think it'll get that bad). The key pieces of the bullpen - Marmol and Gregg - are pretty much fine. Plus I expect Guzman to settle into a role and Heilman to settle in.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Another Cubs Blog estimates the Cubs lose about 1 win by replacing Ramirez with Freel for about 6 weeks. It's a bit more considering Miles gets a few more PA's, and there's the risk that Ramirez drops off a bit when he comes back or takes longer than 6 weeks. Still, losing even 3 games because of the injury isn't the end of the world, though it definitely removes a lot of the margin for error with other injuries and underperformance.

 

How robotish does one have to be to believe all these versions of win shares? Any science that has Freel as one game less than Armais over 6 weeks is flawed beyond belief.

 

How much do you think it is? Remember, the difference over a full season between the best and worst teams is about 30-35 wins, spread over 25 players. It's not that inconceivable that the difference between a mediocre to bad 3B and a good one over 1/3 of a season is about a win.

[The Other 15]

Another Cubs Blog estimates the Cubs lose about 1 win by replacing Ramirez with Freel for about 6 weeks. It's a bit more considering Miles gets a few more PA's, and there's the risk that Ramirez drops off a bit when he comes back or takes longer than 6 weeks. Still, losing even 3 games because of the injury isn't the end of the world, though it definitely removes a lot of the margin for error with other injuries and underperformance.

 

How robotish does one have to be to believe all these versions of win shares? Any science that has Freel as one game less than Armais over 6 weeks is flawed beyond belief.

 

How much do you think it is? Remember, the difference over a full season between the best and worst teams is about 30-35 wins, spread over 25 players. It's not that inconceivable that the difference between a mediocre to bad 3B and a good one over 1/3 of a season is about a win.

I don't know, but that's no big deal because neither do the guys who came up with the formula. It's merely fodder for thought. What I do know (and the spreadsheet whiz's pretend to know better, would agree, if pressed to bank on it) is that I would rather have Ramirez over Freel in as many games as possible.

[Guest]

Another Cubs Blog estimates the Cubs lose about 1 win by replacing Ramirez with Freel for about 6 weeks. It's a bit more considering Miles gets a few more PA's, and there's the risk that Ramirez drops off a bit when he comes back or takes longer than 6 weeks. Still, losing even 3 games because of the injury isn't the end of the world, though it definitely removes a lot of the margin for error with other injuries and underperformance.

 

How robotish does one have to be to believe all these versions of win shares? Any science that has Freel as one game less than Armais over 6 weeks is flawed beyond belief.

 

How much do you think it is? Remember, the difference over a full season between the best and worst teams is about 30-35 wins, spread over 25 players. It's not that inconceivable that the difference between a mediocre to bad 3B and a good one over 1/3 of a season is about a win.

I don't know, but that's no big deal because neither do the guys who came up with the formula. It's merely fodder for thought. What I do know (and the spreadsheet whiz's pretend to know better, would agree, if pressed to bank on it) is that I would rather have Ramirez over Freel in as many games as possible.

uh, no offense, but...duh

[SouthSideRyan]

What I do know (and the spreadsheet whiz's pretend to know better, would agree, if pressed to bank on it) is that I would rather have Ramirez over Freel in as many games as possible.

 

Yeah, but only if you really prodded them hard.

[Laura]

Ramirez mentioned in the Cubs.com article about Z's rehab.

 

Cubs.com[/b]"]

Third baseman Aramis Ramirez said his left shoulder still hurts after he dislocated it on Friday trying to make a diving stop during the game against the Milwaukee Brewers. When Ramirez was sidelined with a leg injury earlier this year, he was antsy after a few days. He's expected to be out four to six weeks because of the shoulder.

 

"This is worse because I'm going to be out for a while," said Ramirez, who expected to make some Minor League rehab outings.

[JGalt73]

Will Carroll weighs in the the reports of continued shoulder pain. Not encouraging...

 

Ramirez is still in pain, and that says a lot about how serious the dislocation that he suffered last Friday actually was. He is eventually going to need some sort of capsular tightening, a surgical procedure that's exactly what it sounds like, though there are several ways to accomplish that goal. Surgeons differ on how they prefer to do it, with the "thermal" version being the most popular, but it has its downsides. The Cubs still believe that he'll be back in six weeks, but all signs point to a more extensive stay unless the pain leaves quickly and some reasonable stability returns to the joint. At this stage, the likelihood of a recurrence is through the roof.

[SouthSideRyan]

Carroll is such a clown.

