|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Are they talking injuries of all types, or major injuries that cause loss of multiple game time or even season ending?
I would agree that as the season progresses a players body is more susceptible to pulled muscles, strains, bruising. But I don't think there is a similar chance of increase in ACL/MCL injuries, broken bones, etc.
The only only factor I think might increase injuries is teams getting closer to necessary wins for a playoff may play harder, hit harder than earlier in the season.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,936
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,936 |
Quote:
I agree. The odds are the same from play 1 of the season to the last play of the season. The number of games has no impact on the odds of injury.
Completely incorrect (statistically speaking anyway). You MAY be able to say that the odds of getting injured within any single game are roughly the same (assuming the player participates in roughly the same number of plays per game from week-to-week).
However, each play a player participates in represents a chance of injury. So, you don't even have to be a mathematician to see that, with each successive game, the number of chances the player has of getting injured increases (two-fold, three-fold, etc... until the end of the season). So, if you have a player that participates in roughly 15 plays per game and you tack on two more regular season games, that player will have about 30 more opportunities to get hurt during the regular season.
Now, it would be fair to argue about the likelihood of getting injured on any given play. Depending on those odds, you might be able to argue that adding a couple of regular season games doesn't significantly impact a player's odds of getting injured. However, to say that the number of games has no impact on the odds of getting injured is a statistical falsehood. It only takes one play for a serious injury to occur. Bottom line: if you increase the number of chances of getting injured, you increase the odds of getting injured.
[color:"white"]"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."
-- Mark Twain [/color]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,388
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,388 |
I'm all for getting rid of 2 preseason games. Though I dont think 18 games is necessary. The season is long enough as it is.
"The medium for the bad news was ESPN, which figured. The network represents much of what is loud, obnoxious and empty in sports today."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,689
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,689 |
Quote:
Quote:
I agree. The odds are the same from play 1 of the season to the last play of the season. The number of games has no impact on the odds of injury.
Sure if you don't calculate wear and tear on the body as a part of your odds.
Just like the odds of a breakdown for a machined part is the same from start to 5 million cycles. Except it really isn't if you teak the wearing down of the part through those cycles as a part of your calculation. And as that part wears down the risk of breakdown increases....the same holds true for these players....
I do understand your point. I just think it is hard to calculate the wear and tear in to saying it increases the odds of injury.
Take the machined parts you mentioned. Why does one water pump on one car go 100,000 miles without issue while another water pump of same make break down after 60,000 miles on another vehicle??
Miles isn't the deciding factor. How it's used and how it's maintained has something to do with it along with inherent flaws that were there from the beginning.
I think human bodies are much the same.
When you add it all up, going to 18 games and 2 exhibition games v 16/4 would probably add the equivalent of 1 more game of play time.
Of the 4 exhibition games, top players probably play maybe 7 qtrs worth of football so they are playing 17.75 games a year excluding post season.
In the proposed format top players might see 4 qtrs of play in preseason and 18 games for a total of 19 games....so make that 1.25 more games on average.
I don't see that as a big wear and tear factor.
Years ago teams play 12 game seasons, and those guys probably took a much greater toll then do players of today.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong ![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,563
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,563 |
Quote:
I don't see that as a big wear and tear factor.
Years ago teams play 12 game seasons, and those guys probably took a much greater toll then do players of today.
Not that it really matters because I'm not sure anyones view can be proven on this board at this moment.,, But
If you look back on the days when they played 12 games you have a couple of different circumstances that you don't have much of today..
1. The Equipment today is way better and way more protective for the player.
2. There were more players playing both ways in days gone by then there are today. Thus back then, they got in on more plays per game.. thus increasing the opportunity to be injured. '
To counter the first, it could be said that the players themselves are bigger, faster and stronger and way better conditioned then in those days.
I see the points of both sides of this really but the truth to me is that the more you are on the field, the more oportunity you will have to get injured.
