2009 Adjusted Games Lost Totals

I am mildly curious about what happens when a starter is lost to injury and then his replacement is also lost--do the losses count twice in the games both missed?

CAPTCHA: vastness filled

I agree with you Bill, I think there isn't enough time spent looking at total injuries in relation to performance. Injuries to particular individuals tend to get a lot of press, especially when those individuals are highly paid and have their own shampoo commercials, for example.

This was mentioned last year, but my main concern about AGL is to do with horses and carts. It needs looking into, but anecdotally I'd say a lot of the injuries on bad teams happen with the season well in progress, ie after the team has already 'become' bad.

I realize that AGL is an approximate statistic, and I think it's very interesting. I just wonder whether it makes more sense to imply (as your article does slyly) that 'teams are bad because they are injured', rather than 'teams are injured because they are bad'.

Does the way different teams seem to use the injury classifications (eg. probable vs questionable) affect AGL?

I think this article shows a lot of insight into why the Team Efficiency Ratings seem to rate the Colts low. The Colts have always been very conservative about injuries and this year even more so. In addition to havingt lost several key players to near season long injuries, they also sat started in many games that perhaps a more desperate team, one that didn't get off to such a great start, might not have.

The fact that the Colts pulled out many games where they were at less than full strength is a testament to Manning and the other key stars. But it also means that a lot of those games the Colts played with one hand tied behind their back, explaining their closer results against weak teams. In a year when many of the perenial AFC powers had off years, the Colts could afford to take the risk of dropping one of these gimmie games.

The end result is that the Colts team going into the playoffs is likely better than any team they fielded in any game over the course of the regular season, and it's whon in their first two playoff victoies.

So it would appear the obvious question would be, have you looked at the correlation between AGL and how much your preseason projection was off by?

Interesting data set.

If you were to use it to argue that certain teams are better at player conditioning, I'd think you'd want to exlude at least training camp and potentially all pre-season injuries.

A point on the Colts: IMO they are extremely conservative when it comes to injuries. The 'Bill Polian era' of injuries is probably related more to that philosophy than it is to smaller players. These guys are blowing out knees and twisting ankles and pulling hamstrings in practice, not getting run over on gameday.

Has any attempt been made to calculate an AGL for each team's opponents?

It's really difficult to make an accurate compilation due to the differences in how the injuries are reported.

Remember when the Patriots would list half their roster as questionable?

Just quick reaction to the article:

Indy's defense is fairly small, as we all know, while Dallas and Denver had similar types of defenses (fairly big guys, all around, and a 3-4). It's probably just coincidence, though. Just thought I'd spit that out there for now.

Interesting tidbit: Schwartz moves from Tenn to Det and the Lions have a 28% reduction in injuries, yet still finish 5th. Last year must of beeen brutal for them.

Dallas had one of the most talented and healthy teams in the league this year and they still managed to flame out in the playoffs?

Congratulations, boys.

I feel that the consistently better teams, have better depth. So that if a starter goes down, the replacement drop off isn't as terrible. Some teams field players that have no business in the league, others have potential stars locked behind entrenched players.
And certainly different positions are easier/more difficult for a new guy to suddenly take a starting roll.
The Oline comes to mind as a big beneficiary of time spent together as a healthy unit.
Kickers don't seem to matter as much (though punters and longsnappers can kill a team)

I don't think it's a coincidence that a team like Dallas stayed healthy. Parcells' theory has always been that bigger teams stay healthy and peak at the end of the year. That is why he always drafts big people first with Dallas and Miami.

But when a "smaller" team has Freeney, Mathis, Brackett, Session, and Bethea as their "undersized players", it doesn't matter as much bc those guys are such good players. As well as when you have Manning on offense. All of that covers up a lot of injuries and everything else.

But I really do think that is the untold story of why the Colts didn't try to go 16-0. It has more to do with the fact that they couldn't afford any more injured players on defense or in their receiving corps having already lost Gonzalez, than any chance that Manning would get hurt.

