# Nocioni may return on Friday.



## RagingBulls316 (Feb 15, 2004)

Comcast Sportsnet had a interview with Nocioni today, and here's what he said:

"Im going to play friday, for sure. I probably can play tomorrow, but we want to wait a little bit more to try and work with the team a little bit more. So tomorrow Im going to do the shoot around with the team, and practice by myself too. And I think I can play some minutes friday, not too many but I can play some."


----------



## nanokooshball (Jan 22, 2005)

Finally Noc! I really miss Nocioni out there. Sometimes we just get into a funk, and we desperately need a fourth scorer or energy provider to spark us. Nocioni did that a lot.

I hope he comes back full speed for playoffs. I think people are forgetting just what kind of damage he did the last 2 playoff series. He just raises his play like no other... last year's 20ppg and 10rpg was an amazing performance.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

It will be great to have a legit offensive threat off the bench.


----------



## the-asdf-man (Jun 29, 2006)

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...sbits,1,3434627.story?coll=cs-bulls-headlines 

skiles also said it will not affect tyrus's minutes


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/gASTTppXM48"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/gASTTppXM48" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

Wow. Thinking about Noc and Tyrus both coming off the bench around the 4 minute mark in Q1 has me a little excited about the bench for the first time in ages.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

> Given how stir crazy Nocioni has been and that he might utter similar words with, say, a dangling limb, some perspective is needed.


Nocioni is not the most trustworthy reporter in this instance. He want to play in the playoffs, and would say anything to make sure he can. The Bulls may be willing to wink with him on this, and let him rest the foot this summer rather than now if he feels he can play.


----------



## JPTurbo (Jan 8, 2006)

the-asdf-man said:


> http://chicagosports.chicagotribune...sbits,1,3434627.story?coll=cs-bulls-headlines
> 
> skiles also said it will not affect tyrus's minutes


Say goodnight PJ! :cheers:


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

I just hope his foot is genuinely okay, and he's not faking relief because it's a contract year. He was playing incredibly well before he got injured and probably cost himself a couple million.


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

I hope he doesn't aggravate the injury and I also hope he can get into shape in short order. Nocioni is the guy who hopefully can elevate the team to another level going into the playoffs. It'll be nice having another guy to go to if someone goes cold out there.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

rwj333 said:


> I just hope his foot is genuinely okay, and he's not faking relief because it's a contract year. He was playing incredibly well before he got injured and probably cost himself a couple million.


It's hard to mask the pain from PF - he'll start limping if it's hurting, he won't be able to help it.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Nocioni will chew off his foot and play on the stump if he needs to.











Noc plays Chuck approved basketball


----------



## Rhyder (Jul 15, 2002)

rwj333 said:


> I just hope his foot is genuinely okay, and he's not faking relief because it's a contract year.


If he were faking relief, I'm guessing it is because it is playoff time, not because he is in a contract year.


----------



## bullybullz (Jan 28, 2007)

JPTurbo said:


> Say goodnight PJ! :cheers:


Actually I was thinking of Malik. Well, I'm glad to soon see Noc on the floor and we need his energy because at times, we seem to have no energy such as Du or Malik. You have to have fun when you play basketball and Noc plays with a lot of heart, determination and is a player I enjoy watching.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

rwj333 said:


> I just hope his foot is genuinely okay, and he's not faking relief because it's a contract year. He was playing incredibly well before he got injured and probably cost himself a couple million.


Sounds familiar...


----------



## K-Dub (Jun 26, 2005)

The Truth said:


> Sounds familiar...


If Noc ends up like Grant Hill (post-Pistons)I will forever hate you.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

> Nocioni still up in air
> 
> Skiles said it remains unclear when Andres Nocioni will play.
> 
> "[Playing Friday] is just a possibility," Skiles said. "We hope to practice Thursday and see how he reacts. He's pretty adamant about playing Friday night. When he does play, it's likely he'll play six minutes [a half] for several games, maybe to the end of the season."



Sam Smith


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

update from bulls.com basically with the same quote from Skiles.



*(Nocioni) will not play Friday versus New Jersey, but is expected to be in uniform for Sunday's contest at Toronto.*



Bulls Injury Report


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> update from bulls.com basically with the same quote from Skiles.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


UPDATE: Andres Nocioni will be wearing a casual sportscoat over a striped shirt and a pair of Chuck Norris Action Jeans for Friday's game, and **suggests** that David Stern doesn't give him any ish about it.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

If someone would photoshop a Nocioni head onto this, I would be...well, I would be just in heaven.


