26CornerBlitz Posted December 1, 2016 Share Posted December 1, 2016 https://www.mangameslost.com/nfl-week-12-games-missed-due-injury-november-29-2016/ Here's a look at this through week 12. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted December 2, 2016 Author Share Posted December 2, 2016 Bumped for perspective context since so many seem to believe only Bills' players suffer injuries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quinnearlysghost88 Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 makes sense. the division leaders around us all have our same record (BAL, HOU). and no one over 140 is touching 7 wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 Our bubble size (quality of injuries) is smaller than a lot of teams with the same or better records... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Son Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 Our bubble size (quality of injuries) is smaller than a lot of teams with the same or better records... A completely subjective measurement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaattMaann Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 This does not take into account WHO was injured...big difference between missing your #1 WR, #2 WR, #3 WR, #1RB for some, #1 defensive player, first two draft picks and some roster fodder/special teams players The only team off the top of my head that has had the quality players injured that we have and are still having some success is the Vikings, and they traded a number one pick for a QB to help fix their injury issues... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Son Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 This does not take into account WHO was injured...big difference between missing your #1 WR, #2 WR, #3 WR, #1RB for some, #1 defensive player, first two draft picks and some roster fodder/special teams players The only team off the top of my head that has had the quality players injured that we have and are still having some success is the Vikings, and they traded a number one pick for a QB to help fix their injury issues... They actually do try to account for quality, bubble size Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaattMaann Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 They actually do try to account for quality, bubble size they TRY alright Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark80 Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 This does not take into account WHO was injured...big difference between missing your #1 WR, #2 WR, #3 WR, #1RB for some, #1 defensive player, first two draft picks and some roster fodder/special teams players The only team off the top of my head that has had the quality players injured that we have and are still having some success is the Vikings, and they traded a number one pick for a QB to help fix their injury issues... Pretty much my exact post from the other thread and spot on. Some arbitrary "bubble" does not truly reflect the quality of player missing....how does this bubble account for Lawson and Ragland who never got to play a down before being injured? Explain that to me please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Son Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 they TRY alright Agreed. Impossible to quantify Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted December 2, 2016 Author Share Posted December 2, 2016 Pretty much my exact post from the other thread and spot on. Some arbitrary "bubble" does not truly reflect the quality of player missing....how does this bubble account for Lawson and Ragland who never got to play a down before being injured? Explain that to me please. They need to do both quantitative and qualitative analysis very thoroughly to show the true effects of injuries. But this is better than nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaattMaann Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 Pretty much my exact post from the other thread and spot on. Some arbitrary "bubble" does not truly reflect the quality of player missing....how does this bubble account for Lawson and Ragland who never got to play a down before being injured? Explain that to me please. I JUST saw that Mark haha...great minds brother Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark80 Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 They need to do both quantitative and qualitative analysis very thoroughly to show the true effects of injuries. But this is better than nothing. I disagree, because it misdirects people to thinking that this is a true correlation (as evidenced by you starting this thread with it and it being posted in the other thread). Man games lost is a good stat because people understand it doesn't account for quality and it's just a number that is what it is. When you start pointing to things like this, it just creates more confusion and debate. I'd like to see man games missed by player with their PFF or something to make my own conclusions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted December 2, 2016 Author Share Posted December 2, 2016 I disagree, because it misdirects people to thinking that this is a true correlation (as evidenced by you starting this thread with it and it being posted in the other thread). Man games lost is a good stat because people understand it doesn't account for quality and it's just a number that is what it is. When you start pointing to things like this, it just creates more confusion and debate. I'd like to see man games missed by player with their PFF or something to make my own conclusions. It's not that hard to figure out what players are important to a team's success and PFF ratings are highly qualitative and they certainly are not the definitive answer to player effectiveness. We'll have to disagree here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackOrton Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 I disagree, because it misdirects people to thinking that this is a true correlation (as evidenced by you starting this thread with it and it being posted in the other thread). Man games lost is a good stat because people understand it doesn't account for quality and it's just a number that is what it is. When you start pointing to things like this, it just creates more confusion and debate. I'd like to see man games missed by player with their PFF or something to make my own conclusions. PFF is just as subjective and arbitrary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaattMaann Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 I disagree, because it misdirects people to thinking that this is a true correlation (as evidenced by you starting this thread with it and it being posted in the other thread). Man games lost is a good stat because people understand it doesn't account for quality and it's just a number that is what it is. When you start pointing to things like this, it just creates more confusion and debate. I'd like to see man games missed by player with their PFF or something to make my own conclusions. Good idea - but even man games with their pff doesn't do it justice - how would you account for people who WOULD have had an impact (rookies/guys who were lost at the beginning of the year) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OhDozeBills Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 This does not take into account WHO was injured...big difference between missing your #1 WR, #2 WR, #3 WR, #1RB for some, #1 defensive player, first two draft picks and some roster fodder/special teams players The only team off the top of my head that has had the quality players injured that we have and are still having some success is the Vikings, and they traded a number one pick for a QB to help fix their injury issues... This. We've essentially lost the most important positions with exception of QB and our best players. The rash of injuries at WR is also unprecedented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobobonators Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 I kinda said something similar in another thread: its one thing to have injuries scattered about your roster and have various backups starting. Every team has that. Its another thing to have an entire unit decimated by injuries to the point where the backup's backups within that unit are injured too. Our WR corps is in shambles and the level of injury to that group is hard to recover from in the long run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark80 Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 PFF is just as subjective and arbitrary. I agree, but showing it with the player and the games missed would provide insight as to what makes up that "bubble" size, instead of just showing said bubble and taking it as a definitive result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackOrton Posted December 2, 2016 Share Posted December 2, 2016 I agree, but showing it with the player and the games missed would provide insight as to what makes up that "bubble" size, instead of just showing said bubble and taking it as a definitive result. The website linked does provide said insight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts