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.