Woodruff may be out for the playoffs

[areacodes]

34 minutes ago, BruisedCrew said:

So, you basically agree with me but want to quibble.

When I heard Woodruff tearfully say that maybe this was a blessing because he could get his  issue taken care of, I thought it was obvious that he had gotten some pretty bad news from a doctor and the only question is how long he will be unable to pitch. And I also think it was obvious from his reaction that he knows his return to pitching isn’t going to be next week or next month.

If you want to call my conclusion an “assumption”, I really don’t care. But I don’t see how you can reach any other conclusion from it. 

 

 

I think pretty much everybody has been in agreement on this one.  It sucks for Woody and it looks like his year is done.

Most of us are accepting that we are dealing with incomplete information and are making an assumption about the outcome.

Others are doing essentially the same thing but are confusing their assumptions as facts and then are surprised when others might quibble with that.

[rickh150]

If it’s Burnes, Peralta, and Miley in the NLWC, I have to assume again that Burnes is not going on three days rest and would pitch Monday in Game 2 and Saturday in Game 5,  That would give Peralta and Miley NLDS Games 3 and 4. 
The big question is if Houser is included in the NLWC to pitch in relief on Wed/Thurs or if he potentially would be penciled in to start Game 1 of the NLDS if we sweep. 
 

 

[True Blue Brew Crew]

How often do playoff teams have a surprise major injury on the eve of the first round? Two times in a row for the Brewers doesn't seem fair.

[BruisedCrew]

7 hours ago, areacodes said:

I think pretty much everybody has been in agreement on this one.  It sucks for Woody and it looks like his year is done.

Most of us are accepting that we are dealing with incomplete information and are making an assumption about the outcome.

Others are doing essentially the same thing but are confusing their assumptions as facts and then are surprised when others might quibble with that.

We’ll just have to agree to disagree that a CONCLUSION based on certain facts is not the same as an ASSUMPTION of any facts. 

I am taking the FACTS of what Counsell and Woodruff said and how they said it and drawing the CONCLUSION that Woodruff will not be pitching this postseason. If that conclusion proves to be wrong I will own it.

The other relevant FACT is that Woodruff had the same issue in April and it took 4 months for him to return to the mound  

But, the poster who I originally responded to was speculating that Woodruff might have received a medical opinion that he might be able to return this postseason. I think  that’s highly unlikely. 

I am not confused as to why someone might quibble with my comments when they have established a history of doing it. 

[MrTPlush]

This sucks, but baseball is fickle. For all we know, Woodruff was about to toss 6 ERs over 2 innings to blow Game 2.

We still have the pitchers to get it done. Both Peralta and Burnes have the ability to win two games in a series with their arms. Wade Miley, as boring as he seems, can pitch a lot of zeros.

On paper, it is a big loss, but over the course of a game or three…who knows if it was even a loss. Just gotta move on without him.

[TURBO]

I understand all the doom and gloom, but in the end, we are in the playoffs, which is a hell of a lot better than not being in the playoffs.

Let's see what happens.

[BruisedCrew]

13 minutes ago, TURBO said:

I understand all the doom and gloom, but in the end, we are in the playoffs, which is a hell of a lot better than not being in the playoffs.

Let's see what happens.

I'm not really sensing doom and gloom. I think it's more a matter of frustration dealing with an unexpected last minute blow to the team's greatest area of strength.

[Brock Beauchamp]

30 minutes ago, TURBO said:

I understand all the doom and gloom, but in the end, we are in the playoffs, which is a hell of a lot better than not being in the playoffs.

Let's see what happens.

I'm not doom and gloom - the Brewers still have two very good starters - but I'm thoroughly sick and tired of watching both the Twins and Brewers limp into October year after year. Just once I'd like to see healthy teams make an earnest run at the postseason.

[wildcat83]

My entire thought process on the last couple seasons was just get to the playoffs with your big 3 healthy and you have a punchers chance.  I think there is still enough pitching on this team to have the proverbial "punchers chance", but it's a big blow.  Frustrating that we won't see what could have been with a fully healthy big 3 pitching.

[sveumrules]

Above all else, this sucks for Brandon Woodruff. Impossible not to feel for a guy who has been such a huge part of the organization’s success over the last six seasons.

Ideally, he can get this thing right with an offseason of rest/rehab, then put up a 30 start platform season in 2024 and secure a multi year deal in FA.

As for the postseason, it takes what was a slightly weighted coin flip in our favor for the WC round to more of a true 50/50 toss. If we survive that, what was already going to be an uphill climb will just be that much steeper.

Hopefully, this galvanizes the team, they go on an improbable run and win the whole dang shebang for Woody.

Those are the outcomes I’ll be pulling for, however improbable they may be.

[Brock Beauchamp]

14 minutes ago, sveumrules said:

Ideally, he can get this thing right with an offseason of rest/rehab, then put up a 30 start platform season in 2024 and secure a multi year deal in FA.

