Watching the game the other day, it was mentioned on the broadcast that one of Rob Johnson's countless offseason surgeries was performed on his eyes. I forgot about this almost as quickly as I learned it, but SSI jogged my memory. Rob Johnson is one of the latest Major Leaguers to get LASIK.
Now, I'm not going to use this as an opportunity to post another thread about whether or not vision enhancement is the same as taking PEDs. (It is.) Instead, I got curious about whether or not we can observe any trend in the performance of LASIK patients. So I went to my Google machine and put together a list of big league position players to get the operation. Result? The following 26 names:
Wade Boggs, Jeff Bagwell, Jeff Cirillo, Jeff Conine, Jose Cruz Jr., Wally Joyner, Larry Walker, Bernie Williams, Jason Kendall, Bernard Gilkey, Greg Vaughn, Al Martin, Mike Lansing, Todd Dunwoody, Trot Nixon, Frank Catalanotto, Cristian Guzman, Ryan Sweeney, Troy Glaus, Justin Morneau, Michael Cuddyer, Bill Hall, David Dellucci, Jhonny Peralta, Rocco Baldelli, Aaron Guiel
It's not a complete list, but it's the best I felt like doing, because there's no master list of players who've gotten their eyes zapped and tracking down names is hard and annoying.
I only looked at position players, by the way, because they're the ones who, it seems, would benefit the most. I don't know how it would help pitchers a whole lot, so I ignored them.
Stat of choice? wRC+. Captures the magic of wOBA, park adjustments, and league adjustments all in one. It's not perfect, and it'd be nice to have additional info like contact rate and all that, but I wanted to keep this quick and easy.
Results of the group?
Year before LASIK: 97 wRC+
Year after LASIK: 109 wRC+
Now that looks pretty significant. However, you figure that players would be more likely to get something fixed after a bad season than a good season, right? Let's narrow this group to the 24 players for whom we have three years of big league data.
Two years before LASIK: 112 wRC+
One year before LASIK: 96 wRC+
Year after LASIK: 109 wRC+
Well there you go. Definitely a response to frustrating seasons. Going on, the best way to do this would be to compare the YAL numbers to projected numbers, but I don't have those, so again, in keeping with the simplicity:
Average, years before LASIK: 104 wRC+
Year after LASIK: 109 wRC+
Hooray! Mildly interesting. Based on our very limited sample, it seems that LASIK eye surgery can indeed help hitters perform at a higher level. Which we'd expect, given that a good hitter has to be able to, you know, see.
But let's not go repeating these numbers as gospel. It's time for Important Caveats!
Assorted other bits and pieces:
1 recs | 36 comments
So how do you feel about other surgeries where they remove parts of your body?
Like bone spurs, bone chips, extra muscles. Same ballpark as LASIK?
Kermit. - March 19, 2010
No, those are generally restorative
Jeff Sullivan - March 19, 2010
Hope this thread stays on topic!
Jeff Sullivan - March 19, 2010
PED or not, LASIK is amazing.
In fact, it was so grand, I’m getting it done again!
Matthew - March 19, 2010
Most often, Lasik is restorative as well.
It’s too hard to argue which specific body parts can be operated on.
circa81 - March 19, 2010
As a person who's had LASIK, It could only help a hitter
It obviously depends on a few factors. Did the player wear contacts before? If not, then their vision probably DID get better and that has to help. If he did wear contacts, was his vision with contacts the same as after LASIK? In most cases, it probably is so his actual vision is no net benefit.
However, contact wearers know that maybe on 5-10% of the days, you’ll have a problem. Dirt particle gets in there or they move around or your eyes get dry and your contacts DON’T move around like they should. So even if their vision is exactly the same, the hitter no longer has to worry about problems with their contacts.
Mekias - March 19, 2010
5-10% seems way too high to me, a guy who played sports in high school and college while wearing contacts.
More like 1% and 90% of that 1% was resolved by washing my eye out or changing contacts.
Matthew - March 19, 2010
As a student in the field
Of Optometry, and taking a class all about Contact Lenses, I can definitely say 5-10% of the time having problems is way way way too high, and its a major sign of bad compliance (cleaning, overwearing, bad environment, etc.) or the patient shouldn’t have contacts at all (they’re not good candidates)
Also, I’d say 95% of the people who wore glasses definitely see better with glasses than they do with LASIK, and probably around 75% see better with contacts (depending on refractive error and what not). LASIK patients generally only get to a passable 20/20, and its rare that they end up 20/15, even with the wavefront techniques being used.
dkulich - March 19, 2010
Maybe my case was rare since I was having problems with my contacts already
But getting LASIK was the best money I ever spent. It certainly seems like I see very well now but perceptions can always fool you. It’s not like I can go back and forth, comparing the two to see if there’s a difference.
Mekias - March 19, 2010
Oh yeah,
People generally love LASIK. And honestly, the difference between a clear 20/15 and decent 20/20 isn’t much. If you’re not reading lines on eye charts all day long (like I’ve been doing for the last 4 years), you won’t notice the difference at all. Over time your brain adapts.