----------



## RSP83 (Nov 24, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> If someone would photoshop a Nocioni head onto this, I would be...well, I would be just in heaven.


oh my god... there is such thing? oh my...


----------



## such sweet thunder (May 30, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> update from bulls.com basically with the same quote from Skiles.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ug. That's bad, if not spectacularly bad, news. Noc must be still hurting from the injury. I can't imagine three days is going to change anything. Call me a pessimist but I wouldn't count on him being able to suit up for the playoffs.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

such sweet thunder said:


> Ug. That's bad, if not spectacularly bad, news. Noc must be still hurting from the injury. I can't imagine three days is going to change anything. Call me a pessimist but I wouldn't count on him being able to suit up for the playoffs.


Yeah, I don't see much reason to rush it. Having him for the playoffs is about 80x more important to me than having him for the last few games.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

Nocioni being out another game is a blessing in disguise because it will allow Sefolosha to play more minutes coming off his start and build his confidence. He'll be needed against Carter.


----------



## calabreseboy (Nov 17, 2004)

Wait a minute, there are games on Good Friday? Australia pretty much closes down.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

More detail on Andres, Ty and Ben from the Sun-Times:



> Andres Nocioni insists he feels fine, but general manager John Paxson decided his forward will not play tonight when the Bulls host the New Jersey Nets.
> 
> *''If I would let him, he would play,'' Paxson said of Nocioni,* who will miss his 28th game because of right foot plantar fasciitis. ''But I'm going to hang on the side of caution, give him an extra couple days. My hope is that he practices a little bit in shootaround [today], runs around, and Saturday has good work. Then, assuming everything goes fine, he'll play Sunday in Toronto.''
> 
> ...


http://www.suntimes.com/sports/basketball/bulls/330406,CST-SPT-bull06.article


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Did Pax become the trainer too?

Not that I disagree with playing it safe in this case, it just seems a little strange.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> Did Pax become the trainer too?
> 
> Not that I disagree with playing it safe in this case, it just seems a little strange.


:thinking2:



No, he's not the trainer. But the trainers work for him and presumably keep him advised, so he can make an informed decision.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> UPDATE: Andres Nocioni will be wearing a casual sportscoat over *a striped shirt *and a pair of Chuck Norris Action Jeans for Friday's game, and **suggests** that David Stern doesn't give him any ish about it.


I've noticed that Nocioni is also fond of the pastel purple shirt.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

calabreseboy said:


> Wait a minute, there are games on Good Friday? Australia pretty much closes down.


America is a pagan nation.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> ''I think they want to wait to know how my foot responds,'' Nocioni said. ''But I'm fine, I don't have any pain right now. I am a little bit tired, my legs and my body, but it's normal. *I need the confidence in my foot; sometimes I don't want to push and put a lot of pressure on my foot. But when I'm on the court, I'm going to forget everything, and I'm going to play the best I can.*''


And this is why they need to be cautious. You know this guy is going say "damn the torpedoes." They need to protect him from himself. Its fine with me if they hold him back until Tuesday against the Knicks. 

Don't rush it. Please. And for God's sake, don't listen to Nocioni. He'd play with a dislocated shoulder and tell you he just needs some icy-hot.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> And this is why they need to be cautious. You know this guy is going say "damn the torpedoes." They need to protect him from himself. Its fine with me if they hold him back until Tuesday against the Knicks.
> 
> Don't rush it. Please. And for God's sake, don't listen to Nocioni. He'd play with a dislocated shoulder and tell you he just needs some icy-hot.





TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Nocioni will chew off his foot and play on the stump if he needs to.


:yes:


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> :yes:


Your image is way better than mine.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> If someone would photoshop a Nocioni head onto this, I would be...well, I would be just in heaven.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

T, that is masterful. The detail work with, for example, the Argentenian phone number, is hilarious.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> No, he's not the trainer. But the trainers work for him and presumably keep him advised


Duh...



> , so he can make an informed decision.


... I don't see how it'd ever really be his decision though. If the trainer says he's ready, it'd be pretty foolish to hold him out. If the trainer says he's not read, it'd be pretty foolish to play him. In either case, there's really no decision for Paxson to make. Which is why I thought the way things were stated was sort of strange.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

MikeDC said:


> Duh...
> 
> 
> 
> ... I don't see how it'd ever really be his decision though. *If the trainer says he's ready, it'd be pretty foolish to hold him out. If the trainer says he's not read, it'd be pretty foolish to play him. In either case, there's really no decision for Paxson to make. Which is why I thought the way things were stated was sort of strange.*


I don't agree. Especially not when you are talking about someone like Nocioni. Pain, for the most part, is measured by how much pain the person is willing to tell you they are in. 