[YearofDaCubs]

Carroll is such a clown.

Why?

[The Other 15]

Another Cubs Blog estimates the Cubs lose about 1 win by replacing Ramirez with Freel for about 6 weeks. It's a bit more considering Miles gets a few more PA's, and there's the risk that Ramirez drops off a bit when he comes back or takes longer than 6 weeks. Still, losing even 3 games because of the injury isn't the end of the world, though it definitely removes a lot of the margin for error with other injuries and underperformance.

 

How robotish does one have to be to believe all these versions of win shares? Any science that has Freel as one game less than Armais over 6 weeks is flawed beyond belief.

 

How much do you think it is? Remember, the difference over a full season between the best and worst teams is about 30-35 wins, spread over 25 players. It's not that inconceivable that the difference between a mediocre to bad 3B and a good one over 1/3 of a season is about a win.

I don't know, but that's no big deal because neither do the guys who came up with the formula. It's merely fodder for thought. What I do know (and the spreadsheet whiz's pretend to know better, would agree, if pressed to bank on it) is that I would rather have Ramirez over Freel in as many games as possible.

uh, no offense, but...duh

No offense taken, because, as you could tell by my post, i think it is a duh to want Aram in as many games as possible over Freel and that any science that says that Freel over 6 weeks is worth only one less win share is flawed.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Can you explain why? Because it just seems wrong? Again, the difference over a full season between the best and worst teams is about 30-35 wins, spread over 25+ players. It's not that inconceivable that the difference between a mediocre to bad 3B and a good one over 1/3 to 1/4 of a season is about a win.

[CubColtPacer]

Can you explain why? Because it just seems wrong? Again, the difference over a full season between the best and worst teams is about 30-35 wins, spread over 25+ players. It's not that inconceivable that the difference between a mediocre to bad 3B and a good one over 1/3 to 1/4 of a season is about a win.

 

One flaw I see in there is that I really don't think Freel who has not anywhere near the range he used to have is going to be a better defender than Ramirez.

 

I also think that extrapolating wins can be a bit problematic because it doesn't take into account the quality of team involved. A 100 win team isn't going to lose too many wins when a key player is out because they are still quite a bit better than most teams they play. A 60 win team isn't going to lose many wins when they lose a key player because most of their wins come from opponent bad days anyway. The teams who are hurt the worst are the ones who are slightly above average..those who are a little better than the teams they play and might become a little worse than many teams they play with a key injury.

 

Essentially, I don't think winning is a linear continuum. I think it's much closer to a bell curve.

 

But those are just minor quibbles with the methodology. And of course, a large part of it is what you think of Freel this year. His numbers could vary wildly with the injuries. He's simply a hard player to project and so the dropoff could be quite different based on what numbers you use for him.

 

I agree pretty much with that 1 win average. Of course, based on how the difference in created runs is spread out it could be 0 or 5 games. We won't be able to tell that even in hindsight which is why the win average has to be created in the first place. But I do wonder if the methodology is making some assumptions for the sake of simplicity that might not be quite true.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

The analysis isn't win shares, it's extrapolating runs above replacement to wins.

[Soul]

Personally I think it's a load of horsecrap. Stats like that don't take into account a load of unmeasurables that surround the loss of one of your best players.

[CubColtPacer]

The analysis isn't win shares, it's extrapolating runs above replacement to wins.

 

Thanks. I knew that but got mixed up while I was writing. I have edited it.

[Bull]

I'm Scottish. Is that like robotish?

[TruffleShuffle]

Can you explain why? Because it just seems wrong? Again, the difference over a full season between the best and worst teams is about 30-35 wins, spread over 25+ players. It's not that inconceivable that the difference between a mediocre to bad 3B and a good one over 1/3 to 1/4 of a season is about a win.

 

yup. pujols is worth about 10 wins a year, or 2.5 wins over a quarter season. you replace him with a guy who kinda sucks and gives you only about 2 wins a year, and the drop off is about 2 wins in a quarter season. if the drop off from the best player in baseball to a mediocre player is just 2 wins in a quarter season, it seems pretty logical that a dropoff from a very good 3B to a mediocre one is right around 1.

[Sammys Boombox]

No offense taken, because, as you could tell by my post, i think it is a duh to want Aram in as many games as possible over Freel and that any science that says that Freel over 6 weeks is worth only one less win share is flawed.