I believe that they did a NYT article on injury reporting classifications and rate of actual games played.

Yuck

Drew, just saying that everyone thinks that it's about Manning, but to me it's more about the other starters on defense and WRs, who have a much better chance of getting hurt than Manning does. Once you take all of those players out, there is no sense in keeping Manning in so that he has to put up 40 points to beat the Jets or Bills.

I betcha FOA '10 could have a whole CHAPTER on this topic. Depends what superstar is injured, what position is injured, for how long, what GM's are better drafting for depth, what coaches are better adapting to injuries, when is the tipping point to crash (or rise), how does this affect their DVOA ranking, and factor that into next year's projections.

I bet Colts and Cowboys would be some of the better teams. Colts for replacing injured starters (except Manning) and Cowboys for keeping their players healthy.

Can't wait to read it in July......

More concrete proof of Josh McDaniels' smoke and mirror run.

That franchise is going to crash hard.

I think what these stats don't reflect, but you should really try to consider, is 'presenteeism' or the opposite of absenteeism. In other words, determining which teams started a high number of 'probables', because in all likelihood, these were the teams whose injured players started despite having to play at much less than 100% due to injury.
As a Denver Broncos fan, I think this metric would be particularly important in understanding the Broncos performance in these areas. While they appear to have had one of the healthiest teams all season, and it certainly showed in the first half of the season w/ the 6-0 start, the Broncos faded down the stretch. Many of Denver's Key Players down the stretch like Kyle Orton, Brian Dawkins, C. Buckhalter, Ryan Clady, Kris Kuper (and even K. Moreno to a degree), were all starting games late in the season while battling serious injuries (rightly or wrongly, this also happens to be why McDaniels took issue with Brandon Marshall refusing to play due to injury in the last week of the season).

Whoops read the list wrong, nevermind.

IR AGL:

1) BUF 57
2) STL 47
3) WAS 46
4) HOU 43
T5) CHI/CIN/PHI 42

Of course, some teams put players on IR when they're hopeless and know they can't contribute. Good teams also put players on IR too, though, when they're competitive and need a roster spot.

Denver players played 94% of the time when they were listed as Probable, the tenth-most frequently in the league. The league-average was 92.3%; San Diego led the league, as their Probable players suited up 98.6% of the time.

Everyone raise your hands if you would have thought before the season that the oldest secondary in NFL history would have resulted in the healthiest defense of the season. Everyone with your hands up, you're a shameless liar.

I'm terrified at the prospect of how terrible Denver is going to be next season. On the one hand, I'm hoping they're bad enough to get McDaniels fired... but on the other hand, I know that if they do fire McDaniels, it'll basically just be an admission that they chased away a borderline HoF HC, dismantled the most promising young offense in the league, sided with a capologist over an ON FIRE scouting department in a power struggle, *AND* sent a miracle-working DC on his way, all for nothing. I mean, I think McDaniels is probably a terrible head coach, but I'd almost rather just keep him around than admit that all of that happened for absolutely no reason whatsoever.

Almost.

All the comments about the Colts being "conservative" with injuries (i.e. sitting starters who were recovering from injury but could have played) also apply to the Saints. Just about every injured Saints player this year got a week or two longer to recover than they might have. In the case of the Saints, that philosophy was enabled by two key factors: first, for most of the season they had a multigame lead in the division race; and second, they have good depth at almost every position.

CAPTCHA: farmyard student

I think the 2009 Curtis Painter experiment may demonstrate that the Colts do not have any special ability to draft players but rather that a healthy and active Peyton Manning is like spackle fixing holes. Even a competent quarterback may not be able to pull out wins in situations where he does. Offense can't get on the field against Miami? No problem, Indy has The Peyton. Houston gets out to a big lead? No problem, Indy has The Peyton.

Much easier to put a team together when you have one guy who can make the rest of the fungible parts go.