Given that the trainers already gave Nocioni the thumbs up once, and it arguably cost us almost two more months of Chapu-less ball since he obviously was not ready, I think its not only reasonable, but advisable, for Paxson to exercise independent discretion here. 

He is the GM, after all. And history shows that they ran him out there too quickly last time.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> Duh...
> 
> 
> 
> ... I don't see how it'd ever really be his decision though. If the trainer says he's ready, it'd be pretty foolish to hold him out. If the trainer says he's not read, it'd be pretty foolish to play him. In either case, there's really no decision for Paxson to make. Which is why I thought the way things were stated was sort of strange.



Here's the way I see it.

Pax has his trainers and he has had multiple long conversations with them about Nocioni's short term and long term process.

It takes a little reading between the lines, but from what Noc, Pax and Skiles have said, and the belief he's had these multiple long conversations, combined with what I know about the condition and what (little) I know about basketball, here is a synopsis of the information I believe Pax is dealing with:

Nocioni has a long term, chronic condition called plantar faciitis. The best thing for getting that condition to heal is complete rest for that foot -- which Noc has been doing. The trainers have probably told Pax that Noc is not 100% and won't be 100% until he has an offseason to continue complete rest for the foot.

They have probably told him that Noc has lealed enough that he can likely play limited minutes and not further aggrevate the condition, but the longer Pax rests him, the better for the foot and the more likely Noc will be able to KEEP playing limited minutes without aggrevating the foot through the playoffs.

So Pax' discision making comes into play: how long to I continue to rest a guy, considering that the longer he rests, the more likely he'll remain around before we go fishin' -vs- bringing him back now, where he can help with our playoff positioning, but the earlier I bring him back, the more I roll the dice on Noc's ability to play in the end of round 1 or in round 2, etc.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I don't agree. Especially not when you are talking about someone like Nocioni. Pain, for the most part, is measured by how much pain the person is willing to tell you they are in.
> 
> Given that the trainers already gave Nocioni the thumbs up once, and it arguably cost us almost two more months of Chapu-less ball since he obviously was not ready, I think its not only reasonable, but advisable, for Paxson to exercise independent discretion here.
> 
> He is the GM, after all. And history shows that they ran him out there too quickly last time.


Do you have a link that suggests this, or are you just assuming the docs gave Noc the thumbs up the first time? How do you know _that _wasn't Pax's independent discretion and the trainers suggested he stay off it the first time he tried to come back?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

MikeDC said:


> Do you have a link that suggests this, or are you just assuming the docs gave Noc the thumbs up the first time? How do you know _that _wasn't Pax's independent discretion and the trainers suggested he stay off it the first time he tried to come back?


I have no link. I am assuming it. 

I doubt very, very much that Paxson would ignore his trainers if they told him not to play Nocioni. But, whatever.


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I have no link. I am assuming it.
> 
> I doubt very, very much that Paxson would ignore his trainers if they told him not to play Nocioni. But, whatever.


seems like common sense. i can't think of any team that would ignore thier doctor/trainer's opinion.


----------



## Aurelino (Jul 25, 2003)

Mr. T said:


>


That is outstanding photoshop work!:clap2:


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Here's the way I see it.
> 
> Pax has his trainers and he has had multiple long conversations with them about Nocioni's short term and long term process.
> 
> ...


I think that's a pretty reasonable speculation of how it might be working, though it all seems to be founded on timetables of when and how Noc might heal that I have no idea about. It seems just as possible the doctors said "if he reaggrevates it, he might be screwed for next year too" or "wait another month and you're golden". Ultimately, it seems like a doctor should be making that decision independently of considerations of the Bulls' playoff position...



> So Pax' discision making comes into play: how long to I continue to rest a guy, considering that the longer he rests, the more likely he'll remain around before we go fishin' -vs- bringing him back now, where he can help with our playoff positioning, but the earlier I bring him back, the more I roll the dice on Noc's ability to play in the end of round 1 or in round 2, etc.


... which, as you point out here, is probably a significant chunk of Pax's thought process. I'd rather just let the guy get healthy. Even when I start to go down the road of weighing the the risks of further injuring him and losing him for the playoffs vs. the rewards of maybe a better seeding (which again, strikes me as a very questionable thing to do), it doesn't seem like a very good idea. 

We're already playing quite well and look to be moving up the leaderboard. And it would seem better to me to maximize our chances of having him in the playoffs than having him for example, against Atlanta, who we're likely to beat even without him.

*Edit: *I guess to me the only relevant question is the risk of incurring long-term injury. Perhaps the docs are waffling on the question, but it's still their question to answer and I'd rather put them on the spot than substitute my own judgement.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> I think that's a pretty reasonable speculation of how it might be working, though it all seems to be founded on timetables of when and how Noc might heal that I have no idea about. It seems just as possible the doctors said "if he reaggrevates it, he might be screwed for next year too" or "wait another month and you're golden". Ultimately, it seems like a doctor should be making that decision independently of considerations of the Bulls' playoff position...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


See, what I am assuming is that Noc got some degree of conditional clearance the first try back and got another degree of conditional clearance, after the re-aggravation and subsequent rest, for return now.

I have some experience with plantar fasciitis, not as a patient or as a doctor, but in some podiatry cases I've handled (I've represented both plaintiffs and defendant podiatrists in malpractice claims). I've had some other cases in which development of plantar fasciitis was a claimed element of damages secondary to some other injury. So I've had to read the records, do the research and depose the doctors.

Given what I know (which, admittedly, is not authoritative), I think it is pretty safe to assume that the doctors and the trainers have advised Nocioni and Paxson that Noc already has a W chance at never recovering fully, that he will need several more months of rest to have an X chance at 100% recovery, that he can play limited minutes now with Y chance at playing without further aggravating the condition and Z chance that playing now will not only slow recovery but cause further damage and lessen his chance at full recovery.

So Pax is called on to evaluate and play the odds. He could play it as safe as milk and shelve Nocioni until November. 

Boy would that get the boo-birds out calling Pax a coward, or what?

Or he could sit him until the playoffs. I'm sure the docs and trainers have given him the plus/minus of that situation -vs- bringing him back now. How much more advantage is a couple more weeks of total inactivity --vs- how much rust will he have to shake off AND insert himself cold into a playoff atmosphere? Can he handle a limited schedule that will get him playoff ready without further screwing up his foot?

So, he was to make the call: how long to rest, how long and when to play?

That is called doing a GM's job.

We'll see how he does with his evaluation. Prognosis in these types of cases always has a degree of uncertainty. The foot is sometimes a peculiar piece of anatomy.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> I have no link. I am assuming it.
> 
> I doubt very, very much that Paxson would ignore his trainers if they told him not to play Nocioni. But, whatever.


I agree... I'm just saying it'd be equally silly to ignore them i they told him it was ok to play him. Thus, I don't see much room for discretion.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> See, what I am assuming is that Noc got some degree of conditional clearance the first try back and got another degree of conditional clearance, after the re-aggravation and subsequent rest, for return now.
> 
> I have some experience with plantar fasciitis, not as a patient or as a doctor, but in some podiatry cases I've handled (I've represented both plaintiffs and defendant podiatrists in malpractice claims). I've had some other cases in which development of plantar fasciitis was a claimed element of damages secondary to some other injury. So I've had to read the records, do the research and depose the doctors.
> 
> ...


Sounds sensible to me if that's what the medical conclusions are.



> Boy would that get the boo-birds out calling Pax a coward, or what?


That seems both unnecessary and scecious.



> Or he could sit him until the playoffs. I'm sure the docs and trainers have given him the plus/minus of that situation -vs- bringing him back now. How much more advantage is a couple more weeks of total inactivity --vs- how much rust will he have to shake off AND insert himself cold into a playoff atmosphere? Can he handle a limited schedule that will get him playoff ready without further screwing up his foot?
> 
> So, he was to make the call: how long to rest, how long and when to play?
> 
> That is called doing a GM's job.


Maybe you didn't see my edit, but I disagree. It seems to me that the GM's job is to get an answer. If the answer is one he doesn't like... it's not safe to play Noc again this season... that's the breaks. Getting an answer he doesn't like and then deciding to risk the guy's health anyway seems pretty questionable to me. If the docs judgement is that he should give it a go, then by all means, do it. If it's not, then by all means, don't. 



> We'll see how he does with his evaluation. Prognosis in these types of cases always has a degree of uncertainty. The foot is sometimes a peculiar piece of anatomy.


Agreed, but who's the best qualified guy to make the decision? The guy who's an expert on athlete's feet or the guy who's the VP of basketball operations?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> Maybe you didn't see my edit, but I disagree. It seems to me that the GM's job is to get an answer. If the answer is one he doesn't like... it's not safe to play Noc again this season... that's the breaks. Getting an answer he doesn't like and then deciding to risk the guy's health anyway seems pretty questionable to me. If the docs judgement is that he should give it a go, then by all means, do it. If it's not, then by all means, don't.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, but who's the best qualified guy to make the decision? The guy who's an expert on athlete's feet or the guy who's the VP of basketball operations?


