Tribune: Thibodeau stresses players should play if .....

[transplant]

When in doubt, rely on Occam's razor. The most likely scenario is that the medical and coaching staff did not recklessly risk the long term healthy of the $94 million franchise player and MVP to beat the Hornets in February.

You probably already know that 'recklessly' is prejudicial. They can be just a little wrong.

Are you saying Rose was healthy for the Hornets game?

I'm not talking about long term vision, just, did he appear to be healthy to you in that game?

Or in the game earlier when he was hurt in the first half and for some reason returned to play injured in the second half.

It's nice to say they wouldn't do that on purpose, and I agree. But can we assume they are 100% infallible? Maybe they are, hopefully they are, I can't make that assumption myself.

What the heck is healthy? 100%? Then no, Rose wasn't 100%. Of course, since his "turf toe" is still not "healed" he wasn't 100% when he scored 30+ points in 4 out of 5 games recently...and a lot of doctor wannabes wanted Rose held out of those games.

[kyrv]

Duck, tell me whether or not you agree with Doug's following post, where he lays out 3 possible reasons for Rose sitting out against Charlotte. Do you believe there are more possibilities, i.e. one that would back up your point?

1: Why did he need rest today but Wednesday?

A: His back is better, but they just wanted to rest him for the heck of it.
--- Would have made more sense to rest him Wednesday then, and we'd probably agree we rested him on the wrong day.
B: His back is the same, but we decided to rest him now.
--- The decision to rest is now arbitrary, but the timing would have made more sense on Wednesday when if rest isn't allowing it to recover he'd have had the option of resting more.
C: His back is worse
--- The overwhelmingly likely scenario in which this is true is that he aggravated it by playing Wednesday in which case we've worsened an injury in a game the Bulls would have cruised to victory in.

One huge assumption here is that Rose aggravated the back because he played against NO. There is zero evidence to support this assumption. As Duck said, maybe it was while he slept, maybe the plane flight made it worse, maybe his car hit a pothole.... If the back flared up, there's no way of knowing what caused it. I've had friends strain their back leaning over to tie their shoes.

Fair points and I have had my back go out doing simple things, but as transplant said, Rose did not appear to be healthy during the Hornets game.

So people are wondering, why is an injured Rose playing? Fair question imo.

[HINrichPolice]

Honestly, if someone wants to make the point that the Bulls training and medical staff sucks eggs, I won't disagree.

I usually don't disagree with cold and duck, but I've been having a hard time finding any common ground while reading their posts. The quote above might be that common ground that I've been looking for in trying to understand cold, duck, and those who are on their side of the argument.

I guess I simply don't trust Thibs, Rose, or the staff to protect my precious unicorn. Someone needs to save them from themselves so to speak.

I'm confident that we have the consistency, more than any other team, to maintain the #1 spot that we can afford the "risk" of losing to the bottom feeders without our star player. The gung ho attitude that our players have developed and our coaching staff has instilled has been paramount in carrying out that very consistency.

But we all know that the goal is a championship. If a coach like Popovich or Rivers or Jackson is willing to manage minutes with the long term outlook in mind, especially when it's our star player's freak'n BACK in question, then we should expect Thibs to do the same. Luckily, it does seem that Thibs is willing to "manage" minutes and that there does exist a gray area between healthy enough to play regular minutes and sitting out due to injury.

[BIGGIEsmalls 23]

If a coach like Popovich or Rivers or Jackson is willing to manage minutes with the long term outlook in mind, especially when it's our star player's freak'n BACK in question, then we should expect Thibs to do the same.

HP, those teams & situations were different from our current situation. Just 3 quick differences:

1) Those were veteran playoff-tested players & coaches who had been head coaches longer than Thibs' one (1) season

2) Those three coaches had more than a partial season of implementing their systems (Boozer & Noah were out half of last season & Rip has played less than 15 games)

3) Those coaches began managing minutes AFTER those teams won championships

[DuckIII]

I think this thread has been a great lesson in how people tend to do everything possible to avoid admitting they're wrong, no matter how obvious their mistake is.

I do it all the time, to be sure. But in this situation, I hope I would have admitted fault. For example, if Rose played against NO and looked fine and had his minutes curbed similar to all the other starters (due to it being a blowout) and then played against Charlotte/looked fine/had his minutes curbed similar to all the other starters, then I hope I would have admitted that I was being overly cautious.

But of course, that is far from what happened.

The beauty of being me is that I'm not arguing what is right or wrong. I'm admitting my ignorance of the underlying data that would need to be known to even form that opinion at all. But your internet medical degree has evidently given you sufficient expertise to form a definitive opinion on a matter of science and medicine with regard to specific human body that you don't have access to.

Impressive. But I'm not so skilled as all that. So I defer to actual doctors dealing with the actual patient until we have a Deng like situation (which is the only time I'm aware of the Bulls medical staff misdiagnosed anything or mistreated anything).

Duck, tell me whether or not you agree with Doug's following post, where he lays out 3 possible reasons for Rose sitting out against Charlotte. Do you believe there are more possibilities, i.e. one that would back up your point?

