Will Carroll on Frank Thomas's health
I e-mailed Will Carroll of Baseball Prospectus to see if I couldn't get more precise analysis of Thomas's condition than I'd seen so far. Will has said elsewhere that he liked the Thomas pickup for the price, but he is more pessimistic about Thomas' prognosis than I would have hoped. Here is the exchange:
Will,
I read absolutely everything about the A's, and so far I seem to see a near unanimity of opinion that Frank Thomas can be expected to play a very limited number of games for the A's in 2006. Just to cite 3 examples from among the brighter set:
Joe Sheehan: "I just don't think he's going to be healthy enough to come to the plate more than 300 times, and a figure closer to 200 is likely."
Rob Neyer: "It does seem unlikely, though, that Thomas actually will play more than 50 or 60 games."
Will Carroll (on BP Radio): "I think 300 [at-bats] is about as much as you can hope for."
What I haven't seen from even one of the scores of opinions I've scanned on the topic is the reasoning behind these assessments. "I just don't think," "It does seem unlikely," and "I think" are not arguments. It sounds as though all of you are doing some really basic back-of-the-envelope guestimating: "Frank played a lot in 2003, very little in 2004-5, he seems to be rather better now but given age and the past couple years why don't we split the difference and call it 200-300 ABs."
That's a perfectly normal approach, but can't we do better than that? Most specifically, can't YOU do better than that? What I'd like is an assessment that takes into account Thomas's specific condition. Is his left foot problem a chronic one, rather like Barry Bonds' knees, where you'd expect him to have to take 3 days off per week to rest (although as a DH it's basically his JOB to rest all but a few minutes per game, so I don't see how that helps)? Or is it an acute either/or thing: Either the weakened bone breaks, and he's out from that point forward (like most of last year), or it doesn't break, and there's no particular reason he doesn't get in 600 PAs.
What I don't understand (please enlighten me!) is why a 600 PA season seems to be considered simply out of the question under any circumstances. I understand why that should be the case for Bonds, given the nature of his injuries, but I don't understand why Thomas, if his bone doesn't snap, crackle, or pop (and shouldn't he have a fighting chance at that outcome?), shouldn't have a shot at a more or less full season.
I'll post your response for the benefit of the eager eyes of Athletics Nation unless you specify otherwise.
Thanks
Will's prompt reply:
"I'll have a TON on this in the upcoming A's THR. I hate to be a tease, but there is reasoning behind it. Here's something you can run -- 'Bones heal, except when they don't. Thomas' foot/ankle didn't hold up under a normal rehab, the load placed on a DH, and really, nothing's changed. Absent new information, there's no reason to change our expectation from last year.'"
THR is the Team Health Reports series he runs each spring, one on each team, strung out from February to the season's beginning. So we'll have to wait a bit for the promised "TON" of info. Here's what he wrote about Thomas last year's White Sox THR:
"Thomas' work at rehabbing his ankle from off-season surgery is counteracted by a low pain tolerance, but mid-May looks most likely barring additional setbacks. He was on crutches for seven months, and somehow still had lost 15 pounds upon his arrival to camp. He'll DH exclusively to protect the foot. When healthy, he's still a dangerous hitter."
(Right above his 2005 paragraph on Thomas was a very gloomy assessment of Jermaine Dye's chances of staying healthy, but -- freed from the weight of carrying around all those A's dollars -- Dye finally put in a healthy year.)
Notice there's a bit of an "out" clause in Will's e-mail: "absent new information." The A's certainly have newer medical information than Will has access to, so let's hope that Thomas's saying his ankle is now 90% (vs. "70%" when he came back last year) is an indicator that things are materially different this time around. I still don't see why we shouldn't expect Thomas to play pretty much every day as long as the bone holds up, with the key question being whether the bone can actually hold up. Time will tell.
0 recs |
39 comments
Comments
I'm cheering for them
hold up <clap> clap>
by NYC on Jan 31, 2006 9:23 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Thanks for getting
by salb918 on Jan 31, 2006 9:24 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
I don't like the assumption of his pain tolerance,
by theblackpearl on Jan 31, 2006 9:33 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Smileys
by Furious George on Jan 31, 2006 9:42 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
TE Lawrence & G Gordon Liddy
by monkeyball on Jan 31, 2006 9:45 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe they employ Bill Clinton?
by Faust on Jan 31, 2006 9:50 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
HAHA
by timed exposure on Jan 31, 2006 2:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And yet you wrote "HAHA"
by Faust on Jan 31, 2006 2:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
But I capitalized it
by timed exposure on Feb 2, 2006 12:39 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The thing that scares me . . .
