2019 Injuries: How do the Colts Compare?

[EastStreet]

I've seen a lot of talk about injury. 

Below is a little factual rain on the anecdotal stuff going around.

I'll start to update this weekly.

 

Below is graphic showing:

1. Total man games missed (left to right plot)

2. Team wins (vertical plot)

3. Total AV (average value) lost based on size of bubble

 

2019 Thru week 12

Note that:

1. We're average (about 14th ish) in total man games lost

2. We're average (about 14th ish) too in total AV lost

3. The two one loss teams in the NFL have more total man games lost, and one has more AV lost.

4. Five teams with more total man games lost have better records than the Colts

5. 9 or 10 teams with the same or more AV lost have the same or better records than the Colts.

 

If you'd like to compare to the 2018 Colts season

 

Note that:

1. Indy was the 2nd most injured team in total man games lost

2. We're healthier this year by comparison to 2018

 

For those that would like to follow, 

 

[Bravo]

I think the only problem with this argument is the name of the players we lost.

 

 

However injuries should not be an excuse. This roster is a SB winning roster besides maybe 2 or 3 positions. Colts just need a certain someone (JB cough cough) to execute the offense better.

[EastStreet]

6 minutes ago, bravo4460 said:

I think the only problem with this argument is the name of the players we lost.

 

 

However injuries should not be an excuse. This roster is a SB winning roster besides maybe 2 or 3 positions. Colts just need a certain someone (JB cough cough) to execute the offense better.

 

The "names" are considered in AV. Not exactly the name, but the value of the player. So for instance losing TY contributes to a larger bubble compared to the loss of a Rogers.

 

It's pretty clear, we can't have a pity party because of injuries. We're even average here too lol.

[Bravo]

30 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

 

The "names" are considered in AV. Not exactly the name, but the value of the player. So for instance losing TY contributes to a larger bubble compared to the loss of a Rogers.

 

It's pretty clear, we can't have a pity party because of injuries. We're even average here too lol.

 

Gotcha. My fault I didn’t notice that.

Thanks for posting those graphics.

[The Peytonator]

Yeah the injury excuse hasn’t flown with me this year, glad to know the numbers backs that assertion. Oline has been healthy, defense had been mostly healthy. Only defensive starters to miss time have been Sheard, Desir, Hooker and Leonard, and even then it was only a couple games a piece. The worst injury has been TY and that’s only been a few weeks. Every team feels beat up. 

[EastStreet]

2 minutes ago, The Peytonator said:

Yeah the injury excuse hasn’t flown with me this year, glad to know the numbers backs that assertion. Oline has been healthy, defense had been mostly healthy. Only defensive starters to miss time have been Sheard, Desir, Hooker and Leonard, and even then it was only a couple games a piece. The worst injury has been TY and that’s only been a few weeks. Every team feels beat up. 

It's a long season. We're pretty close to the midpoint so can't complain all that much. 

 

Pretty amazing though that both SF and NE have been hit harder and are still succeeding. 

[boo2202]

9 hours ago, EastStreet said:

I've seen a lot of talk about injury. 

Below is a little factual rain on the anecdotal stuff going around.

I'll start to update this weekly.

 

Below is graphic showing:

1. Total man games missed (left to right plot)

2. Team wins (vertical plot)

3. Total AV (average value) lost based on size of bubble

 

2019 Thru week 12

Note that:

1. We're average (about 14th ish) in total man games lost

2. We're average (about 14th ish) too in total AV lost

3. The two one loss teams in the NFL have more total man games lost, and one has more AV lost.

4. Five teams with more total man games lost have better records than the Colts

5. 9 or 10 teams with the same or more AV lost have the same or better records than the Colts.

 

If you'd like to compare to the 2018 Colts season

 

Note that:

1. Indy was the 2nd most injured team in total man games lost

2. We're healthier this year by comparison to 2018

 

For those that would like to follow, 

 

Awesome breakdown man. 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

9 hours ago, bravo4460 said:

I think the only problem with this argument is the name of the players we lost.

 

 

However injuries should not be an excuse. This roster is a SB winning roster besides maybe 2 or 3 positions. Colts just need a certain someone (JB cough cough) to execute the offense better.