Its how you see people go for glasses with terrible vision for so long, your brain can interpret blur and fill in the blanks for you.
dkulich - March 19, 2010
wRC+ of 74 here we come!
abender20 - March 19, 2010
Wait, no, I missed the point of Jeff's piece.
wRC+ of 109 here we come!
abender20 - March 19, 2010
For me, I had problems with my contacts like 3-5% of the time when I was younger
but after about age 25, I started having problems. My eyes started drying out quicker and I had more problems. My doctor said that as I got older, my eyes got tired out a little quicker and that’s why I had the problems. Before I had LASIK done, I couldn’t wear contacts for more than 4 hours before starting to have problems. So I guess that’s yet another variable.
Mekias - March 19, 2010
Problems, you say?
OlSalty - March 19, 2010
That'll teach me to post without looking over what I wrote
Somebody buy me a thesaurus
Mekias - March 19, 2010
you should be able to find one no problem
pdb - March 19, 2010
I've been having problems with my contacts
and am considering getting LASIK. You mind if I ask you a few questions? I put my email in my profile.
brayden04 - March 20, 2010
Imagine the days before disposable contacts were the norm!
I played several HS basketball games with one contact in and one out. Warm-ups were hilarious, but important. I needed 10-15 minutes to adjust, and to make my opponents think that I was the worst shooter in history.
marc w - March 20, 2010
Oh man, I'd be cooked!!!
My contacts are -4.75
brayden04 - March 21, 2010
Wowzers. I thought/think I'M blind.
I’m at -3.75. But it’s true – you get used to everything. I never wore contacts until my sophomore year of HS, and I still think it’s a wonder I learned to read.
marc w - March 21, 2010
It's mildly off-topic I suppose, but PCLI (a local place that does LASIK) has a really good website
http://www.pcli.com/lasik/
They’re who I’ll go to if I decide to get PRK (my eyes ended up being too bad for LASIK).
Jeff Nye - March 21, 2010
Thanks!
brayden04 - March 22, 2010
Don't forget Bret Boone had it done in 2004
His 2005 year did not go so well.
Jaejo - March 19, 2010
Oh how I wish I could get money from somewhere to actually research this...
dkulich - March 19, 2010
And hey!
I’m in the American Optometric Association, maybe they’ll let me re do their study in a couple years, using better statistics.
dkulich - March 19, 2010
What was the average age that these players got LASIK at?
Dewey N - March 19, 2010
Another factor is that players are probably more likely to get LASIK following a bad season ...
… so a portion of the improved could simply be regression toward a mean.
Steve Nelson - March 19, 2010
Amusingly, I'm getting evaluated for LASIK tomorrow
Maybe I’ll turn into a major league hitter!
Jeff Nye - March 20, 2010
Posts such as this are why I love this website.
Hells yes. The analysis is always so interesting…
thehemogoblin - March 21, 2010
Isn't eye surgery generally restorative as well?
I mean, these guys aren’t getting their vision improved beyond the average are they? It seems to me they are correcting a deficiency. Remember, 20/20 is average vision and these people are well below that. How is that like PEDs?
I, for one, would LOVE to have any kind of eye operation as I have Keratoconus and not much can be done except this. But that’s expensive and in Italy.
Great post! Thanks!
88fingerslukee - March 21, 2010
Several players enhance their vision beyond 20/20 with LASIK or, more commonly, awesome contacts
Jeff Sullivan - March 21, 2010
I don't know what keratoconus is,
but the name makes it sounds really really awful.
brayden04 - March 21, 2010
Glare, night vision
If someone wanted to get really crazy, they could do day/night splits for lasik ball players. Poor night vision, and glare (two of the common side-effects) might well make an outfielder worse at night than during the day.
floydr - March 21, 2010
how many ballplayers had bad results? with any surgery there are risks.
wolfmanshowlforever - March 22, 2010
B-MAC
Brian McCann actually had LASIK again this offseason.
jasonbravo - March 22, 2010
LASIK doesn't generally improve your vision beyond 20/20, though that result is not impossible.
Really, though, like others have said – there is no benefit that LASIK provides that cannot already be corrected using contacts, glasses, and other procedures. LASIK is not solving a problem that was previously uncorrectable. It is purely a comfort issue.
Comfort, like chemistry, obviously makes things more pleasant. I have a hard time believing that the comfort ‘bonus’ that LASIK provides, while it is quite nice, is really having any measurable impact on player performance. It isn’t CRAZY to think that it may, just like it isn’t crazy to think that Mike Sweeneys tickling probably makes at least ONE guy in the clubhouse happy, but its a bit ridiculous.
The notion that some have about steroids improving eyesight is even more ridiculous yet.
Thank you for looking into the numbers behind actual cases. It is interesting to see that it does have a small effect, though unimportant in the scheme of things. I think if this small study were to be continued as the sample size grew we’d find that the overall effect is minimal to none – guys with bad eyesight already wear contacts and glasses, and if they don’t then they aren’t taking their career seriously at all.
CKremer - April 1, 2010
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Lookout Landing to post a comment.