Have you ever tried to pin down a doctor about his opinion? Trust me, they would qualify "the patient is dead" with "well...he hasn't shown brain activity or a puls in 24 hours, but I wouldn't say that is necessarily definitive."

Given that, I highly doubt the docs and trainers have done anything so easy for Paxson as saying "He definitely can play" or "He definitely cannot play."

They've given him a list of pros and cons and let him make the call.


You seem to hold the opinion that there is a chance -- a likelihood or something -- that Pax was told one thing and may have ignored advice and done the other. That he was then and is now risking Noc's long term chances against the express advice of experts.

What is the basis for this? Are you just playing devil's advocate or just being contrary?

If you do have a basis for this position, I will ask you what you asked Ron Cey --

Link?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

MikeDC said:


> I agree... I'm just saying it'd be equally silly to ignore them i they told him it was ok to play him. Thus, I don't see much room for discretion.


But I don't think its equally silly. I think one of them is silly:

Trainer: "He's not ready, Pax."
Pax: "Play him anyway!"

And I think one of them is very reasonable:

Trainer: "He's ready, Pax."
Pax: "That guy would play with a bullet wound and he came back too soon last time much to the detriment of the team, so lets be a little more patient."


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> And I think one of them is very reasonable:
> 
> Trainer: "He's ready, Pax."
> Pax: "*That guy would play with a bullet wound and he came back too soon last time much to the detriment of the team*, so lets be a little more patient."


But that requires you to believe Pax learns from mistakes but the trainer doesn't. I mean, the trainer knows or ought to know this just as well as Pax does, and thus, it would also be considered in his recommendation.

It's more reasonable to think something like.
Trainer: "He's ready, Pax. This time we've better taken into account his ridiculous desire to get back on the court.
Pax: "OK, let's do it"


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

I wonder exactly how detrimental it is to fail in an attempt to return from PF. It seems relatively common for athletes to try to return from the injury and then be forced to shut it down again. You'd think if doing so created a major setback or risk to the player's long term health, doctors would be more conservative with the injury.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> But I don't think its equally silly. I think one of them is silly:
> 
> Trainer: "He's not ready, Pax."
> Pax: "Play him anyway!"
> ...


Or what I see as the more likely discussion:

Trainer/Doctor: He could be ready to play -- not 100% mind you, but maybe in limited minutes. Here are the plusses (and from a medical standpoint, sitting him indefinitely is a plus with no minuses) of totally resting him until next season and here are the plusses and minuses of playing him now and here are the plusses and minuses of resting him longer and bringing him back next game, or the next, which is a sliding scale...


----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

This speculation about the trainer vs. Pax vs. Noc making the call seems silly to me. It doesn't seem that we have any way to know. I'd assume that Skiles and Pax both have the power to hold Noc out longer even if the trainer gives the go-ahead, but who knows whether it's what's happening here.

The bottom line is that they are being cautious with Noc's return, and that's a good thing.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

Aurelino said:


> That is outstanding photoshop work!:clap2:


Thank you...Borat approves too.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Or what I see as the more likely discussion:
> 
> Trainer/Doctor: He could be ready to play -- not 100% mind you, but maybe in limited minutes. Here are the plusses (and from a medical standpoint, sitting him indefinitely is a plus with no minuses) of totally resting him until next season and here are the plusses and minuses of playing him now and here are the plusses and minuses of resting him longer and bringing him back next game, or the next, which is a sliding scale...


To put it another way (and Ron Cey may have some input based on his experiences) the only doctors who have actual, definitive, strong opinions on what should or should not be done in a given instance are paid consultants or paid experts.

A treating doctor will contort himself into positions a Chinese Acrobat would drop his jaw and say "So Solly No Can Do" to avoid saying he told a patient "Do This" or "Do Not Do This." For treating physicians, its all about giving some advice about likelihood of this or that and letting the patient decide for himself.

Heck, as recently as a month ago, I had one of my kids in an after hours clinic sick and the doctor kept thowing the ball back to me -- well, we can give him a 5 day course of antibiotics, or we can give him a shot now, or we can give him a strong, one dose oral antibiotoc, which is less pleasant than the longer course of smaller doses, but less immediatley traumatic than the shot. 

whatayawannado?