This. Injuries aren’t always a problem if your not losing key guys. It’s where you lose them. You can cover up defensive injuries easier then offensive injuries. We did pretty well with the defensive injuries which showed our depth. The offensive injuries have killed us. 

 

And before anyone mentions Luck just stop. We don’t have Luck. The biggest injury that has turned this season upside down was JB. We would be sitting pretty for the playoffs had he not got hurt.

[love the shoe]

8 hours ago, The Peytonator said:

Yeah the injury excuse hasn’t flown with me this year, glad to know the numbers backs that assertion. Oline has been healthy, defense had been mostly healthy. Only defensive starters to miss time have been Sheard, Desir, Hooker and Leonard, and even then it was only a couple games a piece. The worst injury has been TY and that’s only been a few weeks. Every team feels beat up. 

Have we played one game yet with everyone  yet on offense ? 

[Stephen]

8 hours ago, EastStreet said:

It's a long season. We're pretty close to the midpoint so can't complain all that much. 

 

Pretty amazing though that both SF and NE have been hit harder and are still succeeding. 

The main issue is who is injured. Would have loved to see Brissett  throwing to a fully healthy funchess,  Hilton  and Campbell, but being that he does throw down the field much it may not matter if randy moss, marvin Harrison,  and Jerry rice were all on the same team with him.

[Derakynn]

The only injury that really matters this year is the one that was the final nail in the coffin for retirement. The rest really haven’t been that bad, as shown here. The backups have still generally done a solid job. 

[NannyMcafee]

1 hour ago, Chloe6124 said:

This. Injuries aren’t always a problem if your not losing key guys. It’s where you lose them. You can cover up defensive injuries easier then offensive injuries. We did pretty well with the defensive injuries which showed our depth. The offensive injuries have killed us. 

 

And before anyone mentions Luck just stop. We don’t have Luck. The biggest injury that has turned this season upside down was JB. We would be sitting pretty for the playoffs had he not got hurt.

 

This year the Loss of Andrew can be considered because he did it 2 weeks before the season began. They prepared as if Andrew was starting. I dont want to hear about JB getting all the practice reps. This team prepared to have Andrew. Next year we can say otherwise. 

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

13 minutes ago, NannyMcafee said:

 

This year the Loss of Andrew can be considered because he did it 2 weeks before the season began. They prepared as if Andrew was starting. I dont want to hear about JB getting all the practice reps. This team prepared to have Andrew. Next year we can say otherwise. 

I totally agree.

 

Anyone who says that injuries haven’t been bad when 3 of your 6 WR that started the season have missed significant isn’t really living in a real world. When you don’t have a guy like Luck it does matter.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

1 hour ago, love the shoe said:

Have we played one game yet with everyone  yet on offense ? 

I believe the chargers game we had everyone. Funchess got hurt in the final minutes of that game.

[DougDew]

Factual rain?  LOL.

 

Its a bunch of numbers that mean nothing, using judgment to choose what to plot against what, to choose to include what data and what to not include, and using judgment to determine the size of a bubble.  Statistically speaking, TYs bubble can't be very big because we are a bottom five passing attack, as measured by statistics.  

 

Just because somewhere along the line algorithms are used in parts of an analysis stream doesn't make it "factual".  At best, what facts it does illustrate become fairly useless in making bigger analyses or decisions, but presenting it in this fashion gives the impression that the output is more accurate than simple observations.   Congratulations.  

 

[will426]

i’m content with the injuries anywhere but OLINE that was the one downfall during Lucks years..i understand our WR are hurt but Jb should be able to manage with this Line and make these subpar guys better that being said he isn’t lol our oline is good enough to hide deficiencies 

[EastStreet]

5 hours ago, boo2202 said:

Awesome breakdown man. 

Thanks. Makes comparisons very easy. Pretty straight forward and simple counts for those that treat stats like some kind of voodoo. 

[EastStreet]

5 hours ago, Stephen said:

The main issue is who is injured. Would have loved to see Brissett  throwing to a fully healthy funchess,  Hilton  and Campbell, but being that he does throw down the field much it may not matter if randy moss, marvin Harrison,  and Jerry rice were all on the same team with him.

