Is it just me, or do "injured" stars always have huge games (1 Viewer)

[solorca]

This seems to happen constantly in the NFL. A player like Mcfadden or Nicks will be injured all week as a question mark to play, and inevitably, the game will come and they will be dominant. I don't know if maybe it's just more noticeable, but it seems like it is an extremely common occurrence that the players of the week will be those who weren't expected to be able to play.

 

[comfortably numb]

This seems to happen constantly in the NFL. A player like Mcfadden or Nicks will be injured all week as a question mark to play, and inevitably, the game will come and they will be dominant. I don't know if maybe it's just more noticeable, but it seems like it is an extremely common occurrence that the players of the week will be those who weren't expected to be able to play.

.So that last TD to Nicks just beat you huh...

 

[solorca]

This seems to happen constantly in the NFL. A player like Mcfadden or Nicks will be injured all week as a question mark to play, and inevitably, the game will come and they will be dominant. I don't know if maybe it's just more noticeable, but it seems like it is an extremely common occurrence that the players of the week will be those who weren't expected to be able to play.

.So that last TD to Nicks just beat you huh...

It did, but that isn't really what brought on this topic. Coming into this game, I had Miles Austin and an eight point cushion going against Nicks...and I knew I was doomed. It just seems like injured players always ended up having big games.

 

[Bhdevault]

I agree. Nicks had no outcome on me tonight, nor did Mcfadden, but it really does seem like SO many times when someone is questionable, they end up playing and just going nuts.

It has happened to me plenty times before, sit a guy questionable and they explode. It's worse when it's a Monday night game and you sit him because you can't risk him taking a zero.

 

[shortbow]

No its just you.

Injured players dont play, players that are fatigued or strained play if they arent risking an injury.

 

[footballnerd]

or maybe its good players who are involved in a lot of plays usually have some injury status tied to their name.....

 

[Joe Summer]

It's just you.

Also, the phone only rings when you're in the shower.

 

[Phantom Knight]

Is it just me, or do "injured" stars always have huge games

Wow! Pleased to meet a star!!!! (Sorry could not resist). I would say it happens often, though certainly nowhere near always. I know it is not football, but I will never forget Isaiah Thomas of the Detroit Pistons going OFF against the against the LA Lakers in the NBA Finals after spraining his ankle. Playing on one ankle and double teamed, he was "unconscious" and scored (I think) an NBA record for the quarter in the Finals.

 

[SSOG]

I feel like a broken record at this point, but Couch Potato did a study a few years back and found that players averaged just as many PPG in weeks where they appeared on the injury report as they did in weeks where they did not appear on the injury report. Actually, he found that they averaged ever so slightly more (maybe 5% more), but the effect was too small to be called meaningful.

 

[ThePittbully]

I agree. Nicks had no outcome on me tonight, nor did Mcfadden, but it really does seem like SO many times when someone is questionable, they end up playing and just going nuts.It has happened to me plenty times before, sit a guy questionable and they explode. It's worse when it's a Monday night game and you sit him because you can't risk him taking a zero.

Happened to me this weekend, sat Dez Bryant because he was questionable

 

[Amused to Death]

This seems to happen constantly in the NFL. A player like Mcfadden or Nicks will be injured all week as a question mark to play, and inevitably, the game will come and they will be dominant. I don't know if maybe it's just more noticeable, but it seems like it is an extremely common occurrence that the players of the week will be those who weren't expected to be able to play.

Back in the days before the innerwebs, I learned (the hard way) if they are "questionable" they stay in my line up, "doubtful" they sit. Been burned far too many times and its more rare to bite you going the other way (starting a guy who doesn't play). I passed that lesson on to my son this weekend and I'm pretty sure he left Nicks in his line up.

 

[Please See Mine]

I feel like a broken record at this point, but Couch Potato did a study a few years back and found that players averaged just as many PPG in weeks where they appeared on the injury report as they did in weeks where they did not appear on the injury report. Actually, he found that they averaged ever so slightly more (maybe 5% more), but the effect was too small to be called meaningful.

I find your statistical analysis far less compelling than the recent anecdote prompting this thread.

 

[Pots]

This seems to happen constantly in the NFL. A player like Mcfadden or Nicks will be injured all week as a question mark to play, and inevitably, the game will come and they will be dominant. I don't know if maybe it's just more noticeable, but it seems like it is an extremely common occurrence that the players of the week will be those who weren't expected to be able to play.

.So that last TD to Nicks just beat you huh...

It did

 

[UFO]

I lost because I did not start Gates...my back-up was Watson who played at one. Was not confident Gates would play and wanted to get some points, Watson has been pretty consistent. Well Watson stunk and Gates scored...i lost by 4.

 

[Sabertooth]

I think coaches play possum with the injuries to get the jump on opponents. Pretty sure this happens actually.

 

[Da Guru]

I was down by 19 and had Austin and Nicks vs Felix Jones..I won by one point. Was not expecting that big of night out of Nicks.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

It's just you.Also, the phone only rings when you're in the shower.

"Injured" players put up duds all the time. But those occasions aren't noteworthy, so you don't remember them.

 

[Doug B]

This seems to happen constantly in the NFL. A player like Mcfadden or Nicks will be injured all week as a question mark to play, and inevitably, the game will come and they will be dominant. I don't know if maybe it's just more noticeable, but it seems like it is an extremely common occurrence that the players of the week will be those who weren't expected to be able to play.

Skipped over all the replies to post this:This is something relatively recent in FFB. I believe it got popularized with Belichick's NE teams. Teams, in general, play MUCH more coy with injury information than they did 15-20 years ago. Players are in on it, too -- they are coached what to tell the media about their injuries.What used to be more common is that teams/guys would minimize their injuries so that tacklers wouldn't key on their knee or shoulder or whatever. What seems to happen a lot more now is that teams/players implicitly exaggerate injuries so that opponents have no idea whether or not they'll be facing off against a given player.I think a lot of NFL teams (and IMHO Shanahan and Belichick were on the leading edge) are very attuned to the FFB community and the news that's generated for that audience. For real NFL squads, fooling the FFB world, it's turned out, is a great way to fool your real-life opponent.My memory (maybe selective) is that injury info was generally much more straightforward in the 1980s and 1990s. And when BS was floated, it was typically that someone was healthier than they really were. In fact, I remember it was a relatively safe rule-of-thumb to bench Questionable guys. Now, the reverse is true more than ever.

 

[Touchdown There]

Brian Westbrook was "Questionable" for most games a few years back. Some weeks he would put up 35 points, other weeks he would sit. Drove me nuts...

 

[Utter Chaos]

I lost because I did not start Gates...my back-up was Watson who played at one. Was not confident Gates would play and wanted to get some points, Watson has been pretty consistent. Well Watson stunk and Gates scored...i lost by 4.

I lost because I did play Gates. Had Witten on the bench and lost by 2.7.

 

[Doug B]

I think coaches play possum with the injuries to get the jump on opponents. Pretty sure this happens actually.

Absolutely -- and the prevalence of sports media today, both traditional and FFB-related, make teams all the more wiley. Every team now knows than any tiny informational leak will be spread far and wide within an hour. Therefore, it's more effective to disseminate a false version of "the truth" and have everyone stick to the party line than it is to merely cover everything up.

 

[humpback]

I agree. Nicks had no outcome on me tonight, nor did Mcfadden, but it really does seem like SO many times when someone is questionable, they end up playing and just going nuts.

It has happened to me plenty times before, sit a guy questionable and they explode. It's worse when it's a Monday night game and you sit him because you can't risk him taking a zero.

Happened to me this weekend, sat Dez Bryant because he was questionable

Is that really the reason you sat him?

 

[Amused to Death]

My memory (maybe selective) is that injury info was generally much more straightforward in the 1980s and 1990s. And when BS was floated, it was typically that someone was healthier than they really were. In fact, I remember it was a relatively safe rule-of-thumb to bench Questionable guys. Now, the reverse is true more than ever.

