Comments for Questionable To Start

Comment on Concussion breakthrough? Maybe not. by Zach

Zach — Wed, 13 Apr 2016 16:58:12 +0000

Even setting aside drug testing, would players submit to a blood test they can’t bluff their way out of like a concussion sideline examination? Would teams even want them to (e.g. if the results would potentially force them to rest a star player they really don’t want to)?

100% agree that this is in no way an argument for not developing these tests, but they are VERY important issues when considering how to translate the test from lab bench to sideline bench. Great points.

Comment on The work of others by Zach

Zach — Thu, 10 Dec 2015 17:41:30 +0000

Thanks for the kind words (and link traffic), man! I think I linked to one of your posts in one of my FO things, too. The individual-level focus of most of your posts is a really valuable complement to the population-level stuff I tend to produce.

Comment on The semantics of a strain by Zach

Zach — Fri, 09 Jan 2015 15:31:16 +0000

Right. If Rodgers had a grade 3 strain – which is what teams, I find, usually mean when they bust out the term “tear” (as in, “he tore his groin”) – that would mean his calf muscle basically tore in half and/or ripped off its anchor at one end. In which case I doubt he’d be WALKING, much less practicing, since his calf wouldn’t be…um…working. But I suppose its POSSIBLE.

My best guess is a grade 2 strain here, which some teams refer to as a “partial” or “slight” tear, with the latter being less severe in terms of games missed, and both being less bad than an unmodified “tear”. Usually.

Comment on The semantics of a strain by Craig Zumsteg

Craig Zumsteg — Fri, 09 Jan 2015 15:18:57 +0000

Thanks for the input here! I agree with you in that, in my experience as well, team/player use of the word, “tear,” typically means that the player will miss some games, if not the rest of the season. It’s always frustrating that we have to rely on such sloppy terminology to get any idea of what’s really going on, but that’s the world of coachspeak, right? I’m with you though that Rodgers’ case seems like a smokescreen, especially since he’s been practicing a bit. Can’t see him doing that if this was too serious of an injury.

Comment on The semantics of a strain by Zach

Zach — Fri, 09 Jan 2015 14:16:00 +0000

Slight edit: …that would be nice and would tell us which ones are actually “tears” (in the NFL parlance), but…

Comment on The semantics of a strain by Zach

Zach — Fri, 09 Jan 2015 14:13:47 +0000

Yeah, differentiating between “tears” and “strains” is always fun. In my experience, though, if somebody on the team actually uses the word “tear” it means on a macroscopic level…unless, I suppose, they’re using it to make people think Rodgers won’t start 🙂 Anyway, yeah, a “slight tear” and “significant strain” are the exact same damn thing. A macroscopic tear is a significant strain.

In the past it seems to mostly work out that a stated, quoted “tear” –> multiple weeks missed, or IR (think to a pec, triceps, biceps, quad, hamstring, etc.). “Strains” are much more highly variable. All that said, if I had to guess here, the use of the “slight” modifier means this is just smoke (as stated above, this isn’t exactly false) and Rodgers will play this weekend.

If we actually got grade information regularly on the strains, that would be nice and would tell us which ones are actually tears, but this is a pretty good approximation for most purposes.

Comment on Coachspeak: “worst case scenario” edition by Craig Zumsteg

Craig Zumsteg — Wed, 03 Dec 2014 17:57:18 +0000

I think you’re right about coachspeak often being regurgitation based on what the coach heard from the medical staff. What frustrates me even more is when the media picks up on those tidbits and regurgitates them further, thus creating an unrealistic rehab timeline in the minds of most NFL fans. And yes, there’s always the competitive advantage angle to consider, where coaches want to keep their opponents in the dark. I’m thinking that all future coachspeak should come with footnotes.

Comment on The indestructible Trent Williams by Zach

Zach — Wed, 03 Dec 2014 17:07:52 +0000

In my own attempts to do injury prediction, there’s just so much we don’t know at an individual level. Population averages are a fine place to start, but (depending on the injury) there is often a LOT of variance we can’t explain – maybe it’s genetics or a social predisposition to be a “beast,” but there do seem to be some guys who are just iron men.

Still, I would present the population averages and reasonable confidence intervals, then frame it with the context of “Trent Williams is made of diamonds and jagged metal Krusty-Os.”

Comment on Imprecise injuries, Lisfranc edition by Zach

Zach — Wed, 03 Dec 2014 17:01:27 +0000

It doesn’t help that “Lisfranc injuries” can range from sprains to fracture-dislocations, and not being a physical therapist or podiatrist I haven’t even really been able to parse out the differences between a “midfoot sprain” and a “Lisfranc injury (sprain)”. I guess different ligaments/locations are involved, but maybe Harbaugh was using Lisfranc colloquially as shorthand for a Lisfranc FRACTURE?

Teasing out these issues has been a problem for me in my own datasets.

Comment on Coachspeak: “worst case scenario” edition by Zach

Zach — Wed, 03 Dec 2014 16:43:26 +0000

Relentless optimism: coaches are embracing probabilistic rather than deterministic projections and actually using “worst case” to mean some high %ile! After all, the worst case would be “dies, never plays again,” and that’s kind of absurd. Probably. Please don’t die, Tyrann.

But it most likely doesn’t go beyond Arians saying something that’s not patently false that maximizes the preparation offenses have to put in for Mathieu.

Or coaches just regurgitate whatever the doctors say…I could hear this verbatim coming from a doc or physical therapist.