The size of bubble (AV) takes into account the who (not a name, but value/production lost).

 

Until he can improve his vision, doesn't matter who is running open. Hoping things click this weekend. We need this game bad.

[EastStreet]

4 hours ago, NannyMcafee said:

 

This year the Loss of Andrew can be considered because he did it 2 weeks before the season began. They prepared as if Andrew was starting. I dont want to hear about JB getting all the practice reps. This team prepared to have Andrew. Next year we can say otherwise. 

I agree to an extent. It was not as bad however as a team losing their QB1 early due to an out of the blue injury after the QB1 took all the prep. You can't dismiss the 1st team reps and chemistry built by it all through camp and preseason. Bad situation, but JB had advantages that other teams did not (like Big Ben and the Steelers). They were left totally unprepared while we were not.

[fahlman]

5 hours ago, Chloe6124 said:

And before anyone mentions Luck just stop.

No team plans to lose their generational quarterback that they built their team around a couple weeks before the season starts. He might as well be considered "injured" in this context.

[fahlman]

4 hours ago, Chloe6124 said:

I believe the chargers game we had everyone.

We had everyone but Adam Vinatieri.

[fahlman]

5 hours ago, Chloe6124 said:

And before anyone mentions Luck just stop. We don’t have Luck.

 

4 hours ago, NannyMcafee said:

This year the Loss of Andrew can be considered because he did it 2 weeks before the season began. They prepared as if Andrew was starting. I dont want to hear about JB getting all the practice reps. This team prepared to have Andrew. Next year we can say otherwise. 

4 hours ago, Chloe6124 said:

I totally agree.

Is anyone as confused as I am?

[EastStreet]

3 hours ago, DougDew said:

Factual rain?  LOL.

 

Its a bunch of numbers that mean nothing, using judgment to choose what to plot against what, to choose to include what data and what to not include, and using judgment to determine the size of a bubble.  Statistically speaking, TYs bubble can't be very big because we are a bottom five passing attack, as measured by statistics.  

 

Just because somewhere along the line algorithms are used in parts of an analysis stream doesn't make it "factual".  At best, what facts it does illustrate become fairly useless in making bigger analyses or decisions, but presenting it in this fashion gives the impression that the output is more accurate than simple observations.   Congratulations.  

 

 

"Man games lost" has ZERO to do with algorithms or analytics. It's a simple count and represented by the horizontal axis. There is no judgement or decision how it's counted. Simple 1-2-3-4-5.... addition/mathematics. It's about the simplest and purest form of fact possible.

 

The size of the bubble uses AV (average or approximate value), and is a common and accepted methodology used by just about everyone including the NFL in some form or fashion... But hey, feel free to act like it's mysterious and seriously flawed. Reich and the Colts pay good money for a lot of flawed data then... 

 

In short, no voodoo at all in Man Games Lost, widely accepted voodoo in AV. Feel free to be anecdotal about AV, but you have zero argument on MGL.

[EastStreet]

6 minutes ago, fahlman said:

 

Is anyone as confused as I am?

@Chloe6124 never follows her own rules lol

 

[EastStreet]

Looks like Willis will be back. FP today.

[Jackie Daytona]

6 hours ago, fahlman said:

 

Is anyone as confused as I am?

Nah, that's Chloe....

[coltsfanej]

Andrew has to count towards this,  and that would have to be big ol bubble. Like an '08 home mortgage bubble sized bubble...  And it's not that we've been injured more than average, it's that the injuries have been a focused decimation our passing game. Top 3 WRs #1 TE and Pro bowl QB... Still is not an excuse for how pitiful we have looked in some of our games lately. 

[EastStreet]

4 minutes ago, coltsfanej said:

Andrew has to count towards this,  and that would have to be big ol bubble. Like an '08 home mortgage bubble sized bubble...  And it's not that we've been injured more than average, it's that the injuries have been a focused decimation our passing game. Top 3 WRs #1 TE and Pro bowl QB... Still is not an excuse for how pitiful we have looked in some of our games lately. 

People forget that Rogers was Luck's #2 WR last year. And Doyle was a PBer and JB's #2 pass catcher in 2017.

 

Last week, regardless of injuries we had open guys running all over the place. Even our OC said it wasn't the pass catchers and all the film out there showed simply a horrible performance by the QB. It's hard to take the injury conversation too seriously if the pass catchers in the game are open, the QB doesn't see them or throws bad passes, or if he continues to check down to early to often.

[NannyMcafee]

16 hours ago, fahlman said:

 

Is anyone as confused as I am?

 

 

I was a wee bit confused there. 

[DougDew]

18 hours ago, EastStreet said:

 

"Man games lost" has ZERO to do with algorithms or analytics. It's a simple count and represented by the horizontal axis. There is no judgement or decision how it's counted. Simple 1-2-3-4-5.... addition/mathematics. It's about the simplest and purest form of fact possible.

 

The size of the bubble uses AV (average or approximate value), and is a common and accepted methodology used by just about everyone including the NFL in some form or fashion... But hey, feel free to act like it's mysterious and seriously flawed. Reich and the Colts pay good money for a lot of flawed data then... 

 

In short, no voodoo at all in Man Games Lost, widely accepted voodoo in AV. Feel free to be anecdotal about AV, but you have zero argument on MGL.

I understand bubble graphs.  I make them.  I give presentations and use them often in my slide decks.  When I do, I also provide a verbal footnote as to their limitations.

 

Voodoo is close to the correct description of what you did.  Its a bubble graph developed to support or anchor a predetermined opinion.  Its not complete enough to develop an objective conclusion.   Its a debate tactic for winning an imaginary debate.

 

The main injuries anybody cares about are the injuries to Funchess and Campbell, because they represent the incremental increase in performance that we were supposed to get from Ballard's investment in the receiving corps (which he recognized we needed even with Luck). There is no way to measure that loss....from the expected increase in the new level-set performance metric...in terms of a statistics based bubble graph because they have never generated stats or performance with which to now remove.  

 

Everybody already knows that injuries to either Pascal, or Cain, or Inman, or Rogers, or Hines, or a TE with a 60% catch rate, isn't going to have much impact.  Nobody needs a bubble graph to know that. 

 

The loss of performance this year has been solely due to the drop off in talent from Luck to JB (and Ebron dropping more passes).  We already know that.  What we don't know, but care about, is what the O could or would have looked like if DF and PC were available and played like expected.  No "fact" based bubble graph is going to explain that.

 

[EastStreet]

4 hours ago, DougDew said:

I understand bubble graphs.  I make them.  I give presentations and use them often in my slide decks.  When I do, I also provide a verbal footnote as to their limitations.

 

Voodoo is close to the correct description of what you did.  Its a bubble graph developed to support or anchor a predetermined opinion.  Its not complete enough to develop an objective conclusion.   Its a debate tactic for winning an imaginary debate.

 

The main injuries anybody cares about are the injuries to Funchess and Campbell, because they represent the incremental increase in performance that we were supposed to get from Ballard's investment in the receiving corps (which he recognized we needed even with Luck). There is no way to measure that loss....from the expected increase in the new level-set performance metric...in terms of a statistics based bubble graph because they have never generated stats or performance with which to now remove.  

 

Everybody already knows that injuries to either Pascal, or Cain, or Inman, or Rogers, or Hines, or a TE with a 60% catch rate, isn't going to have much impact.  Nobody needs a bubble graph to know that. 

 

The loss of performance this year has been solely due to the drop off in talent from Luck to JB (and Ebron dropping more passes).  We already know that.  What we don't know, but care about, is what the O could or would have looked like if DF and PC were available and played like expected.  No "fact" based bubble graph is going to explain that.

 

Man games lost is no voodoo, so you focus 100% on AV....  predictable. 

 

To the the first paragraph bolded, TEs have been the 2nd leading pass catcher the last 3 years, so "it's not going to have much impact", LOL. A TE also led in TDs in 17 and 18. Hines was top 4 receiving as a rook last year. Rogers was the #2 WR last year. Stop trying to diminish obvious and large parts of the teams production to fit your narrative of things. 

 

To the second paragraph bolded, sure we all want to see how they (Funch, Campbell) would have been. At least you attribute the drop off in passing performance to JB, but others are blaming WR/TE/OL for the drop off in performance. While I agree it is hard to represent AV for Campbell since he is a rook, it's is not hard to represent AV for Funch who has been in the league and even a WR1 prior to getting displaced by a rook.