 

Of course it's flawed. If Soriano was replaced with Johnson, Bradley with Gathright (I know he's not here anymore just using him as example), Theriot with Miles, and Ramirez with Freel, I bet the Cubs lose a lot more than 4/5 extra games over a 6-week period.

[SouthSideRyan]

Carroll is such a clown.

Why?

 

Talking to doctors does not make one a medical expert.

[Guest]

Carroll is such a clown.

Why?

 

Talking to doctors does not make one a medical expert.

 

Damn. I really hate having to cross that one off my resume'.

[Gingerballs Lives]

Will Carroll weighs in the the reports of continued shoulder pain. Not encouraging...

 

Ramirez is still in pain, and that says a lot about how serious the dislocation that he suffered last Friday actually was. He is eventually going to need some sort of capsular tightening, a surgical procedure that's exactly what it sounds like, though there are several ways to accomplish that goal. Surgeons differ on how they prefer to do it, with the "thermal" version being the most popular, but it has its downsides. The Cubs still believe that he'll be back in six weeks, but all signs point to a more extensive stay unless the pain leaves quickly and some reasonable stability returns to the joint. At this stage, the likelihood of a recurrence is through the roof.

 

That sucks badly.

 

I just want him to return 100%. However long that takes, I'm cool with it.

[Sammy Sofa]

Will Carroll weighs in the the reports of continued shoulder pain. Not encouraging...

 

Ramirez is still in pain, and that says a lot about how serious the dislocation that he suffered last Friday actually was. He is eventually going to need some sort of capsular tightening, a surgical procedure that's exactly what it sounds like, though there are several ways to accomplish that goal. Surgeons differ on how they prefer to do it, with the "thermal" version being the most popular, but it has its downsides. The Cubs still believe that he'll be back in six weeks, but all signs point to a more extensive stay unless the pain leaves quickly and some reasonable stability returns to the joint. At this stage, the likelihood of a recurrence is through the roof.

 

That sucks badly.

 

I just want him to return 100%. However long that takes, I'm cool with it.

 

He's likely never going to be 100% ever again.

[wade]

Will Carroll weighs in the the reports of continued shoulder pain. Not encouraging...

 

Ramirez is still in pain, and that says a lot about how serious the dislocation that he suffered last Friday actually was. He is eventually going to need some sort of capsular tightening, a surgical procedure that's exactly what it sounds like, though there are several ways to accomplish that goal. Surgeons differ on how they prefer to do it, with the "thermal" version being the most popular, but it has its downsides. The Cubs still believe that he'll be back in six weeks, but all signs point to a more extensive stay unless the pain leaves quickly and some reasonable stability returns to the joint. At this stage, the likelihood of a recurrence is through the roof.

 

 

I've been through exactly what Ramirez is going through (with the exception that I'm not a pro-athlete obviously) and everything Carroll is saying is everything my doctor told me. They'll use the thermal procedure if they can because that will leave him with the greatest range of motion. If the surgery has to be more invasive because the capsule is too loose for that option, then Aramis is frankly, in trouble because the older / more active you are the more likley your shoulder will continue to come out of socket if that capsule remains loose.

[mul21]

Will Carroll weighs in the the reports of continued shoulder pain. Not encouraging...

 

Ramirez is still in pain, and that says a lot about how serious the dislocation that he suffered last Friday actually was. He is eventually going to need some sort of capsular tightening, a surgical procedure that's exactly what it sounds like, though there are several ways to accomplish that goal. Surgeons differ on how they prefer to do it, with the "thermal" version being the most popular, but it has its downsides. The Cubs still believe that he'll be back in six weeks, but all signs point to a more extensive stay unless the pain leaves quickly and some reasonable stability returns to the joint. At this stage, the likelihood of a recurrence is through the roof.

 

 

I've been through exactly what Ramirez is going through (with the exception that I'm not a pro-athlete obviously) and everything Carroll is saying is everything my doctor told me. They'll use the thermal procedure if they can because that will leave him with the greatest range of motion. If the surgery has to be more invasive because the capsule is too loose for that option, then Aramis is frankly, in trouble because the older / more active you are the more likley your shoulder will continue to come out of socket if that capsule remains loose.

 

Yes, this. To say Carroll is a clown when you don't know anything about the procedure/injury or how it really affects the shoulder long term is pretty silly. I unfortunately trashed my shoulder before scoping it became the norm for repair and have crap for range of motion now. I'm just hoping they can get it rehabbed for the season and get him back in there close to 100%, but once this happens the likelihood of it continuing to happen are pretty high, and man does it suck when it does.