Football Outsiders stats on injuries...& Rams...

[Anonymous]

. . .

Here's a link to an interesting stats article about injuries (Rams highlights or lowlights below).

2011 Adjusted Games Lost for Team Units

by Danny Tuccitto

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2012/2011-adjusted-games-lost-team-units

One fair warning: in that article, Adjusted Games Lost does not refer to wins or losses. It has nothing to do with that. It refers to HOW MANY GAMES A PLAYER IS LOST FOR. It is "adjusted" because it does not simply account for games where the player was OUT, but also accounts for the number of games the player played while injured and was therefore less effective.

In their own words:

http://footballoutsiders.com/info/glossary

Adjusted Games Lost (AGL): Measurement of the cost of injuries, both in terms of missed games and games where players were not able to play to their full potential.

Okay...so...

You know I didn't read that article thinking I would find a lot of points about the Rams. But they themselves made a lot of points about the Rams.

I was looking for things like this, just out of general curiosity:

Generally speaking, the correlation between defensive AGL and wins (or DVOA) is half as large as the one for offensive AGL

But then look at this...on the Rams. It's actually kind of amazing in its own way.

The Rams high/or, low/lights:

the 2011 St. Louis Rams offense...repeated as "most injured offense in the NFL," and actually had a worse AGL than in 2010 (47.1). To boot, their AGL last season was the highest of any offense since 2002. Judging by that 66.6 value, you could say (puts on sunglasses) they were cursed.

St. Louis' 32nd-ranked combined [TE/]receiver AGL (i.e., the one in the table) was also a repeat performance (29.0 in 2010). But that's not all: These were the two highest AGLs since 2002, and the fourth-highest in that timespan was -- wait for it -- the 2008 St. Louis Rams.

St. Louis' wide receiver corps in 2011 finished dead last in AGL for the second straight season, and their AGL (26.4) was the second-highest since 2002, behind only -- wait for it -- the 2010 Rams (29.0).

the least-surprising unit atop an AGL table today is the Rams' secondary. And yet, what about the Panthers? Didn't they have to deal with a similar plight last season? Why were they able to win four more games than the Rams, against a significantly harder schedule no less? Well, if I had to offer an answer, it would be this. Both teams had tons of injuries at wide receiver, along the offensive line, and on defense. At quarterback, however, one young franchise passer had 5.7 AGL higher than the other. You do the math.

the whole underlying idea of AGL is that "abysmal QB play" was a direct byproduct of Bradford's injury. . . .A good alternate example I suppose is Pittsburgh having abysmal QB play in the 2 late-season games where Big Ben was trying to hero his way through a high-ankle sprain. Big Ben will never be confused for a "Bust/Below Average QB" overall, but he sure approached that level of play at the end of the year (even after adjusting for opponent strength).

I think it's fitting that we end with the Rams, actually. If we've learned anything today, it's that no recounting of St. Louis' 2011 season can omit the fact that injuries made a mockery of their depth chart. Not since a staph infection swept through one NFL locker room in 2003 -- guess which one -- has a plague affected a team this badly.

 

[steferfootball]

Well, at least we are setting records.

Back to back baby. :|

 

[-X-]

All teams have injuries. Bradford just sucks. And... something about holding the ball too long.

Yeah. Debate THAT.

 

[brokeu91]

All teams have injuries. Bradford just sucks. And... something about holding the ball too long.

Yeah. Debate THAT.

Hey X, I think you're preaching to the choir over here. I wonder what they would say over at Ramstalk.

 

[-X-]

Re: Football Outsiders stats on injuries...& Rams...

All teams have injuries. Bradford just sucks. And... something about holding the ball too long.

Yeah. Debate THAT.

Hey X, I think you're preaching to the choir over here. I wonder what they would say over at Ramstalk.

I already know.



Sent from my SPH-D710 using Xparent Blue Tapatalk 2

 

[Anonymous]

Okay just to add this up in easy list form:

* Offensive injuries have twice the effect on wins/losses that defensive injuries do.

* In 2010, the Rams were the most injured offense in the league. In 2011, they exceeded that, becoming the most injured offense since 2002. (Though I don't think they account for the fact that Jackson played hurt all year in 2010.)

* looking at TE/WR, both the 2010 and 2011 Rams were the most injured unit since 2002. The 4th worst? The 2008 Rams.

* looking JUST at WR, this was the 2nd most injured unit since 2002. The 1st most was the 2010 Rams.

* Carolina also had injuries along the OL, at WR, and on the DL. But their starting qb was healthy all year.

* Want to know how those kinds of injuries limit a qb? Look at Roethlisberger when he tried to play with a high ankle sprain. Wasn't the same guy.

* "no recounting of St. Louis' 2011 season can omit the fact that injuries made a mockery of their depth chart"

 

[RamFan503]

Yeah but Yeah but Yeah but... We need a scapegoat. Oh yeah... they already got fired.

If we go through this season with a normal amount of injuries, Fisher is going to look like the biggest genius in football. Especially when we go undefeated in the West. :7up: