BringBackOrton Posted December 9, 2016 Share Posted December 9, 2016 (edited) https://www.mangameslost.com/nfl-week-13-games-missed-due-injury-december-7-2016/ The Bills have lost less players per game than several teams including the Ravens. The Bills have also lost less valuable players than the Ravens per game. Using career values for PFR, the injury impact weighted approximate value of the Bills so far is 4.161. For the Ravens, it's 9.875. Obviously, higher is worse. Instead of using career values, we can use last years approximate value from PFR. The Bills have 1.292, whereas the Ravens have 1.734. So what does this data mean? Fundamentally it means that the Ravens have been hit harder with injuries to players more important than those hit by the Bills. Which to make a long story short, makes injuries no excuse. If a team can be hit worse with injuries than us and still be very much alive in playoff contention, so could the Bills. Look elsewhere to assign blame. Edited December 9, 2016 by jmc12290 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted December 9, 2016 Share Posted December 9, 2016 It looks like the Bills have the fifth most lost games due to injury out of 32 teams, but it's not an excuse? Obviously any attempt to quantify the impact of each player is highly subjective. I have a very hard time believing the total impact of the Bills 180 lost games is roughly equivalent to the total impact of the Niners 85 lost games or Denver's 70 lost games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BADOLBILZ Posted December 9, 2016 Share Posted December 9, 2016 It looks like the Bills have the fifth most lost games due to injury out of 32 teams, but it's not an excuse? Obviously any attempt to quantify the impact of each player is highly subjective. I have a very hard time believing the total impact of the Bills 180 lost games is roughly equivalent to the total impact of the Niners 85 lost games or Denver's 70 lost games. There are a lot of factors but I haven't really felt that injuries have buried them in any particular game. The big one was Watkins but when your offense is a solid, top 10 scoring unit that's not really the problem. The D has been poor. But it hasn't really been injuries.......just poor execution of a dubious scheme. See dave's football outsiders post. The Bills have played some dud offenses and they just make far too many mistakes. Getting Dareus and Shaq back hasn't really changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackOrton Posted December 9, 2016 Author Share Posted December 9, 2016 (edited) It looks like the Bills have the fifth most lost games due to injury out of 32 teams, but it's not an excuse? Obviously any attempt to quantify the impact of each player is highly subjective. I have a very hard time believing the total impact of the Bills 180 lost games is roughly equivalent to the total impact of the Niners 85 lost games or Denver's 70 lost games. Not when you compare quality. Our number is vastly inflated by bums like Salas being put on IR. And if you look at the 2015 number, which IMO is better because Demarcus Ware isn't the same player he was 8 years ago, Denver is actually way healthier than us, including quality. Bills are 16th when judging solely by 2015 performance. Sounds about right. Edited December 9, 2016 by jmc12290 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonborn10 Posted December 9, 2016 Share Posted December 9, 2016 They are fifth in total games missed. Of course it leaves out the fact that most of those games missed were by two of the three best players on the team in Watkins and Dareus. It also leaves out the clustering of injuries to the WR position. And one of the worst losses of the year was with a hobbled McCoy in addition to Watkins and Dareus at Miami. Other than that no it is not an excuse what so ever. Even if you like TT, no one thinks he is good enough to overcome the WR injuries. But when he had a healthy Watkins last year they were special. Let's see what happens over the next four games - three at home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackOrton Posted December 9, 2016 Author Share Posted December 9, 2016 They are fifth in total games missed. Of course it leaves out the fact that most of those games missed were by two of the three best players on the team in Watkins and Dareus. It also leaves out the clustering of injuries to the WR position. And one of the worst losses of the year was with a hobbled McCoy in addition to Watkins and Dareus at Miami. Other than that no it is not an excuse what so ever. Even if you like TT, no one thinks he is good enough to overcome the WR injuries. But when he had a healthy Watkins last year they were special. Let's see what happens over the next four games - three at home. No it doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CardinalScotts Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 yes it does AND not only how many but who having to play games with Hunter Powell Tate as our wideouts. You need chemistry, and being on the same page this isn't college. Why do you think every team has camp ? It takes time then your breaking in new guys who 1) aren't nearly was talented which is why they were on the waiver wire 2) weren't in camp or played with Tyrod before. I'm not a Tyrod apologist, he misses too many easy NFL quarterback throws, and the inability to use the middle of the field is huge. But I dont think we understand the level of play in the NFL you can't get 3 4 deep on the depth chart and think that shouldn't be a problem. Of course it is - Lastly we have put up 24 or better in 9 of 12 games that should get you better results than 6-6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 Never let data ruin a good narrative Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDH Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 Never let data ruin a good narrative How does that data do that? Of the 8 teams with the most injuries in the league, one has a winning record and that's just 7-5. I don't think it's coincidence that 6 of the 8 teams in blue (the ones winning their divisions) are on the left hand side of the graph. As for the bubble size representing the "significance of the injury" it would only do that if you compared who was lost with who replaced them. Simply saying who was lost doesn't really do much. Not to mention trying to do a WAR type stat in football is kind of pointless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 I feel like that data actually HURTS the OP's argument....not helps it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackOrton Posted December 10, 2016 Author Share Posted December 10, 2016 I feel like that data actually HURTS the OP's argument....not helps it How so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baskingridgebillsfan Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 Wow that is a lot of data. the one thing that is doesn't take into account is the skill level of the replacement . It is impossible to quality backups at every position Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 It also doesn't show that these horrible backup receivers have been open on most plays, but not thrown to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Turk Posted December 10, 2016 Share Posted December 10, 2016 (edited) https://www.mangameslost.com/nfl-week-13-games-missed-due-injury-december-7-2016/ The Bills have lost less players per game than several teams including the Ravens. The Bills have also lost less valuable players than the Ravens per game. Using career values for PFR, the injury impact weighted approximate value of the Bills so far is 4.161. For the Ravens, it's 9.875. Obviously, higher is worse. Instead of using career values, we can use last years approximate value from PFR. The Bills have 1.292, whereas the Ravens have 1.734. So what does this data mean? Fundamentally it means that the Ravens have been hit harder with injuries to players more important than those hit by the Bills. Which to make a long story short, makes injuries no excuse. If a team can be hit worse with injuries than us and still be very much alive in playoff contention, so could the Bills. Look elsewhere to assign blame. If the Bills played in their division, they would be very much alive in playoff contention as well... the Ravens have 1 more win than the Bills do...flip the opening game result which saw the Bills make 0 plays on offense and we'd have the opposite records...you make it sound like the Ravens are 10-2 and the Bills are 3-9... Edited December 10, 2016 by matter2003 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts