Football Outsiders
Page 1 of 1
Football Outsiders
by Guest Mon Aug 25, 2014 4:01 pm
I really like this FO site. It has them in their formula as the third most devastated team by injury over the past four years... They also make some interesting statistical conclusions about the consistency of injuries that doesn't bode well for merely *bad luck* being the culpret in Green Bay...
The injury woes of the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] over the past few seasons have been well-documented here at Acme Packing Company and around the internet as a whole. Packers fans have bemoaned the frequency of injuries to key players while hoping for better luck for the upcoming 2014 season.
It's time to put some numbers to those complaints to illustrate why they are well-founded.
To do so, we looked at the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]as a way to measure the impact of the injuries the team has suffered over the past several years. Head over to their website for a little bit more explanation on how the AGL number is derived, but know that it weights injuries to starters and injury replacements higher than reserve players and also takes into account players who are playing while hurt.
(Note that for these rankings, a "worse" or higher-numbered ranking corresponds to a greater number of games lost.)
In looking back at the past four years of AGL data from Football Outsiders' articles, I found that the Packers have the third-highest AGL value of any team from 2010 through 2013. Furthermore, they finished in the bottom 3 of the league three out of these four years and are one of only five teams to finish 16th or worse in each of the past four seasons.
Overall NFL Injury Rate
Here is a look at the Packers' AGL numbers compared to other teams which have consistently struggled with injuries recently.
Yikes. That's a lot of hurt people. As you can see, only the Colts and Giants have had worse luck overall in the past few years than the Packers, and the Giants' bad luck was especially bad in 2013, with the worst number ever recorded since Football Outsiders started tracking data in 2008.
Putting it another way, only two teams can claim that they have had worse injury luck than the Packers over the past four years while being able to back up that claim with these numbers.
Of course, this is not a sign that the Packers' injury luck will rebound in 2014, as that would just be the gambler's fallacy (and also would ignore any possible effect that a training staff might have on a team's propensity for injury). However, the trends generally show that teams rarely suffer huge quantities of injuries in each and every season over a long span of time. Eventually with a large enough sample size, the trend tends to even itself out.
Note that only two of these teams made the playoffs all four years: the Patriots and the Packers.
NFC North
Now let's look at how the Packers' results compared to their NFC North Division rivals.
This is where it gets really interesting, from a divisional perspective. Think back to the 2012 season, in which the Packers and Vikings both made the playoffs with the Bears narrowly missing out. It took an impressively lucky season with injuries for both of those teams to go 10-6, while the Packers went 11-5 despite having the worst injury luck in the league. When Minnesota's and Chicago's injury luck balanced out slightly in 2013, they suddenly became teams that could not exceed a .500 record and lost the division crown to a once-again battered Packers team that even lost [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] for seven games.
What about the one season in this span in which the Packers did not win the NFC North? That was in 2010, when the crown went to the Bears. And look at that AGL number for them that season - 12.3. That is an incredibly small number in the modern NFL - that's in essence the equivalent of losing only a single starting player for 3/4 of the season and nothing else. The Packers, on the other hand, scraped into the playoffs with another roster riddled by injury, but defeated the Bears in the playoffs and eventually won [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]XLV.
Other Oddities
Illustrating just how badly the Packers were hurt by injuries to certain units in the past few years, take a look at these notable items.
- The 2013 Packers' quarterbacks had an AGL of 14, which includes games lost by both Rodgers and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].
- Last year, Green Bay also had the seventh-most AGL on the offensive line, mostly due to Bryan Bulaga's torn ACL.
- The 2012 Packers' linebackers had the worst AGL value for a linebacker unit ever, at 40.1. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] missed 10 games, [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] missed four, and the inside linebacker unit was ravaged due to [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and D.J. Smith's injuries.
- That helped the 2012 Packers achieve the second-worst AGL for a full defense for a single season (62.8, behind only the 2013 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]).
The injury woes of the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] over the past few seasons have been well-documented here at Acme Packing Company and around the internet as a whole. Packers fans have bemoaned the frequency of injuries to key players while hoping for better luck for the upcoming 2014 season.
