WHY??? Do you have a reason for this, or is it as simple as "He has gotten hurt before, so I assume he will again?"
* pre-existing pattern of games played in prior years (ie historical)? - empirical data
Instinctive's question was whether there's evidence to support the notion that players with more extensive injury histories are a greater injury risk going forward than players with less extensive injury histories.It's a reasonable assumption that they are, but until somebody makes an attempt to evaluate the evidence, it's only an assumption.
Fortunately, somebody has made an attempt. It was a while ago, and it could perhaps use some updating, but it's the best attempt that I know of:
Link.
Thank you.And, for the record, I am certainly going a little over the top here to prove a point.
So is McFadden getting injured again, and my choosing to look at this incident, simply my confirmation bias at work? Or is it indicative, that certain players, due to "* pre-existing pattern of games played in prior years (ie historical)? - empirical data
* running style and body type don't seem "compact, durable" - subjective view
* gut feel - hey intuition"
Are seen as more likely to re-injure?
I can take a different example, the running QB. Vick-Locker-RG3-Tebow-Cam Newton.
If I were to apply the criteria of "pre-existing pattern" it would seem to indicate Vick has the most track record in that regards.
Style and frame would seem to indicate Vick and RG3 are risks here.
Gut feel - indicates Vick.
On the other hand, not sure if it's just proving that an older player is a higher injury risk, due to decline in ability or injury re-occurrence/re-aggravation. Which isn't really proving players are injury prone, only that older players might be more injury prone or less likely to recover from injury.
Indicating a player as "injury-prone" seems to be a post mortem statement as well, though pre-rookie draft, did have an aversion to Jahvid Best vs Spiller or Mathews in rookie drafts. Though Mathews is gaining his own reputation perhaps.
So not sure how to normalize the data to arrive at an
empirical view point on injury proneness, but I do want to suggest it does exist at least at a
perception level in regards to certain players.
Probably the correct answer is to have a contingency plan for **EVERYBODY** as every player is an injury risk, I just know from a probability or perception level, which players I'll be more apt to trust less. I'll be more apt to perceive or have less trust, in a player with injury history, perceived fragile build, or what my gut feeling tells me. On the other hand, this could lead to value, if a player is falling due to a fluke injury, and not one perceived to re-occur.
Actually now that I stop to think about it, the NFL is only really predictable looking backwards and at that, we can twist and turn the narrative to suit whatever pre-conceived notion one set out looking for in the 1st place.
So definitely food for thought... I stand by my perception of McFadden as an injury prone back, whether or not empirically he is part of a larger subset of players or not.