 

Regardless, the hypothetical should be more about "what would our O look like if JB could simply hit the existing WRs and TEs who films shows to be running wide open", than what if we had Campbell or Funch or a high draft pick, etc..

 

 

[DougDew]

4 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

Man games lost is no voodoo, so you focus 100% on AV....  predictable. 

 

To the the first paragraph bolded, TEs have been the 2nd leading pass catcher the last 3 years, so "it's not going to have much impact", LOL. A TE also led in TDs in 17 and 18. Hines was top 4 receiving as a rook last year. Rogers was the #2 WR last year. Stop trying to diminish obvious and large parts of the teams production to fit your narrative of things. 

 

To the second paragraph bolded, sure we all want to see how they (Funch, Campbell) would have been. At least you attribute the drop off in passing performance to JB, but others are blaming WR/TE/OL for the drop off in performance. While I agree it is hard to represent AV for Campbell since he is a rook, it's is not hard to represent AV for Funch who has been in the league and even a WR1 prior to getting displaced by a rook.

 

Regardless, the hypothetical should be more about "what would our O look like if JB could simply hit the existing WRs and TEs who films shows to be running wide open", than what if we had Campbell or Funch or a high draft pick, etc..

 

 

Yes, what would it look like if JB hit the receivers. 

 

But, that isn't an injury issue.  Common sense says that when you have a low quality receiving corps, losing them to any amount of injury time means very little.  I can explain what your bubble graph will say before you embark on your first minute of data mining.

 

And why do we call the squad low quality despite being open "all over the place"? because Ballard spent significant resources on upgrading the talent from last year.  Despite having a great passing attack, he felt the need to upgrade the talent.  And that was a squad that couldn't keep Pascal on the roster.

 

There is a time to use stats, and a time to use common sense.  Throwing out bubble graphs made from incomplete data is simply a tactic that actually dissuades people from believing your point, IMO. 

 

BTW, I haven't read anybody who has said that they have already determined that JB is the answer, even Chloe.  What I read are comments that appear to defend JB from the idea that some have proved that he is NOT the answer after 8 games (which is when it started and have since been trying to prove the point they made weeks ago)

[Stephen]

14 hours ago, EastStreet said:

People forget that Rogers was Luck's #2 WR last year. And Doyle was a PBer and JB's #2 pass catcher in 2017.

 

Last week, regardless of injuries we had open guys running all over the place. Even our OC said it wasn't the pass catchers and all the film out there showed simply a horrible performance by the QB. It's hard to take the injury conversation too seriously if the pass catchers in the game are open, the QB doesn't see them or throws bad passes, or if he continues to check down to early to often.

Brissett  and the wrs aren't  on the same page. Like the deep pass to johnson when he ran a short route. Titans should beat US easily  if we continue  to play bad

[Stephen]

55 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Yes, what would it look like if JB hit the receivers. 

 

But, that isn't an injury issue.  Common sense says that when you have a low quality receiving corps, losing them to any amount of injury time means very little.  I can explain what your bubble graph will say before you embark on your first minute of data mining.

 

And why do we call the squad low quality despite being open "all over the place"? because Ballard spent significant resources on upgrading the talent from last year.  Despite having a great passing attack, he felt the need to upgrade the talent.  And that was a squad that couldn't keep Pascal on the roster.

 

There is a time to use stats, and a time to use common sense.  Throwing out bubble graphs made from incomplete data is simply a tactic that actually dissuades people from believing your point, IMO. 

 

BTW, I haven't read anybody who has said that they have already determined that JB is the answer, even Chloe.  What I read are comments that appear to defend JB from the idea that some have proved that he is NOT the answer after 8 games (which is when it started and have since been trying to prove the point they made weeks ago)

Our main argument  is Brissett  hasn't  had his best wrs to throw to for most the year. That being said both the qb play and wr play can stand to be upgraded 

[DougDew]

8 minutes ago, Stephen said:

Our main argument  is Brissett  hasn't  had his best wrs to throw to for most the year. That being said both the qb play and wr play can stand to be upgraded 

My main point is that Brissett has not converted long passes all year long, no matter if TY or EE were in the game or not.  And, it has not been a huge problem because we are 6 and 3 with JB, based upon the things JB does well.  Move the chains and don't make turnovers.