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Mr. T, that photoshop is so damn funny, my penis hurts when I urinate.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

OT: But do you think Borat pays any royalies to internet legend Mahir?

I Kiss You


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> OT: But do you think Borat pays any royalies to internet legend Mahir?


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Have you ever tried to pin down a doctor about his opinion? Trust me, they would qualify "the patient is dead" with "well...he hasn't shown brain activity or a puls in 24 hours, but I wouldn't say that is necessarily definitive."


Trust me, I've dealt with plenty of doctors. And while they'll say that, they also aren't going to leave a dead body laying around all day.



> Given that, I highly doubt the docs and trainers have done anything so easy for Paxson as saying "He definitely can play" or "He definitely cannot play."
> 
> They've given him a list of pros and cons and let him make the call.


Whether it's literally dragged out of them or not, I've never been unable to figure out what course of action a doctor beleived was the best. The "what would they do in the situation".



> You seem to hold the opinion that there is a chance -- a likelihood or something -- that Pax was told one thing and may have ignored advice and done the other. That he was then and is now risking Noc's long term chances against the express advice of experts.
> 
> What is the basis for this?


That seems to be the scenario you laid out, (though without the exaggerations you just threw in), not me. 



> Are you just playing devil's advocate or just being contrary?
> 
> If you do have a basis for this position, I will ask you what you asked Ron Cey --
> 
> Link?


What the hell? 

As best I can tell:
1) I started off just thinking it was sort of strange that Pax sounded as if he was rendering the conclusions himself. Not talking about any "advice of the trainers" or whatnot. 

If anything, I actually think it probably reflects an abundance of caution (as ought to be obvious from my back and forth with Ron Cey), not throwing the "express" advice of the experts out the window.

2) You reacted to that comment with a not very nice in the context head scratching smiley as if it was completely unreasonable of me to question whether it's his decision to make. Seems perfectly reasonable to talk about how these sorts of decisions get made to me. It also seems perfectly reasonable to think they ought to be made solely on medical judgement.

It's also reasonable, I guess, to think the GM might decide by weighing the medical risks against the chances of moving up a spot in the playoff rankings. I don't really agree with that point of view, but I'm not asking if you're just being "contrary" or the "devil's advocate" either.

3) My point is simply that I don't see much room for the GM's discretion or substituting his judgement in place of an expert's either way. Regardless of whether they come out say it, it's obviously possible to get a feel for what the doctor thinks ought be done. If Pax gets the sense the doctors would probably shut him down for the season and he decides to play the guy, that's not a wise decision IMO. And as I replied to Cey, the flip side of that is also true. The Bulls' trainers ought to know by this point Noc's over-eagerness to play just as much as Paxson does. So if they say he can go, I don't see any reason he shouldn't go.

4) As best I can tell, the only source of disagreement with this was you being "contrary" suggesting that Pax was probably weighing the health consequences vs. the winning consequences. An idea you seem to be asking me to link to support. :raised_ey


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> To put it another way (and Ron Cey may have some input based on his experiences) the only doctors who have actual, definitive, strong opinions on what should or should not be done in a given instance are paid consultants or paid experts.
> 
> A treating doctor will contort himself into positions a Chinese Acrobat would drop his jaw and say "So Solly No Can Do" to avoid saying he told a patient "Do This" or "Do Not Do This." For treating physicians, its all about giving some advice about likelihood of this or that and letting the patient decide for himself.
> 
> ...


OK, this seems to be the main point of disagreement... I just think that you're conflating situations in which there's not a big difference to one in which there is.

In that example, your kid's going to be fine either way.

Doctors will also present it as "your decision" with a list of pros and cons to removing a tumor too. But that doesn't make it much of a decision. And when there are serious consequences involved, my experience has been that there's relatively little uncertainty about what the doc thinks you should do.

Those are extremes obviously, but the jist of things is that this is a situation in which there are serious consequences to being wrong. Being doctors, they are going to put the final go ahead on you, but when there are serious consequences, they're going to frame it in such a way that makes their views pretty obvious.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Here. I'll put it in a more direct, personal perspective.

Look, mom and dad. I know you lost the last baby at 37 1/2 weeks and we don't know exactly why.

This one is at 37 and seems fine in the womb. But we don't know what went wrong last time.

We did an amnio and tested the lungs. The results are borderline.

That means we can take the baby now and he may or may not breathe freely on his own. I think he probably will. If not, he may need oxygen for a day or two. But the tests ARE borderline. We won't know exactly until it happens.

Or we can wait a week and the baby can come on his own - or we take him next week, and we will be more sure his lungs are fully developed.