It's time to put some numbers to those complaints to illustrate why they are well-founded.
To do so, we looked at the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]as a way to measure the impact of the injuries the team has suffered over the past several years. Head over to their website for a little bit more explanation on how the AGL number is derived, but know that it weights injuries to starters and injury replacements higher than reserve players and also takes into account players who are playing while hurt.
(Note that for these rankings, a "worse" or higher-numbered ranking corresponds to a greater number of games lost.)
In looking back at the past four years of AGL data from Football Outsiders' articles, I found that the Packers have the third-highest AGL value of any team from 2010 through 2013. Furthermore, they finished in the bottom 3 of the league three out of these four years and are one of only five teams to finish 16th or worse in each of the past four seasons.
Overall NFL Injury Rate
Here is a look at the Packers' AGL numbers compared to other teams which have consistently struggled with injuries recently.
| Team | 2013 AGL | 2013 Rank | 2012 AGL | 2012 Rank | 2011 AGL | 2011 Rank | 2010 AGL | 2010 Rank | Total AGL | Combined Record |
| [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] | 110.3 | 31 | 92.5 | 30 | 84.7 | 28 | 90.5 | 31 | 378.0 | 34-30 |
| [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] | 144.6 | 32 | 82.7 | 25 | 78.3 | 26 | 58.1 | 22 | 363.7 | 35-29 |
| Packers | 104.5 | 30 | 108.1 | 32 | 58.7 | 16 | 86.3 | 30 | 357.6 | 44-19-1 |
| [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] | 99.9 | 29 | 74.7 | 19 | 97.5 | 30 | 72.5 | 28 | 344.6 | 51-13 |
| [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] | 72.2 | 19 | 76.1 | 20 | 109.2 | 31 | 75 | 29 | 332.5 | 27-37 |
Putting it another way, only two teams can claim that they have had worse injury luck than the Packers over the past four years while being able to back up that claim with these numbers.
Of course, this is not a sign that the Packers' injury luck will rebound in 2014, as that would just be the gambler's fallacy (and also would ignore any possible effect that a training staff might have on a team's propensity for injury). However, the trends generally show that teams rarely suffer huge quantities of injuries in each and every season over a long span of time. Eventually with a large enough sample size, the trend tends to even itself out.
Note that only two of these teams made the playoffs all four years: the Patriots and the Packers.
NFC North
Now let's look at how the Packers' results compared to their NFC North Division rivals.
| Team | 2013 AGL | 2013 Rank | 2012 AGL | 2012 Rank | 2011 AGL | 2011 Rank | 2010 AGL | 2010 Rank | Total AGL |
| Packers | 104.5 | 30 | 108.1 | 32 | 58.7 | 16 | 86.3 | 30 | 357.6 |
| [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] | 64.5 | 15 | 81.5 | 24 | 28.0 | 4 | 51.0 | 16 | 225.0 |
| [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] | 55.4 | 10 | 30.9 | 2 | 48.8 | 10 | 55.4 | 20 | 190.5 |
| [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] | 62.6 | 14 | 31.1 | 3 | 54.5 | 14 | 12.3 | 2 | 160.5 |
What about the one season in this span in which the Packers did not win the NFC North? That was in 2010, when the crown went to the Bears. And look at that AGL number for them that season - 12.3. That is an incredibly small number in the modern NFL - that's in essence the equivalent of losing only a single starting player for 3/4 of the season and nothing else. The Packers, on the other hand, scraped into the playoffs with another roster riddled by injury, but defeated the Bears in the playoffs and eventually won [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]XLV.
Other Oddities
Illustrating just how badly the Packers were hurt by injuries to certain units in the past few years, take a look at these notable items.
- The 2013 Packers' quarterbacks had an AGL of 14, which includes games lost by both Rodgers and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].
- Last year, Green Bay also had the seventh-most AGL on the offensive line, mostly due to Bryan Bulaga's torn ACL.
