MNF Injury Stat

[Dutch]

Anybody catch the MNF stat on most starters used in a year since 2000.

It was kind of interesting. I think the league high since 2000 ranged from 42-49. Meaning if you count the 22 original starters.....there have been a couple of teams that (in effect) replaced their entire opening day roster by the end of the year.

And we have it bad with injuries in FOF??? I don't think so!

[Dutch]

dola....

Not that I am in anyway promoting FOF to have MORE injuries...

[Bonegavel]

Not sure I understand the stat. That is 42-49 players for the entire League that lasted the year?

[Vince]

Most different people used in a starting role in any game.

Dutch, I'd be interested in average numbers of starters used, thought the maximum is interesting to start discussion.

[Bonegavel]

Still don't understand.

[Vince]

Hm. Ok, at the beginning of the game, a team has 22 "starters." Any time a guy starts who didn't start the first game starts a subsequent game, that number, 22, goes up by one, because a different starter was used. So at the end of a season, the number (42 or whatever) is the number of different people who have started a game for that team for the season.

[VPI97]

Originally posted by Bonegavel
Still don't understand. 42-49 is the number of players who had been listed as starters for at least one of the 16 games for one particular team.

[Bonegavel]

Put that way, it makes sense Vince. I only caught the last 4 minutes of the game, and didn't hear the original comment.

gracias

[BishopMVP]

Looks like the Pats have a shot to break the record. Also, does that include Kickers/Punters or not?

[lytic]

Originally posted by BishopMVP
Looks like the Pats have a shot to break the record. Also, does that include Kickers/Punters or not?

Kicker/Punters don't actually "start" games (despite kickoffs "starting the game")

[Vince]

Originally posted by Bonegavel
Put that way, it makes sense Vince. I only caught the last 4 minutes of the game, and didn't hear the original comment.

gracias

De nada :)

Reading mine and the original post, it's easy to see where someone would get confused.

I don't think Punters/Kickers/Special Teams people are considered to 'Start.' Not sure about that though...

[BishopMVP]

Originally posted by lytic
Kicker/Punters don't actually "start" games (despite kickoffs "starting the game")

I thought so, but it just when reading publications for college football they always list the kickers as returning or not.

Technically of course, the starters are the kick coverage or return team, so it's not like it's a hard definition.

[Dutch]

Sorry, I saw that during the game, and waited for a commercial to post something...let me try again if I can.

The record since 2000 in the NFL was for one team (to remain nameless since I already forgot it) had 49 players on their roster credited with at least 1 Game Start. Punters and Kickers do not get credit for game starts. The purpose of showing the stat was to highlight the problems New England was having with injuries this year. And it showed that teams with heavy ammounts of Game Starters over the course of a year all had very poor team records...the best was 7-9, but most teams that lead the league in injuries were 2-14, 3-13, 4-12 teams.

----

Provided that you have 22 players every game that are credited with a GS and you run the same personnel sets on the first play of every game and nobody gets hurt, at the end of the year you will end up with 22 players with credit for a Game Start.

While some players who are not natural starters will end up with game starts, the majority of players on a team who end up getting game starts beyond the first 22 are usually injury replacements.

In comparison, if we have 4 guys on IR in FOF and another 4 guys that are OUT for 2 weeks, we tend to think the injuries are getting out of control.

I was hoping to show that it's not all roses in the NFL either. To me it was significant because it's one of those stats that you rarely come across.

[FrogMan]

Dutch, after following the Pats this season, and seeing the number of players they have lost to injuries, players that were starters, I will never bitch about FOF having too many injuries, ever....

FM

[cthomer5000]

1 potential monkey-wrench to this stat is the way actual starts are credited. They are detirmined by who is on the field for the first play of scrimmage. If they come out in a two tight end set, two tight ends have now started for that team!

That's why you see many fullbacks who've played in 16 games but started 9 or 10. It's all a matter of who is actually out there when the ball is first snapped.

Taking that into account, I'd say the actual starter numbers are being padded by 4-5 players per team.

[Huckleberry]

Another problem is that the poor records might be causing the high number of starters and not vice versa.

Meaning that a team that is 1-7 is a lot more likely to try a new player out in a starting role than a team that is 6-2, regardless of injuries.

[Bonegavel]

Good points. I think that stat is a little misleading, however, it would be more interesting to see more of a weighted average stat on this. To me, a starter is the guy who participates in X number of plays from scrimmage regularly, and these are the folks they should be tracking for injuries. Not the schmoe in for 1 play at the start of the game.

[cthomer5000]

Originally posted by Bonegavel
Good points. I think that stat is a little misleading, however, it would be more interesting to see more of a weighted average stat on this. To me, a starter is the guy who participates in X number of plays from scrimmage regularly, and these are the folks they should be tracking for injuries. Not the schmoe in for 1 play at the start of the game.

Agreed. The stat would be more meaningful if the teams just submitted and "official" starting lineup, rather than have it determined by who is on the field to start the game. I think your starters should be the 11 players on each side of the ball that will (on average) be playing the largest percentage of plays.

Therefore, if you play a 3 WR single-back setup, 3 receivers should always get credit for starting. That's my opinion anyway.

Thinking about my Jets, they've probably had 6 or 7 o-line starters already, 2 Qb's, 3 WR's, 1 RB, 1 FB. Defensively, I know at least 15 have already started. So after 8 games the Jets have used about 29-30 starters to my knowledge. I can easily see how this numbers would get to 40 and beyond by year's end.

[lytic]

Originally posted by Huckleberry
Another problem is that the poor records might be causing the high number of starters and not vice versa.

Meaning that a team that is 1-7 is a lot more likely to try a new player out in a starting role than a team that is 6-2, regardless of injuries.

That was one of the points of the stat... usually high # of starters = a bad team therefore changing players.