We decided, given the previous unexplained stillborn experience, that we would go with the C section based on the borderline lung test results. 

In the end, he did end up in the IICU for a couple of days, as a precaution, and did have some infant asthma-like respiratory difficulties (which he grew out of) but we did bring home a live baby, which we weren't sure we'd be able to do otherwise.

The moral of the story:

Mike, you are a math guy. You look for provable answers. While medicine is based on science, and science, to a certain extent is based on math, the practice of medicine is not an exact science. Given the circumstances, it is highly unlikely anyone EVER told Pax "He should not play" and Pax disregarded and nobody ever told Pax "He should play" and Pax disregarderd.

They told him what they knew, and let him draw his own conclusions.

Your tumor scenario could or could not be relevent. Depends on the tumor. Like my mom, when she had breast cancer. They treated the cancer and then gave her the option: you probably will be fine, with X chance of reoccurrence in the breast or elsewhere, or you do a mascectomy. That is more invasive and a more difficult recovery, but your long term risk of reoccurrence is all but zero. She chose to get the boob chopped off. Others would question that decision, but she asked me and I supported it.

That's just they way medicine is.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

But TB, it's possible, at least for me, to accept that medicine's not an exact science and that a doctor isn't going to lay out an explicit "do this" or "don't do this" course of action in the face of uncertainty. But still, in the face of that, I believe there isn't much of a choice.

At the risk of taking things too personal, it just seems to me that your experiences underscore that idea. Given your situation with the kid, I can't imagine not taking the path you took. You had a choice in the literal sense, but it really wasn't much of one, in my personal opinion. 

Let me put it another way. Was it an agonizing and decision because of the difficulty of making the choice itself, or because their were underlying (scary) facts and uncertainty no matter the choice?

I've not been in quite the same position, but probably a couple comparable ones, and it seems to me that the actual choices aren't much of an issue. One of them was clearly the right decision based on the risks involved. The hard part wasn't weighing the risks between the choices, it was dealing with the fact that there were risks no matter what, and a real possibility that even making the right choice wouldn't guarantee a good outcome.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

The point is, when asked a prognosis, there are some instances where the answer is clear -- like well, the femur is broken in 37 places. We may be able to save the leg, but even if we do, he won't play basketball again.


The question of whether Noc is ready to come back from his chronic foot condition is not like that. The answer is not so clear cut.

In a case like this, the docs and trainers give Pax information either way, and Pax makes the ultimate call.


----------



## Good Hope (Nov 27, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> The point is, when asked a prognosis, there are some instances where the answer is clear -- like well, the femur is broken in 37 places. We may be able to save the leg, but even if we do, he won't play basketball again.
> 
> 
> The question of whether Noc is ready to come back from his chronic foot condition is not like that. The answer is not so clear cut.
> ...


You know, I didn't want to get involved in this, and I'm not really. But here's a further quote from Pax to stir the pot, from the suntimes:



> ''We'll talk about that in the next day or so,'' Paxson said. ''I worry a little about his conditioning because he hasn't been on the basketball floor. ''Hopefully, the few days, he can get that up a bit. I know he wants to play and, realistically, probably could give us a few minutes [on Friday]. I just feel it's right to give him another couple days to get a little more solid. I think this is the right thing to do.''


NOOOOO!!!!! Not "the right thing to do." Anything but that, Pax!

:whistling:


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> The point is, when asked a prognosis, there are some instances where the answer is clear -- like well, the femur is broken in 37 places. We may be able to save the leg, but even if we do, he won't play basketball again.
> 
> 
> The question of whether Noc is ready to come back from his chronic foot condition is not like that. The answer is not so clear cut.
> ...


I simply don't agree. The outcome isn't clear cut, but amongst the options we have to chose from, probably one is likely to maximize the probabilities he's fine in the long run. Which again, seems to be the only choice to me.



> from the suntimes:
> 
> NOOOOO!!!!! Not "the right thing to do." Anything but that, Pax!


See, that doesn't so much bother me. I don't even know that the original quote bothered me, I just thought it was kind of strange. This quote makes more sense because it seems pretty clear they're talking about conditioning issues. It makes sense to get him back into game shape. My only point of concern is running him back out there if there's a real chance he's just going to be hurt again. 

"Clear cut" or not, I'm pretty confident the doctors have given some idea of whether more time was ideal or not. Is there a significant risk compared to the alternative or not? Noc is a key player on this team, and I don't see it as a matter of choice to put him out there unless they've got full confidence he'll be able to stay out there and not suffer a long-run setback. As far as I know (and hope), that's how John Paxson feels about it too. To me, that's the only way it ought to be done.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

See, I brought up my personal experiences because of this:

We would have LOVED for one of the doctors to just tell us what to do. What option is best. We practically begged.