 

We lost to HOU, because JB was inaccurate with the short passes, something he hasn't been during our wins.  We didn't lose because he  failed to hit "open" receivers down the field.  He's failed to that all year and we were leading the division before he had his bad game.   

 

In theory, we could assume we would have scored more if he hit the long passes in this game, but we've won 6 games by not doing that, so I'm miffed as to why it's perceived as being a huge problem worth focusing so much attention on.

 

We've got more games left.  Maybe he'll start throwing longer and risking more picks, now figuring the short game stuff alone won't be good enough to win the division like it has been up to this point. 

[Stephen]

This might the first year in a while that we don't  have even one deep td pass.

[EastStreet]

59 minutes ago, Stephen said:

Brissett  and the wrs aren't  on the same page. Like the deep pass to johnson when he ran a short route. Titans should beat US easily  if we continue  to play bad

They've been in different books all year given the film we've seen.

[EastStreet]

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

Yes, what would it look like if JB hit the receivers. 

I'll let you know when he starts seeing the open guys. 

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

But, that isn't an injury issue.  Common sense says that when you have a low quality receiving corps, losing them to any amount of injury time means very little.  I can explain what your bubble graph will say before you embark on your first minute of data mining.

So low it was #6 unit last year. 

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

And why do we call the squad low quality despite being open "all over the place"? because Ballard spent significant resources on upgrading the talent from last year.  Despite having a great passing attack, he felt the need to upgrade the talent.  And that was a squad that couldn't keep Pascal on the roster.

Julio Jones wouldn't be more open than our existing guys last game... 

I'm not saying we don't need to always be looking to upgrade skill positions with play makers, but we can't ignore the most critical skill position (QB) which is lowering the existing level of play by all pass catching skill players.

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

There is a time to use stats, and a time to use common sense.  Throwing out bubble graphs made from incomplete data is simply a tactic that actually dissuades people from believing your point, IMO. 

Ignoring a landslide of stats from all areas is not common sense. And common sense tells most that the biggest deficiency on the current team is the QB position, and that's without relying on bubbles... 

1 hour ago, DougDew said:

 

BTW, I haven't read anybody who has said that they have already determined that JB is the answer, even Chloe.  What I read are comments that appear to defend JB from the idea that some have proved that he is NOT the answer after 8 games (which is when it started and have since been trying to prove the point they made weeks ago)

What you have seen are a parade of excuses, and attempts to blame WRs, TEs, and the OL for deficiencies in QB play. Folks even tried to blame the D last week for only giving up 20 on the road to a good offense... 

[Malakai432]

I'm not blaming injuries for the Colts losses because there was no reason for them to lose against a team like Miami, regardless.  Couple games you can hold Vinny responsible also.  That being said, I've never seen a team in all my years that has had such a decimated WR core.  Funchess, Hilton, Campbell, Ebron, and Fountain.  I don't even know how they're going to manage to pass the ball against Tennessee.  

 

With regards to the QB I'm not on the JB train.  I think he is what he is, a quality backup.  If you put a dominant team around him anything is possible but he's not going to toss up 4,000+ yards and near 40 TDs with a lack luster receiving core like Luck did.  It'll be interesting to see how he plays throughout these next 5 weeks. 

 

I'd like to see them draft Jalen Hurts in all honesty.  The guys a freak athlete, explosive and can pass the ball.  He'll probably be similar to Lamar Jackson, or Josh Allen. 

[coltsfanej]

20 hours ago, EastStreet said:

People forget that Rogers was Luck's #2 WR last year. And Doyle was a PBer and JB's #2 pass catcher in 2017.

 

Last week, regardless of injuries we had open guys running all over the place. Even our OC said it wasn't the pass catchers and all the film out there showed simply a horrible performance by the QB. It's hard to take the injury conversation too seriously if the pass catchers in the game are open, the QB doesn't see them or throws bad passes, or if he continues to check down to early to often.

Yea the biggest drop off we have with the players missing is without a doubt the QB.