I agree. Not a doctor, but a cortisone shot in the shoulder for range of motion can be a pretty basic thing, while having a shoulder that requires draining sounds like a much more serious thing. I'm having a hard time imagining someone confusing those. It's fishy.
6? You hope he hits 6? That is 6 too high. I hope he plays 162 games and goes 0-648 with 648 Ks.
You aren't being nearly vindictive enough. I hope he gets released in spring training for banging the Steinbrenners' wives, signs with the Sox and hits 75 Hrs while continuing to put the screws to various Yankee management SOs.
The story says he had a shot on October 5. That was 20 days ago. I just don't get it. If he's had further injections since October 5, they shouldn't be playing him. If he still can't raise his arm over his head without pain, they shouldn't be playing him. If this is all in his head, they shouldn't be playing him.
That's the thing I don't understand -- sitting Simmons and Embiid worked out for the team and the players. The fans can see Simmons putting up a triple double, Embiid averaging 20/12, and they'll understand if Fultz has to sit for a couple weeks, especially when his shot looks like that. And even if they don't understand (which, again, they will) who cares? The culmination of The Process is too important to run out there with any type of injury. It just makes no sense.
Colaneglo said the only thing he could have, other than, "Fultz changed his shot on his own; we're not sure why; but we sure as hell don't like it."
That's of course true. I still think it's silly, though, to talk about how the draft order would now be different (and/or the supposition that Ainge preferred Tatum over Fultz has been proven right) based on 3 games of a guy playing with an injury.
I'm sympathetic to the small sample size argument, but it's worth reiterating how small our sample is for these guys in general. For instance, Tatum has played in 14 professional games now between summer, preseason, and the NBA. His entire college career was 29 games. About a third of the basketball we've seen him play has been as a professional now. I think it's actually pretty reasonable to have big swings in one's assessment by seeing 50% more games against a higher level of competition.
As WBCD noted, he's not really arguing that. You kind of have to read between the lines here. He's saying: Fultz changed his shot on his own. We didn't tell him to. There's nothing structurally wrong with his shoulder. Maybe his "injury" (*wink wink*) is a result of the shooting form change that we didn't tell him to do.
Neither is doing a good job of protecting the player, as all they’re doing is inviting even greater scrutiny.
You've never had bursitis? You've had almost everything else, but count yourself as at least a little bit lucky. Shoulder inflammation can hurt like hell, and it will play with your mind. In two weeks Markelle will report that he can't lift his arm over his head.
I thought of bursitis as well. I've had a lingering case for a while now. I got a cortisone shot a couple of years back, but haven't really done anything for it since, except for avoiding certain exercises (dips and barbell presses will definitely cause flare-ups) at the gym. When I play pick-up, I get to the gym early to get up shots and loosen the shoulder up,and usually I'm fine once the game starts, but if I'm having a flare-up, shooting is pretty painful. Of course, I'm a weekend warrior pushing 40 rather than a 19 year-old elite athlete, but I only play ball once a week and even if I'm a Nick Young-level gunner out there, I imagine an NBA player has me by a couple of thousand attempts. Though the bursitis theory still brings us back to the mystery- if it's bad enough that it's fucking with his mechanics- and possibly his psyche- why on earth are they running him out there. It seems like the last thing you'd want to do with something as muscle-memory dependent as shooting is tinker with mechanics for the sake of pain-avoidance if it's something that can be resolved through rest and rehab.
This. I think people get confused by the fact that "small sample size" is just a subset of Bayesian reasoning. SSS is relevant when you have very strong priors, but when you don't, as in this case, even small samples can be extremely relevant and shift probability bands heavily.
Colangelo is protecting the team/himself. If he was protecting the player he wouldn't have felt the need to speculate that the new form caused the injury which is obviously nonsense.
Piggy backing on this idea, there was an article I saw once (I don't remember where) positing the theory that if a pitcher in baseball has >13 K's in a start it becomes extremely likely that that pitcher is or will be very good. It sounds maybe obvious, but there were some interesting historical examples of guys who hadn't been touted in the minors or who had not had great track records up to that point who had one single start that pointed to their talent.
This is true. It also speaks to why it was silly last summer for folks to argue Fultz was a 'consensus number one pick' and thus that a trade of him is highly likely to backfire based on that (rather than some assessment of his ability). Sample sizes impact all sorts of assessments, and people aren't always very disciplined about remembering that.
That's too much man! They can have Jetsam but I'm not giving up Flotsam unless they throw in a future 1st!
Sadly, I've heard this exact statement from multiple ex's
There is no way anything about Fultz's shoulder showed up in the medicals.
what does embiid's early max have to do with brett brown?
colangelo is a pos
i have had it, it hurts a lot. wincing every shot seems bad.
If LA had taken Tatum I would have been disappointed in the trade, because I had him as the primary alternative to Fultz. But getting Tatum and and the LA pick for Fultz is a huge win. I still think that Fultz eventually gets past the yips and is fine long term.
Based on what? Some summer league games? Fultz is clearly in hunt based on pure talent but these are all 19 year-old kids. He’s not some can’t miss stud like a Wall, Irving, etc. He figures to have a good NBA career but I have no idea what his ceiling will ultimately become, especially with the mess that Philly’s operation has become.
I appreciate the perspective of looking at a small sample from a Bayesian logic perspective, thanks for the suggestion! I'm not sure I agree with both conclusions though and apologies for hacking up your post a bit in the reply.
This certainly makes sense, particularly in the context of @bowiac's original point "I think it's actually pretty reasonable to have big swings in one's assessment by seeing 50% more games against a higher level of competition."
This is the conclusion I'm hung up on. While its true a SS can significantly impact an expected value, the corresponding volatility of the forecast inherently reduces the relevance. So, if you define relevant as 'making a big impact on the average of the sample' then I agree. However, if you define relevant more broadly to mean I'm learning something really meaningful about the player then I would lean the other direction.
I was half joking about Brown being fired (hence the Rick Pitino prediction). Those questionable moves are all on Philly mgmt, not Brown. But after reading Colangelo's statement on Fultz, I could see Brown being used as a scapegoat by Jan 1 if 'the process' isn't proceeding.
Missing here is the recurring issues Colangelo & the Sixers have had with injuries & all their Process Babies: In the past two days or so The Ringer had a piece on this Fultz situation (sorry, no link) that briefly touched on the injury misdiagnosis or lack of transparency with Embiid, Simmons, Okafor, and now Fultz.