I'm not a othropedic specialist by any means, but I've heard that bones do not break in the same spot, but that surounding areas are weakened by the healing process, so maybe that's why it broke again last year. And if he is 100% healed then it won't have the same propensity to break "as easily".
by rcb on Jan 31, 2006 10:00 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
bone breaking
by skwid on Jan 31, 2006 10:42 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
And that's what scares me
by rcb on Jan 31, 2006 11:11 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Lets just sit him
by niallmack on Jan 31, 2006 10:12 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
The problem with that approach ...
by monkeyball on Jan 31, 2006 10:47 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, I see.
by Sharon on Jan 31, 2006 10:49 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
What?
by salb918 on Jan 31, 2006 10:57 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
no, no, no ...
by monkeyball on Jan 31, 2006 1:54 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
oh..ok.
by bigelephant on Jan 31, 2006 2:21 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
any thread that I'M in ...
(Alternate response: "In Soviet Union ... jackass thread looks for you!")
by monkeyball on Jan 31, 2006 2:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
alternate poster re:alternate response
by bigelephant on Jan 31, 2006 4:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Percent Healthy
When someone says that they're "90%" or "70%" healthy, what do they mean? 90% of 'what' exactly? And how is this quantity measured?
I suppose that '100%' means completely healthy with no nicks or scratches or flesh wounds. I'm not sure what 0% would be - dead I suppose.
I don't know how you could accurately place a percentage on how you feel, although I can understand why players, broadcasters, etc continue to do so. Giving a percentage seems a tad more scientific than just saying "he isn't completely healthy today'.
Just thinking out loud.
by JLeverenz on Jan 31, 2006 12:32 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
It seems a tad more scientific ...
by devo on Jan 31, 2006 12:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
well, duh
This is just an approximation. To do the real thing, we'd need to know his Armor Class and Luck.
Just dropping some science on you.
by Apricot on Jan 31, 2006 2:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I dig your science ...
by devo on Jan 31, 2006 2:23 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
No way
by H3liCat on Feb 1, 2006 12:29 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Body Armor
Don't forget that when he's sitting on the bench in between AB's he'll be regenerating hit points. With a body like that he's got to have a high constitution.
by JLeverenz on Feb 1, 2006 6:16 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm 73% sure
by Nico on Jan 31, 2006 1:39 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
are you sure ...
by monkeyball on Jan 31, 2006 1:57 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
You know where they pull those percentages out of
On the other hand, it does work, in that I think we all have a rough sense of what's meant, and that's all anyone is shooting for here, not "science." 90% vis-a-vis 70% just means it's not as good as new yet but it's a whole lot better than it was before.
I think 0% in this context would be "I just broke the damn thing and I'm writhing on the ground." Not good, but still several steps better than "dead."
by Faust on Jan 31, 2006 2:19 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I withdraw my above explanation
by Faust on Jan 31, 2006 2:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
health + grit
by monkeyball on Jan 31, 2006 2:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't know, Monkey,
by Nico on Jan 31, 2006 7:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
let's just hope
by elcroata on Feb 1, 2006 7:02 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Does he wear a brace?
Also I think that we should replace his bones with anamantium, or whatever metal is in wolverines bones.
by WWBBD on Feb 1, 2006 8:19 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
300 at bats as DH and playoffs contributions
While I don't know Frank's health I do know the A's roster and believe using the other 300 at bats @ DH to keep the rest of the roster prepped for the playoffs is the best possible use of those other at bats.
What to do with Frank for those other 300 at bats? A bench that has a bat like Frank's has a very real effect on the games maneuvers in the 8th-9th innings.
Even when Frank isn't starting his
P R E S E N C E
makes it tough on opponents to counter A's lineups effectively.
Accentuate the positives my friends!
by A s Eh on Feb 1, 2006 11:13 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

by 





















