If the differentiation is already implicit, re-running the study to make it explicit is an awful lot of effort for such a very small difference. If you would like to see such a study, though, why wait for someone else to do it for you? FBGs has the Data Dominator and Historical Data Dominator, and Chase has in the past been very patient and willing to run queries of the PFR database if you need more specific data than what is readily available. Through the course of this thread I've already done small studies on whether there was a correlation between workload and injury last season (there wasn't), and whether there was much historical precedent for low-reception RBs to become high-reception RBs (there wasn't), among others. If you want to know what the data says, the best way is to actually check it. It also provides another big advantage if you're the one doing the data checking, because suddenly you know things that your competitors don't.
OK-for the last time, you feel the differentiation is implicit. Perhaps, by attempting to be non-combative, I didn't make myself clear. The differentiation is not implict, IMO. You feel that because the study shows that RBs who have played full seasons are statistically likely to play in only slightly more games than a RB who played in 8-12 games, that this implies that a RB's different running styles, number of touches, physical build etc are also irrelevant. However, as I've mentioned before, the study doesn't take that into account. It looks at the number of games played in year N, then it looks at the number of games played in year N+1. Nowhere in the article does it come even remotely close to discussing or accounting for any of these (or countless other) factors.Also, I hadn't even considered drafting/buying SJax until this last week, as a result of these threads. I don't have the time to perform a study that would test my beliefs. As, I've stated, they are just that, my beliefs. You, and anyone else, are welcome to ignore them as wrong, if you'd like. Furthermore, I'm not sure that the Data Dominator would have information about running style & body type to make it a valid study.
You say that there are three factors that increase injury risk. I show the numbers to demonstrate that one of those factors actually had an INVERSE correlation to injury risk last season... and you say it's not particularly relevant? It calls into question 33% of your foundation of what makes an RB an "injury risk"! Based on last year's results, I could conclude that high workload RBs actually have a REDUCED chance of injury (not because of their high workload, but because of lurking variables that accompany their high workload), so therefore SJax is less likely to be injured (while DWill's own injury risk rises).
First, I think I wasn't clear enough. I was merely listing 3 things that jumped out at me as possible factors in injury risk. I wasn't trying to imply that 1/3 of a RBs injury risk is his workoad, 1/3 is his body mass/speed ratio, 1/3 is his running style. I believe that these are 3 of the factors, not the 3 only factors. With regards to me saying it wasn't relevant, you stated that "but my contention is that workload doesn't increase the injury risk anywhere near as much as you seem to be implying it does." The reason I felt it wasn't relevant is because you seem to believe that I feel there is a set number of touches that makes a player an injury risk. I never stated "how much" I felt that a workload increased injury risk. There's no ration, or magic number that to me indicates "RED FLAG-injury risk!
Basically, here's what I mean: Every time a RB gets a carry, or catches a pass, he has people trying to hit him. Someone who gets 5 carries has 5 instances of someone trying to tackle him. While I'm aware that non-contact injuries occur, in my mind injuries are most likely to happen when two (or more) men smash into each other. So, in my mind, the more or a workload that a RB has, the more instances he has to possibly take a hit, and incur injury. To me, that's common sense. If you think that somehow RBs who get a lot of carries incur less damage from more hits, that's your opinion, and you're welcome to it. However, the fact that you showed how in ONE YEAR a number of RBs who got injured weren't getting a specific number of carries (not touches, conveniently ignoring receptions), while a number of RBs who didn't get injured did reach a specific number of carries is not cause me to change that belief.
As for your other two hypotheses on what makes an RB injury-prone... I think a very valid argument could be made to the OPPOSITE effect. I think an RB that initiates contact might be less injury prone than one who tries to avoid it, because the first RB is always braced and expecting the impact (in addition to deciding the terms that the contact is made on), while every time the second RB is getting hit he's getting hit from odd angles while unprepared for contact. Also, a large RB has more stress on his joints and such, but prevailing wisdom is that SMALL RBS are more likely to get injured than large ones because they don't have the body mass to absorb the collision.
If a 230 lb RB slams into a 270 lb LB running at 4.4 speed, regardless of whether the RB is giving or taking the brunt of the hit, there is a collision. Perhaps a RB who tries to give the hit is more likely to be braced for the impact than one who doesn't see it coming, I'll give you that. But answer me this, if there is a 3rd RB who runs out of bounds to avoid the hit, which of the 3 RBs is going to get the least damage?
My point is that each collision provided another instance where injury occurs, and RBs who try to avoid or limit these collisions have less instances of possible injury than those who seek them out.
I'm not manipulating the facts, I'm posting a series of facts and you're taking one of them out of context.
I'm sorry, but I feel that you are. You responded to my post where I said "SJax has not been durable the last two years, IMO, that makes him more of an injury concern than say, Clinton Portis, who has played all 16 games the last 2 years."You responded by saying that they've both missed 8 games in the last 3 years.
If SJax had missed 8 games 3 years ago, and then had 2 seasons of playing all 16 years, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The facts are that he missed 4 games in 2007, and 4 games in 2008, as a result of different injuries. The fact that 3 years ago, SJax was able to play all 16 games isn't pertinent.
Once again, TO ME (not to you), SJax missing games to different injuries in two consecutive years makes me worry about his health. Portis not missing time in either of the last 2 years makes me feel a little safer about his health. Does this mean SJax will miss time again this year, and Portis won't? Absolutely not, as you have posted, and I've agreed, we can't accurately predict injuries. However, we can't accurately predict TDs, either, but we still try to do that, right?
Let's just let this drop. You feel that SJax isn't an injury concern. I feel that he is. Maybe you'll draft him and he gets hurt, and you'll regret it. Maybe I'll pass on him, and he'll stay healthy, and be a top-5 RB, and I'll regret it.
You believe that the injury study proves your belief. I feel that it doesn't account for a number of factors and therefore doesn't PROVE which RBs are likely to miss time or who isn't. We don't have to agree. Many people believe that 30+ year old RBs can't play as well anymore. Many people disagree with that. Many people believe that RBs who get 370+ carries are bound to suffer the next year. Many people disagree with that.
I do appreciate your posts about SJax PPG value. It made me consider him as an option and look at some things I hadn't expected to look at before.
