It seems to me that there is an objective factor and a subjective factor in making any of these determinations. There's objective evidence: what do the x-ray or the MRI or any other tests actually tell the medical staff? What do things like range of motion tests or other performace-type tests tell them? But there is always the subjective, too. How does it FEEL when I rotate your arm (or whatever)? What is your level of pain? It would seem to me that when there is a lot of objective information, the staff should be able to make a pretty good determination (e.g. a tear, a break, etc.) There may be different treatment methods but at least they should be able to get a handle on what is going on. But when it is subjective (bruising, general soreness, etc.), they don't have much choice but to rely on what the player is telling them. Player's can't diagnose themselves -- but obviously their feedback plays a large part in whatever diagnosis is made. And it seems to me that is where "art" means "science" when it comes to medicine. It would be really interesting if there were a way to compare the results of various medical staffs. I think most of us generally grumble about what has/is going on with injuries on the Twins. I just don't pay close enough attention to other teams to know how that compares.