1: Why did he need rest today but Wednesday?

A: His back is better, but they just wanted to rest him for the heck of it.
--- Would have made more sense to rest him Wednesday then, and we'd probably agree we rested him on the wrong day.
B: His back is the same, but we decided to rest him now.
--- The decision to rest is now arbitrary, but the timing would have made more sense on Wednesday when if rest isn't allowing it to recover he'd have had the option of resting more.
C: His back is worse
--- The overwhelmingly likely scenario in which this is true is that he aggravated it by playing Wednesday in which case we've worsened an injury in a game the Bulls would have cruised to victory in.

In any of the three scenarios, it still ultimately would have made more sense to rest him Wednesday. I don't think it's some ultra critical failure, but it seemed like an obvious choice at the time.

(1) I've been wrong about a mountain of stuff on this board over the years, and have admitted that wrongness too many times to count. So spare me the ironically arrogant lesson in humility.

(2) Yes, I absolutely believe there are countless other possibilities, and I've stated them repeatedly in this thread already. First, no one has been able to definitively (or at all) establish that testing a spasmic back is a medically unsound option and that in specific instances it may be better for lower back muscles (or the leg tendinitis which was actually causing the back to adapt, which in turn caused the spasms) to be exercised in limited minutes rather than to sit dormant or be tested through actions unrelated to the ultimately desired action (playing in an NBA basketball game).

It is indeed entirely possible that because the Hornets suck, and that since Derrick Rose's anticipated activity is the playing of NBA basketball, that the Hornets (rather than the Celtics) were an ideal opponent against whom to test how Rose's back would in fact respond (rather than hypothetically) in performing that action. Especially since, if it did not respond well, the staff knew that 5 more days remained until the next meaningful opponent arose on the schedule.

Second, doug's third option presumes that the limited game play enhanced the harm to Rose's back. This is far from known. See my prior post regarding the "ebb and flow" of injuries of this type and myriad causes for changes in condition not merely over days, but over hours. Further, playing him limited minutes against NO and then none against Charlotte would be consistent with my speculation above (which I am at least honest enough to acknowledge I am engaging in), and that in fact his back might not even be worse at all.

And if it is worse, which it may very well be, it may not be connected to the decision to let him test it against NO.

Now, maybe a report will come out saying that during, immediately after, and ever since the NO game his back has tightened up like a drum. In which case I would of course join in the hindsight analysis that he should not have played (which is different than definitively saying he should not have played based on the information present at the time that decision was made).

In other words, no I don't agree with doug's post since it is specifically limited to scenarios which support his premise.

[transplant]

Fair points and I have had my back go out doing simple things, but as transplant said, Rose did not appear to be healthy during the Hornets game.

So people are wondering, why is an injured Rose playing? Fair question imo.

Don't like how you used my quote out of context. Full quote:

What the heck is healthy? 100%? Then no, Rose wasn't 100%. Of course, since his "turf toe" is still not "healed" he wasn't 100% when he scored 30+ points in 4 out of 5 games recently...and a lot of doctor wannabes wanted Rose held out of those games.

[DuckIII]

So people are wondering, why is an injured Rose playing? Fair question imo.

Wrong. People are saying he shouldn't have played and, more, that this should have been known prior to him playing. Big difference.

[GetBuLLish]

So people are wondering, why is an injured Rose playing? Fair question imo.

Wrong. People are saying he shouldn't have played and, more, that this should have been known prior to him playing. Big difference.

I think Kyrv is exactly right. That's what we are saying.

He shouldn't have played. And this should have been known prior to him playing.

If it took me (and pretty much everyone else) only a few minutes of game time to realize that Rose shouldn't be playing, then there must have been enough information prior to the game to come to the same conclusion.

[DuckIII]

So people are wondering, why is an injured Rose playing? Fair question imo.

Wrong. People are saying he shouldn't have played and, more, that this should have been known prior to him playing. Big difference.

I think Kyrv is exactly right. That's what we are saying.

He shouldn't have played. And this should have been known prior to him playing.

Actually, that makes me right. No Kyrv. He's saying its merely a question being posed. I'm saying its a statement being made, which you agree with. Its okay to admit I'm right, especially when you are agreeing with me.

If it took me (and pretty much everyone else) only a few minutes of game time to realize that Rose shouldn't be playing, then there must have been enough information prior to the game to come to the same conclusion.

And therein lies the problem, Doctor. You are speculating. I'm not willing to. I'll wait for the actual reports. See my above post for greater elaboration on alternative, plausible scenarios.

[BeKuK]

So people are wondering, why is an injured Rose playing? Fair question imo.

Wrong. People are saying he shouldn't have played and, more, that this should have been known prior to him playing. Big difference.

MY GOODNESS Duck.....and why is it wrong to say that,, when we all know(since the Charlotte game) we were right?

I also criticized Coach Thibs for NOT TAKING HIM(rose) OUT OF THE GAME(against NO) AFTER 5minutes.....when even a "don't know nothing guy" like me has seen that Derrick wasn't in good shape.