But they just told us the positives and negatives of acting now versus the positives and negatives of waiting.

There were compelling argumnents for both sides.

But the choice was ours.




> Noc is a key player on this team, and I don't see it as a matter of choice to put him out there unless they've got full confidence he'll be able to stay out there and not suffer a long-run setback. As far as I know (and hope), that's how John Paxson feels about it too. To me, that's the only way it ought to be done.


I agree, except for the "full confidence" part. That is what I'm talking about. The doctors are simply NOT going to offer up any guarantees.

He could rest from now until November and the docs are going to say there is never a 100% guarantee and the longer he rests, the better.

On the other hand, if they felt it was a significant risk to put him out there now, I believe they would have an obligation to tell Nocioni and Paxson that.

If the docs were concerned to that extent, I have faith Pax would do the right thing and keep him out.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Sorry, I don't think we're going to reach much agreement on this. I never said the doctors are offering up any guarantees. Definitely not.

I think it's obvious in this case that "full confidence" means something like "as good a chance as it's going to get". Like, there's no guarantee he'll be fine in November, but there's a higher probability than if he comes back today. Even if they aren't confident he'll ever be ok, as you've said, they probably expressed some likelihood of the risks vs. rewards in waiting. Whether there's no guarantee or not.

Look, I'm not really comfortable giving my opinions on your personal experiences. I don't mean any disrespect by this, but I personally think the doctors described the positives and negatives in a way to make the choice for you. Sure, you had the "choice", and it was agonizing, but I can't really imagine anyone confronting a choice between what basically amounts to "some higher but uncertain risk of my baby dying" vs. "a lower risk of my baby dying at the cost of the certainty of some pain for us and a smaller but still uncertain chance he's in the NICU for a few days and has complications" and chosing the "higher but uncertain risk of my baby dying". I'm sure you agonized over it, but my strong belief is you'd agonize over the situation just as much if the doctor had just told you what to do. Because it's a scary, awful situation.

The situation with Noc obviously and fortunately isn't anything like that. But the idea is still the same. The doctors aren't going to give any guarantees, and they aren't going to give the final say, but if they said there's a significant risk now vs. later, then that's no choice at all. My objection to what you said earlier was that I thought you were saying it was.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

MikeDC said:


> Sorry, I don't think we're going to reach much agreement on this. I never said the doctors are offering up any guarantees. Definitely not.
> 
> I think it's obvious in this case that "full confidence" means something like "as good a chance as it's going to get". Like, there's no guarantee he'll be fine in November, but there's a higher probability than if he comes back today. Even if they aren't confident he'll ever be ok, as you've said, they probably expressed some likelihood of the risks vs. rewards in waiting. Whether there's no guarantee or not.
> 
> ...


Sometimes the choices really aren't all that obvious. Unfortunately sometimes none of the choices seem very good.

Fifteen years ago my wife was diagnosed with ovarian cancer. The doctors told her that she had very little chance of living for more than a year, but if she underwent chemotherapy she might live longer -- with the sure knowledge that the therapy would shorten her life expectancy to at most 10 years all by itself. She chose no therapy other than surgical removal of the tumor. Her thinking was that she'd rather gamble on a full life than one shortened to 5 or 10 years of sickness. Her fiance, who was a physician, couldn't handle the pressure and left her. Her family disappeared, finding other things to do while they waited for her to die. Had she chosen chemotherapy, she would have been sick for many years and dead now rather than being healthy and looking forward to another 30 or so years of life watching her children and grandchildren grow up.

Carpe Diem. If Nocioni can help a team that has a decent chance to win it all, he should. Tomorrow is promised to no-one.


----------



## narek (Jul 29, 2005)

The medical staff is involved with how they're using Nocioni:



> TORONTO -- Despite the 103-89 loss to the Raptors, coach Scott Skiles was happy to have the Bulls at full strength Sunday for the first time in weeks.
> Andres Nocioni returned after missing 28 of the last 29 games because of plantar fasciitis in his right foot. Ben Wallace was back after sinusitis kept him out two games. Tyrus Thomas, who missed Friday's victory over New Jersey with the flu, also returned. Adrian Griffin, who missed four games because of back spasms, entered the game in the fourth quarter.
> 
> Skiles admitted having a full complement of players makes settling on a rotation more difficult.
> ...


Skiles OK with healthy choices


----------