Funny, complete opposite to what I posted above. My hard-earned lesson was "questionable" meant start 'em, "doubtful" meant sit 'em.

 

[Doug B]

My memory (maybe selective) is that injury info was generally much more straightforward in the 1980s and 1990s. And when BS was floated, it was typically that someone was healthier than they really were. In fact, I remember it was a relatively safe rule-of-thumb to bench Questionable guys. Now, the reverse is true more than ever.

Funny, complete opposite to what I posted above. My hard-earned lesson was "questionable" meant start 'em, "doubtful" meant sit 'em.

Might be thinking a little further back in time. Started FFB in the mid-80s.Doubtful was a definite sit, though -- you're right about that.

 

[richn]

I agree. Nicks had no outcome on me tonight, nor did Mcfadden, but it really does seem like SO many times when someone is questionable, they end up playing and just going nuts.

It has happened to me plenty times before, sit a guy questionable and they explode. It's worse when it's a Monday night game and you sit him because you can't risk him taking a zero.

Happened to me this weekend, sat Dez Bryant because he was questionable

Is that really the reason you sat him?

That's REALLY the reason I sat McFadden

 

[SSOG]

Skipped over all the replies to post this:

This is something relatively recent in FFB. I believe it got popularized with Belichick's NE teams. Teams, in general, play MUCH more coy with injury information than they did 15-20 years ago. Players are in on it, too -- they are coached what to tell the media about their injuries.

What used to be more common is that teams/guys would minimize their injuries so that tacklers wouldn't key on their knee or shoulder or whatever. What seems to happen a lot more now is that teams/players implicitly exaggerate injuries so that opponents have no idea whether or not they'll be facing off against a given player.

I think a lot of NFL teams (and IMHO Shanahan and Belichick were on the leading edge) are very attuned to the FFB community and the news that's generated for that audience. For real NFL squads, fooling the FFB world, it's turned out, is a great way to fool your real-life opponent.

My memory (maybe selective) is that injury info was generally much more straightforward in the 1980s and 1990s. And when BS was floated, it was typically that someone was healthier than they really were. In fact, I remember it was a relatively safe rule-of-thumb to bench Questionable guys. Now, the reverse is true more than ever.

No clue where Shanahan got this reputation as someone who gamed the injury report. Well, actually, I do have a clue- it stems from 2001 when Terrell Davis spent the entire season on the injury report. That wasn't Shanahan gaming the report, that was Shanahan honestly having no clue if Davis would be able to suit up that week. Also, there was another time when Shanahan lied about in injury to Plummer's shoulder in the middle of a game so that the opposing defense wouldn't specifically target his shoulder if he had to go back in... but I don't know why the fantasy community would care, because he fessed up as soon as the game was over. Historically, Shanahan has been as forthcoming as anyone about injuries (and more so than most).

Brian Westbrook was "Questionable" for most games a few years back. Some weeks he would put up 35 points, other weeks he would sit. Drove me nuts...

As I recall it, Westbrook always played when he was questionable. Westy missed 11 games from 2004-2008, and over half of them were due to season-ending injury (4 games in 2005) or because the Eagles were resting starters (2 games in '04). He was a lot like McNair- lots of time on the report, but when it came down to it, he always played.

 

[humpback]

I agree. Nicks had no outcome on me tonight, nor did Mcfadden, but it really does seem like SO many times when someone is questionable, they end up playing and just going nuts.

It has happened to me plenty times before, sit a guy questionable and they explode. It's worse when it's a Monday night game and you sit him because you can't risk him taking a zero.

Happened to me this weekend, sat Dez Bryant because he was questionable

Is that really the reason you sat him?

That's REALLY the reason I sat McFadden

McFadden's a completely different situation- he's done awesome so far and was facing a terrible run D, while Dez hadn't done much and was facing a great passing D. Plenty of other reasons to sit Dez, not so much for McFadden.