- The 2012 Packers' linebackers had the worst AGL value for a linebacker unit ever, at 40.1. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] missed 10 games, [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] missed four, and the inside linebacker unit was ravaged due to [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and D.J. Smith's injuries.
- That helped the 2012 Packers achieve the second-worst AGL for a full defense for a single season (62.8, behind only the 2013 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]).
Guest- Guest
Re: Football Outsiders
by duck Mon Aug 25, 2014 4:31 pm
I really like this FO site. It has them in their formula as the third most devastated team by injury over the past four years.
Of course you asserted that they were first... but whatever. Anyone who has been following the Packers over the last few years knows that they've been hit hard by injuries, no matter what the exact ranking is.
I see I've shamed you into supporting your statements with more than just hubris and hot air. I'll give you props for that, HD.
Of course now we have to dig deeper and try to find out why the Packers have had so many injuries. Could it be something in the Packers' training habits? Well, of course it's possible. But then, how about the Colts and Giants? They suffered more injuries. What are their training habits like? If they train like the Packers, you would definitely be on to something.
However, if they don't, all you're left with is pure speculation. And random chance could still account for these numbers.
Here's yet another way of studying this. Take the five or six teams that have the FEWEST amount of injuries and see if any patterns emerge with regard to their training habits, etc. Are they doing anything different than the rest of the league, particularly the Packers, Colts and Giants??
Unless you can isolate a variable and establish a consistent diverging pattern between two groups, you haven't proven anything.
Of course you asserted that they were first... but whatever. Anyone who has been following the Packers over the last few years knows that they've been hit hard by injuries, no matter what the exact ranking is.
I see I've shamed you into supporting your statements with more than just hubris and hot air. I'll give you props for that, HD.
Of course now we have to dig deeper and try to find out why the Packers have had so many injuries. Could it be something in the Packers' training habits? Well, of course it's possible. But then, how about the Colts and Giants? They suffered more injuries. What are their training habits like? If they train like the Packers, you would definitely be on to something.
However, if they don't, all you're left with is pure speculation. And random chance could still account for these numbers.
Here's yet another way of studying this. Take the five or six teams that have the FEWEST amount of injuries and see if any patterns emerge with regard to their training habits, etc. Are they doing anything different than the rest of the league, particularly the Packers, Colts and Giants??
Unless you can isolate a variable and establish a consistent diverging pattern between two groups, you haven't proven anything.
duck- 1st Round Pick
- Posts : 2790
Join date : 2012-01-23
Location : The bar at Cheers
Re: Football Outsiders
by Guest Mon Aug 25, 2014 5:00 pm
duck wrote:I really like this FO site. It has them in their formula as the third most devastated team by injury over the past four years.
Of course you asserted that they were first... but whatever. Anyone who has been following the Packers over the last few years knows that they've been hit hard by injuries, no matter what the exact ranking is.
I see I've shamed you into supporting your statements with more than just hubris and hot air. I'll give you props for that, HD.
LOL! What? I'm not trying to support anything, Duck. This doesn't support my claim. I said they were the MOST injured team over the past four years, dimpledick... Save the props for your magic routine, David Copperfield...
Of course now we have to dig deeper and try to find out why the Packers have had so many injuries. Could it be something in the Packers' training habits? Well, of course it's possible. But then, how about the Colts and Giants? They suffered more injuries. What are their training habits like? If they train like the Packers, you would definitely be on to something.
However, if they don't, all you're left with is pure speculation. And random chance could still account for these numbers.
Keep your head buried, Duck. It's where it seems to belong...
Here's yet another way of studying this. Take the five or six teams that have the FEWEST amount of injuries and see if any patterns emerge with regard to their training habits, etc. Are they doing anything different than the rest of the league, particularly the Packers, Colts and Giants??
Unless you can isolate a variable and establish a consistent diverging pattern between two groups, you haven't proven anything.
Guest- Guest
Similar topics» This is what football would be like
» It's time for some football
» He has more than football to ponder !
» Football Pool
» Football Pool
» It's time for some football
» He has more than football to ponder !
» Football Pool
» Football Pool
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum|
|
|