Roch confirms no MRI for Gonzalez prior to signing.

[ledzepp8]

The fact that you continue to say that it is possible just validates my opinion. Thank you for doing that.

No one is saying its 100% foolproof....But it COULD help.

I don't think that's really true. What if the possibility is only like 1%?

I mean lots of things are possible but that doesn't necessarily mean anything.

[Ohfan67]

The fact that you continue to say that it is possible just validates my opinion. Thank you for doing that.

No one is saying its 100% foolproof....But it COULD help.

It is possible to imagine a situation where it could help...there's just not a single case in the history of baseball where it did.

And of course I know you do not need anyone to validate your opinion.

[square634]

The fact that you continue to say that it is possible just validates my opinion. Thank you for doing that.

No one is saying its 100% foolproof....But it COULD help.

And there are hypothetical situations in which it COULD hurt. That is an equally irrelevant statement.

[Sports Guy]

And there are hypothetical situations in which it COULD hurt. That is an equally irrelevant statement.

How is it going to hurt? Because you decide not to sign him and he goes on to be good? That is your "it will hurt" scenario, right?

[wickedwitch]

I don't think that's really true. What if the possibility is only like 1%?

I mean lots of things are possible but that doesn't necessarily mean anything.

Right, because an MRI on a pitcher has a probability of 1% of revealing an injury.

You can't possibly believe that.

[square634]

How is it going to hurt? Because you decide not to sign him and he goes on to be good? That is your "it will hurt" scenario, right?

Yes.

Letters.

[Sports Guy]

Yes.

Letters.

Well, that scenario is certainly not enough of a penalty to not do it.

And again, what if the MRI shows something major?

[ledzepp8]

Right, because an MRI on a pitcher has a probability of 1% of revealing an injury.

You can't possibly believe that.

That's not what I said. We're not talking about it revealing an injury. We're talking about it finding something in an otherwise healthy pitcher, who passed his physical, and it predicting a future injury.

[ledzepp8]

Well, that scenario is certainly not enough of a penalty to not do it.

And again, what if the MRI shows something major?

If the MRI shows something major then there was most likely something in the physical that caused you to want to give the pitcher an MRI anyhow.

Should otherwise healthy pitchers be given CT Scans on the slim chance that they have a brain aneurysm or something?

[Catch 8]

Sometimes it actually is better to just not know. For example, the overdiagnosis bias of the PSA test for prostate cancer in younger men.

FYI, PSA velocity is far more important than the actual PSA scores themselves. I understand your point, even if I do not agree.

[El Gordo]

FYI, PSA velocity is far more important than the actual PSA scores themselves. I understand your point, even if I do not agree.

So some say. This is in no way conclusive.

[square634]

FYI, PSA velocity is far more important than the actual PSA scores themselves. I understand your point, even if I do not agree.

In performing studies, we are learning how to better utilize the test and under what contexts it is meaningful/helpful. The point is that when the PSA test was developed, conventional wisdom said "more information is always better -- so do routine PSA testing on all men starting at relatively young ages, and then use context/judgment to decide how to proceed," and that became the standard of care without any strong evidence (sounds like SG's philosophy, and it is a compelling argument emotionally). Of course, in reality, when someone got a "positive" PSA test, there was going to be a bias toward undergoing aggressive treatment; it is psychologically difficult for both patients and physicians to watch and wait, even if that is the best strategy. Only after running prospective trials are we now finding out that the test may be harmful in certain subgroups and may have negligible survival effects in many others..

[square634]

Well, that scenario is certainly not enough of a penalty to not do it.

And again, what if the MRI shows something major?

I consider that scenario -- avoiding a free agent for what turns out to be a bad reason -- a bad thing if it happens too often. We'll have to agree to disagree.

I think you would be surprised how unlikely it is for the MRI to accurately diagnose whether a pitcher will be able to perform over the life of his contract in the absence of a red flag on the physical exam. If the MRI shows something major, then the physical exam was invariably going to indicate that the pitcher needed the MRI.

Let me turn it around for a second on a similar hypothetical. Let's imagine (and it probably isn't too far-fetched) that we passed over a draft prospect on the basis of an abysmal Ritterpusch psychological test, and then that prospect turned out to be a bust (this is analagous to the MRI screen correctly flagging a current or future injury in the free agent pitcher). Well, we later found out that the psychological test was likely meaningless; it may have even hurt our draft performance over the years. Would you be campaigning for us to be using the Ritterspusch test on all draft prospects again? It gives more information than not doing a test, and it passes the SG stamp of approval -- the chance exists, however unlikely, that it could "correctly identify" a bust-in-the-making. The test gives you more information, and Joe Jordan and the rest of the organization could decide for themselves how much weight to give that information. Is it useless information or potentially misleading information? Who cares, because all information is good!

Do I have that right?

Also, there's a point I have forgotten to mention. Earlier in the thread you asked whether the O's doctors would be able to tell if the MRI were normal or abnormal for a pitcher. Well don't you think the O's doctors would have told MacPhail if they thought an MRI would be helpful/relevant after Gonzalez's physical? If the doctors said the MRI would not be helpful/relevant, should MacPhail have overruled them and told them to read an MRI anyway?

[DannyO]

What does bother me is how they could let him go through spring training and start the season on the major league roster when there was evidence, in spring training in front of the player's and coaching staff's very eyes, that he wasn't right.

Not just the players, manager and coaching staff. I was at spring training, early, and saw him pitch in the first night spring taining game in Sarasota against the Pirates, and it was obvious to me that he was not right.

I'm sure many fans who saw him pitch in the spring saw the same thing I saw, so no doube the Orioles managment did.

[Sports Guy]

Well don't you think the O's doctors would have told MacPhail if they thought an MRI would be helpful/relevant after Gonzalez's physical? If the doctors said the MRI would not be helpful/relevant, should MacPhail have overruled them and told them to read an MRI anyway?

If the doctors said that an MRI is useless in this case, I will go with the doctors there.

But what about the other side to it...What if they said you should do one and AM ignored it?