Westbrook Updates

[Bravenewworld]

Understood, but its WAY less serious:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/ ... 3P20111216
As well, if he keeps having trouble, it can still be removed (he had it repaired). CP3 had his removed a few years back. Its just panic right now as we're so fresh off disappointment last year.

Its less serious then an MCL or ACL tear, but it still has a likely potential to be a consistent injury and something that regularly keeps him out of games.

Im not a huge fan of the link you provided either. It kind of contradicts itself and does not bring up the issue of multiple surgeries.
My biggest issue is how they try to minimize the resulting possibilities of a meniscus tear, but then go on to say 1 in 5 players dont return. 20% of players not returning at all is a pretty big deal and im not sure if i would put the seemingly conclusive positive spin they put on it. Thats not addressing quality of play, quality of return play, time spent injured as a result, multiple surgeries, longevity, etc. That is flat out 1 in 5 can't/don't return.

4/5 do?

Well that's why i mentioned how it does not give out real information on players returning to full form, half form, reoccurring injuries, time off related to injury, etc.
I mean, its hard to believe that you can say that 20% do not return at all, which suggests its very serious. In all honesty i think you would be hard pressed to find another single injury were 20% do not return from at all.
But then turn around and simply say its not that big of a deal. How come we are not seeing "15% return to original statistical form. 19% return to similar statistical form, where similar = 2pts+/-, etc. etc." and of course speed differences, agility differences, vertical, etc. What's the differences with these? We also know there can be massive recovery differences between one surgery and two. So whats the difference between one and two? How do numbers change then?
After the 1 in 5 number they simply summarize the rest of it with like .. "uh, they can play?".

All im saying is one more injury and this has to be the topic of the front office. We cant allow Durant to end up with a mediocre career in OKC when we cant gather our balls long enough to chop off the gangrene arm.

[spearsy23]

Its less serious then an MCL or ACL tear, but it still has a likely potential to be a consistent injury and something that regularly keeps him out of games.

Im not a huge fan of the link you provided either. It kind of contradicts itself and does not bring up the issue of multiple surgeries.
My biggest issue is how they try to minimize the resulting possibilities of a meniscus tear, but then go on to say 1 in 5 players dont return. 20% of players not returning at all is a pretty big deal and im not sure if i would put the seemingly conclusive positive spin they put on it. Thats not addressing quality of play, quality of return play, time spent injured as a result, multiple surgeries, longevity, etc. That is flat out 1 in 5 can't/don't return.

4/5 do?

Well that's why i mentioned how it does not give out real information on players returning to full form, half form, reoccurring injuries, time off related to injury, etc.
I mean, its hard to believe that you can say that 20% do not return at all, which suggests its very serious. In all honesty i think you would be hard pressed to find another single injury were 20% do not return from at all.
But then turn around and simply say its not that big of a deal. How come we are not seeing "15% return to original statistical form. 19% return to similar statistical form, where similar = 2pts+/-, etc. etc." and of course speed differences, agility differences, vertical, etc. What's the differences with these? We also know there can be massive recovery differences between one surgery and two. So whats the difference between one and two? How do numbers change then?
After the 1 in 5 number they simply summarize the rest of it with like .. "uh, they can play?".

All im saying is one more injury and this has to be the topic of the front office. We cant allow Durant to end up with a mediocre career in OKC when we cant gather our balls long enough to chop off the gangrene arm.

While one in five of the athletes never returned to play another NBA game after the injury, those that did return generally got back to their pre-injury playing level. That was based on a calculation that weighed athletes' points, rebounds, fouls and turnovers in the seasons right before and after the injury.

But he said that the findings were generally good news for both professional and recreational athletes who suffer a meniscus injury.

"I would be encouraged in terms of the fact that a lot of these guys return to play at a high level," Drakos said.

The new study suggests that when those athletes do make it back on to the court, they'll be able to play at the same level as before they got injured.

Your 1/5 concerns are fairly unfounded. 20% of guys don't have access to the best doctors in the world and aren't top tier NBA players. If Paul Shirley had suffered a meniscus tear it would have been career ending because no team would have been doing everything they could to get him back and playing.

[bondom34]

^^^^^
What Spearsy said (sorry, late last night and had to leave). The only players that really seem to not recover are bigs who have had recurring issues before the meniscus (or Brandon Roy, who also had previous issues).

[Bravenewworld]

Your 1/5 concerns are fairly unfounded. 20% of guys don't have access to the best doctors in the world and aren't top tier NBA players. If Paul Shirley had suffered a meniscus tear it would have been career ending because no team would have been doing everything they could to get him back and playing.

There is absolutely no information given in that article to suggest that the 20% were people who lacked quality access to doctors. This is you making this assumption. Which im sorry, but your assumption is not based on any real world information. The things you highlighted dont suggest what you are saying at all. If we are going to make blanket assumptions based on no real evidence then we can at least be fair about it and say its 50/50. Lets that 20% consists of 50% being professional athletes. Okay, that still leads us to 1 in 10 or 10%. Can you think of any other common athletic injury that would leave 1 of 10 people to never be able to return to the sport? I cant. I dont even think we could apply that to ACL or MCL injuries. I cant even remember a modern player who didnt return after one of these injuries. I dont think we would find numbers that high without speaking of, breaking a neck or back.

But even given how much they have minimized the effects and repercussions of this injury and how they highlight that this is the case for professional and recreational. You would think that its such a common or easy procedure that you dont need the best of the best.

[spearsy23]

Your 1/5 concerns are fairly unfounded. 20% of guys don't have access to the best doctors in the world and aren't top tier NBA players. If Paul Shirley had suffered a meniscus tear it would have been career ending because no team would have been doing everything they could to get him back and playing.

There is absolutely no information given in that article to suggest that the 20% were people who lacked quality access to doctors. This is you making this assumption. Which im sorry, but your assumption is not based on any real world information. The things you highlighted dont suggest what you are saying at all. If we are going to make blanket assumptions based on no real evidence then we can at least be fair about it and say its 50/50. Lets that 20% consists of 50% being professional athletes. Okay, that still leads us to 1 in 10 or 10%. Can you think of any other common athletic injury that would leave 1 of 10 people to never be able to return to the sport? I cant. I dont even think we could apply that to ACL or MCL injuries. I cant even remember a modern player who didnt return after one of these injuries. I dont think we would find numbers that high without speaking of, breaking a neck or back.

But even given how much they have minimized the effects and repercussions of this injury and how they highlight that this is the case for professional and recreational. You would think that its such a common or easy procedure that you dont need the best of the best.

So we're assuming 50% are top tierNBA players, who represent <1% of basketball players? And on top of that it's over the previous twenty years AND Russ is already back...?

[bondom34]

Also, just to add, the list I could find of NBA players who basically ended their career due to something like this is as follows:
Brandon Roy

That's it. Guys playing who have had either repaired or removed meniscus:
CP3
Metta World Peace
Eric Bledsoe
Jeremy Lin
and many more.

Also, another article I read a while back:
http://www.welcometoloudcity.com/2013/1 ... rd-surgery

There can be long term issues, but nothing career threatening, and again, you're not gonna get another young point guard nearly as good in any sort of trade.