Fatigue plays a part in it as well but I really don't know how to quantify that.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
Uggh ... EVERYONE is right.  The PROBABILITY that a player would get hurt in Game 1 versus Game 16 is exactly the same. It's just like a (legit) roulette wheel ... I have the exact same chance of hitting 1 as I do hitting 16. The odds that a player would get injured in one game versus sixteen games, goes up for each game played, as the probability from one game is stacked for each game played. So, like a roulette wheel, I have a much higher chance of hitting the number 1 if I spin the wheel 16 times, rather than just one time.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
Just because it is hard to calculate....it doesn't make it any less true or any less impactful. And in looking at your example, you even stated something...it is not necessarily the mileage ....but the type of mileage.... You cannot compare the intensity of a regular season game with the intensity of a preseason game.....so your 1 game of playing time argument doesn't hold water for me... I am not necessarily sure I am for or against the 18 game season. But what I can say is that I am not against the players asking for more money if they do go to that 18 game format. Honestly I would be more in favor of just reducing the price of preseason games. I mean...that is the biggest gripe with fans isn't it??? The players trying to make the team NEED those games. If you take a game or 2 away...that all but eliminates the cahnces for guys like Josh Cribbs to make enough of an impression to make the team undrafted. Or for guys who are switching positions to show they are learning from past mistakes. Sure guys who are locks to make the team hate the games...but big deal...they get paid a butt load to sit on the bench for 90% of the game...WOW...they are really inconvenienced...  ....Coaches don't mind preseason games because they get to see those bubble guys in action and can make better decisions. They want all the info they can get. So the fans are the last people who have gripes. Heck...you might even see an INCREASE in preseason sales. The fans know they aren't going to see the top guys the whole game. So most are there because it is football and they want to tailgate. They just hate paying full price for an inferior NFL product.....
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Ok, in summary
The probability of an injury is not increase (ie: no matter how many times you roll the dice, you have the same probability of rolling a 7 each time)
The chance of and injury does increase because of more plays (ie: If I roll the dice 50 times, I have 10x the chance of rolling 7 than if I only rolled the dice 5 times.)
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,563
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,563 |
Quote:
Ok, in summary
The probability of an injury is not increase (ie: no matter how many times you roll the dice, you have the same probability of rolling a 7 each time)
The chance of and injury does increase because of more plays (ie: If I roll the dice 50 times, I have 10x the chance of rolling 7 than if I only rolled the dice 5 times.)
That sounds right to me...
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
But I beg to differ on the probability as well because in your dice example...in every throw of the dice....every parameter is the same.....BUT in the players case. with wear and tear. The player, is not in the same condition as the play before. Each play can make the player stronger(loosen muscles, gets the jitters out, etc.) or weaker (bruises, dehydration, cramps, tiredness, wear and tear, etc...) that changes the parameter for each and every play.
When the parameters change the probability changes as well.
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,936
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,936 |
Quote:
Ok, in summary
The probability of an injury is not increase (ie: no matter how many times you roll the dice, you have the same probability of rolling a 7 each time)
The chance of and injury does increase because of more plays (ie: If I roll the dice 50 times, I have 10x the chance of rolling 7 than if I only rolled the dice 5 times.)
You're close... 
Chance always affects probability (not vica versa). So, while it is reasonable to say that the probability of a player getting injured in any single game is about the same (assuming, again, that he participates in roughly the same number of plays each game), you can't ignore the cumulative effect of chance on the probablility of injury over the course of a multi-game season. Even if you determine that the probablility of getting injured in any single game is small, the increased number of chances for injury will increase the actual probability of injury as you add games played to the equation. The increase in the probablility of injury due to adding a couple of regular season games may be small (perhaps even extremely small), but you could easily justify it mathematically.
Now... if the NFLPA tries to argue that adding two reqular season games dramatically increases the probability of injury, they would be in for a fight to support that stance. I'm not sure they could legitimately make that claim.
[color:"white"]"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."
-- Mark Twain [/color]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,689
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,689 |
Quote:
Just because it is hard to calculate....it doesn't make it any less true or any less impactful.
And in looking at your example, you even stated something...it is not necessarily the mileage ....but the type of mileage....
You cannot compare the intensity of a regular season game with the intensity of a preseason game.....so your 1 game of playing time argument doesn't hold water for me...
I am not necessarily sure I am for or against the 18 game season. But what I can say is that I am not against the players asking for more money if they do go to that 18 game format.
Honestly I would be more in favor of just reducing the price of preseason games. I mean...that is the biggest gripe with fans isn't it??? The players trying to make the team NEED those games. If you take a game or 2 away...that all but eliminates the cahnces for guys like Josh Cribbs to make enough of an impression to make the team undrafted. Or for guys who are switching positions to show they are learning from past mistakes. Sure guys who are locks to make the team hate the games...but big deal...they get paid a butt load to sit on the bench for 90% of the game...WOW...they are really inconvenienced... ....Coaches don't mind preseason games because they get to see those bubble guys in action and can make better decisions. They want all the info they can get. So the fans are the last people who have gripes.
Heck...you might even see an INCREASE in preseason sales. The fans know they aren't going to see the top guys the whole game. So most are there because it is football and they want to tailgate. They just hate paying full price for an inferior NFL product.....
My attitude is if you are in there playing anything less then 100%, you stand a chance to get hurt....and rooks, marginal players are playing past the whistle in order to make a statement to the coach.
My feeling is you stand a better chance of getting hurt in preseason or camp v a regular season game.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum NFL brings 18 game season to union
....
|
|