Ideally, on November 1st the Brewers and Woodruff agree on a nice, lengthy extension.

[areacodes]

8 hours ago, BruisedCrew said:

We’ll just have to agree to disagree that a CONCLUSION based on certain facts is not the same as an ASSUMPTION of any facts. 

I am taking the FACTS of what Counsell and Woodruff said and how they said it and drawing the CONCLUSION that Woodruff will not be pitching this postseason. If that conclusion proves to be wrong I will own it.

The other relevant FACT is that Woodruff had the same issue in April and it took 4 months for him to return to the mound  

But, the poster who I originally responded to was speculating that Woodruff might have received a medical opinion that he might be able to return this postseason. I think  that’s highly unlikely. 

I am not confused as to why someone might quibble with my comments when they have established a history of doing it. 

It has nothing to do with the conclusion you drew as that is pretty much agreed upon by everybody.

It is the arrogance of thinking you have facts and weren’t making assumptions like everybody else.

[Outlander]

3 hours ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

Ideally, on November 1st the Brewers and Woodruff agree on a nice, lengthy extension.

It's cruel, but that would not be ideal for the Brewers 

[BruisedCrew]

55 minutes ago, areacodes said:

It has nothing to do with the conclusion you drew as that is pretty much agreed upon by everybody.

It is the arrogance of thinking you have facts and weren’t making assumptions like everybody else.

Please tell me what FACT I claimed to have. 
 

[Axman59]

It's over.

 

[areacodes]

19 hours ago, BruisedCrew said:

Please tell me what FACT I claimed to have. 
 

Here you go:

On 10/2/2023 at 5:55 PM, BruisedCrew said:

As I said earlier the facts are the words used and demeanor shown by both Counsell and Woodruff in their comments to the press.

Your interpretation of somebody’s demeanor is not a fact.  I don’t get why it is so hard for you to admit that you were making an assumption just like the rest of us - you’ve been the only one to claim that your conclusion is based only on facts and not assumptions.

[rickh150]

And if he is out for most of next season too, I think we have seen the last of Woodruff.  He shouldn't be given $10 million to pitch a couple of months.  No arby... just release.  Non-tender.

[CheezWizHed]

4 minutes ago, rickh150 said:

And if he is out for most of next season too, I think we have seen the last of Woodruff.  He shouldn't be given $10 million to pitch a couple of months.  No arby... just release.  Non-tender.

They could agree on a contract that allows him to recover on the team and then pitch in 2025 (if he is indeed out all of 2024).  Arby isn't the only option. 

Though, I'm getting Jimmy Nelson deja vu all over again.

[rickh150]

2 minutes ago, CheezWizHed said:

They could agree on a contract that allows him to recover on the team and then pitch in 2025 (if he is indeed out all of 2024).  Arby isn't the only option. 

Though, I'm getting Jimmy Nelson deja vu all over again.

It's the only option... unless we hear he could be back for training camp in 2024.

[rickh150]

Just now, rickh150 said:

It's the only option... unless we hear he could be back for spring training in 2024.

 

[BruisedCrew]

2 hours ago, areacodes said:

Here you go:

Your interpretation of somebody’s demeanor is not a fact.  I don’t get why it is so hard for you to admit that you were making an assumption just like the rest of us - you’ve been the only one to claim that your conclusion is based only on facts and not assumptions.

As I alluded to earlier our difference seems to be over the meanings of the words "assumption" and "conclusion".

Since you are insisting on pursuing this, I'm going to get a little professorial about it. I am using the words "assumption" and "conclusion" as they are defined in the dictionary, and I think that you, Brewcrew82, and maybe some others, are using the word "assumption" incorrectly.

Specifically, here are the relevant definitions of these words as they appear in the Meriam-Webster dictionary:

Assumption: "something taken as being true or factual and used as a starting point for a course of action or reasoning". (My bolding added).

Conclusion: "an opinion arrived at through a process of reasoning".

In this case, as I have explained more than once, I took some facts and evidence, specifically Woodruff's previous experience with the same injury, and the comments made by Counsell and Woodruff, and used them to reach the conclusion that Woodruff will miss the entire postseason. I never claimed that my conclusion will definitely prove to be correct, but I didn't make any assumptions as part of reaching that conclusion. Some interpretation or analysis of facts is often a necessary part of reaching a conclusion, but that's a lot different than making an assumption. It's part of the "process of reasoning".

I think it's bizarre that you continue to push this even while conceding that most everyone agrees with my conclusion. But, I guess I'm not surprised because this isn't the first time that you've jumped into an exchange to challenge my opinions. If using words properly makes me arrogant, then I guess I'm guilty, but I'm not going to use them improperly just to satisfy people on this board.

If it makes you feel better, I admit that I did not, and still do not, know for certain that Woodruff would miss the entire postseason even if the Brewers go all the way to the World Series. And, if you want to conclude (incorrectly) that I used assumptions to reach that conclusion, go ahead.

[areacodes]

8 hours ago, BruisedCrew said:

As I alluded to earlier our difference seems to be over the meanings of the words "assumption" and "conclusion".

Since you are insisting on pursuing this, I'm going to get a little professorial about it. I am using the words "assumption" and "conclusion" as they are defined in the dictionary, and I think that you, Brewcrew82, and maybe some others, are using the word "assumption" incorrectly.

Specifically, here are the relevant definitions of these words as they appear in the Meriam-Webster dictionary:

Assumption: "something taken as being true or factual and used as a starting point for a course of action or reasoning". (My bolding added).

Conclusion: "an opinion arrived at through a process of reasoning".

In this case, as I have explained more than once, I took some facts and evidence, specifically Woodruff's previous experience with the same injury, and the comments made by Counsell and Woodruff, and used them to reach the conclusion that Woodruff will miss the entire postseason. I never claimed that my conclusion will definitely prove to be correct, but I didn't make any assumptions as part of reaching that conclusion. Some interpretation or analysis of facts is often a necessary part of reaching a conclusion, but that's a lot different than making an assumption. It's part of the "process of reasoning".

I think it's bizarre that you continue to push this even while conceding that most everyone agrees with my conclusion. But, I guess I'm not surprised because this isn't the first time that you've jumped into an exchange to challenge my opinions. If using words properly makes me arrogant, then I guess I'm guilty, but I'm not going to use them improperly just to satisfy people on this board.

If it makes you feel better, I admit that I did not, and still do not, know for certain that Woodruff would miss the entire postseason even if the Brewers go all the way to the World Series. And, if you want to conclude (incorrectly) that I used assumptions to reach that conclusion, go ahead.

Once again, Professor, it has nothing to do with your conclusion.  It has to do with how you came about your conclusion and this arrogance that you somehow had all of these facts you were using while the rest of us were just making assumptions.  And if you are going to give somebody a definition of a word from a dictionary - it actually helps to provide the actual definition:
Merriam-Webster

- a: an assuming that something is true
- b: a fact or statement taken for granted

Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary

- a belief or feeling that something is true or that something will happen, although there is no proof

Neither of these definitions (one directly from your source - your definition was in relation to when premise is used as a synonym for assumption) are stating you are required to use something as a starting point when considering an assumption but rather a belief that something is true without fact.  When this started, you specifically said, "I'm not making any assumptions.  I am reading what has played out right in front of our eyes." and when asked for your facts you said, "As I said earlier the facts are the words used and the demeanor shown by Counsell and Woodruff in their comments to the press."  Also notice, you did not use Woodruff's previous injury as part of your facts until later.

You took some facts (Woodruff is injured and will miss at least the WC round), added in your interpretation of Woodruff/Counsell's comments and demeanor (not facts) and came to a conclusion.  You made an assumption and it is fine to admit that.

[jerichoholicninja]

I can confirm with 100% confidence that Woodruff will not pitch in the 2023 playoffs.

[BruisedCrew]

44 minutes ago, areacodes said:

Once again, Professor, it has nothing to do with your conclusion.  It has to do with how you came about your conclusion and this arrogance that you somehow had all of these facts you were using while the rest of us were just making assumptions.  And if you are going to give somebody a definition of a word from a dictionary - it actually helps to provide the actual definition:
Merriam-Webster

- a: an assuming that something is true
- b: a fact or statement taken for granted

Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary

- a belief or feeling that something is true or that something will happen, although there is no proof

Neither of these definitions (one directly from your source - your definition was in relation to when premise is used as a synonym for assumption) are stating you are required to use something as a starting point when considering an assumption but rather a belief that something is true without fact.  When this started, you specifically said, "I'm not making any assumptions.  I am reading what has played out right in front of our eyes." and when asked for your facts you said, "As I said earlier the facts are the words used and the demeanor shown by Counsell and Woodruff in their comments to the press."  Also notice, you did not use Woodruff's previous injury as part of your facts until later.

You took some facts (Woodruff is injured and will miss at least the WC round), added in your interpretation of Woodruff/Counsell's comments and demeanor (not facts) and came to a conclusion.  You made an assumption and it is fine to admit that.

Your obsession with this issue is startling.

I never said that anyone else was or wasn't making assumptions; I was just speaking for myself. 

I think I am using the proper definition of "assumption" for this context. While you may think so, I was never assuming that Woodruff would be out for the whole postseason, or taking anything for granted. 

What you seem to be saying is that any conclusion or opinion that is based on some facts, but cannot be absolutely proven, makes that conclusion or opinion an assumption. I don't agree with that.

I've made my point. If you want to keep harassing me about this arcane point, and calling me "arrogant", I won't be responding. We'll have to agree to disagree about whether I made an assumption in reaching my conclusion.