Are those 22 minutes explainable????

[P.C.]

Whose decision do you think it was to shut down Hamilton? Thibs? I seriously doubt it. Someone above him told him (and Hamilton) that Hamilton was no longer "day-to-day." That's how I believe it works.

We're chatting about this now in two different threads.

Coldfish made a similar point in the other thread.

We don't know this, do we? I mean, I could see it being much more complex than you've made it out to be and Thibodeau has expressed to the media. If any reporters are scanning this thread, many of us would love to see an interview with an anonymous former trainer/doctor for a pro team . . . someone who could provide some insights on how it works.

[BeKuK]

Whose decision do you think it was to shut down Hamilton? Thibs? I seriously doubt it. Someone above him told him (and Hamilton) that Hamilton was no longer "day-to-day." That's how I believe it works.

We're chatting about this now in two different threads.

Coldfish made a similar point in the other thread.

Yeah, and why he made such a similar thread? I've my thoughts about that!

[DuckIII]

So people are wondering, why is an injured Rose playing? Fair question imo.

Wrong. People are saying he shouldn't have played and, more, that this should have been known prior to him playing. Big difference.

MY GOODNESS Duck.....and why is it wrong to say that,, when we all know(since the Charlotte game) we were right?

I also criticized Coach Thibs for NOT TAKING HIM(rose) OUT OF THE GAME(against NO) AFTER 5minutes.....when even a "don't know nothing guy" like me has seen that Derrick wasn't in good shape.

Are those 22 minutes explainable????

Yes, they are in the sense that there are more conclusions to be drawn than only the one you drew - while noting that all such conclusions are based on speculation.

You can say you are "right" until you are blue in the face. The fact is you believe your unsubstantiated conclusion is correct. And maybe it is. But maybe its not. And there are enough plausible alternatives so as to render your "rightness" very much in question.

As a sidenote, I found a quote from Rose (from today) that I believe is consistent with my statement about how injuries like this are in day-to-day and even hour-to-hour flux, and that what can cause them to flare up are things as innocuous as sleep:

"I really don’t know," Rose said about Sunday. "When I wake up, I usually can tell. I’ll probably know by the time I wake up."

Rose sat Friday night in Charlotte after hinting at the morning shootaround that he would play. The lower back spasms also sidelined him for the second half of Monday's victory in New Jersey and to just 22 minutes on Wednesday in New Orleans.

He doesn't know today. But he does know that even though he's not playing 22 minutes against NO tonight, that he'll probably know tomorrow morning when he wakes up. Moreover, it appears that in between him playing that 22 minutes against NO, his back was feeling well enough that he believed he'd play against Charlotte, but that something happened Friday afternoon (the NO game being played approximately 43 hours prior to that) causing his condition to become inflamed.

I.e., none of us know what the hell we are talking about.

[transplant]

I.e., none of us know what the hell we are talking about.

In this entire thread, this may be the most cogent line of text.

[dougthonus]

FWIW, I'll agree that Thibodeau screwed up and Rose shouldn't have played, but not in the way that people are taking it. If I was Thibs, I would have played Rose that game and then pulled him when it was obvious he was hurt. I would have then called up JR personally and demanded that the medical staff be fired immediately for clearing Rose to play. Not doing that was his mistake.

I would have definitely viewed that as an acceptable course of action. Just don't put him back in after his first break. Even the action he took I don't deem entirely unreasonable despite my arguments. I just don't think it was the best action, but I don't think it was a crazy action.

[BeKuK]

Yes, they are in the sense that there are more conclusions to be drawn than only the one you drew - while noting that all such conclusions are based on speculation.

and one more time: What about this conclusion = He didn't play the last one!?

Maybe we should stop "our" discussion, because it's senseless. Also I'm afraid to get suspended.

You can say you are "right" until you are blue in the face. The fact is you believe your unsubstantiated conclusion is correct. And maybe it is. But maybe its not. And there are enough plausible alternatives so as to render your "rightness" very much in question.

Nice greetings from germany...your friend,

BeKuK

[DanTown8587]

Obviously there is speculation on the Bulls, this the Bulls message board after all, but talking about the severity of injuries, who makes the call on who can and cannot play, and other injury happenings as fact is crazy to me.

[fleet]

I.e., none of us know what the hell we are talking about.

In this entire thread, this may be the most cogent line of text.

I dont accept that. We don't neccesarilly know who is at fault, but many people on this board have known, or at least suspected something was not right with the Bulls decision making about when and how much to play certain guys. And we were told that we had nothing to be concerned about. Well, its almost consensus now that there was something to be concerned about.

[P.C.]

I.e., none of us know what the hell we are talking about.

In this entire thread, this may be the most cogent line of text.

We're 95% sure that mistakes have been made, right? We just don't understand the dynamics well enough to know who is at fault.

[P.C.]

I dont accept that. We don't neccesarilly know who is at fault, but many people on this board have known, or at least suspected something was not right with the Bulls decision making about when and how much to play certain guys. And we were told that we had nothing to be concerned about. Well, its almost consensus now that there was something to be concerned about.

jinx