Cause for 2024 optimism: (Unsurprising) correlation between injury number and win rate in season 2023

[Lana]

So it seems that the two grand finalists did have a much better run with cumulative injuries, although Collingwood in the first half of the season did have a crisis among their average/decent talls. When Collingwood did have injuries they banked the wins, and surprisingly their losses came with basically a full list (fatigue of players pushing through a factor, maybe a heavy training load before finals?). Importantly their midfield rarely missed more than one player at a time. Just 4 times with 6 or more injuries, compared to 11 times for Geelong.

Brisbane were truly blessed throughout the year but then did pick up the unfortunate Payne and Ashcroft injuries before finals. Very rarely did they have in-game interruptions and in the back end of the year, injuries were more rotational rather than stacking up. Brisbane's win rate did drop to 50% on the few occassions they had 5 or more injuries. No times with 6 or more injuries!

Richmond were without Lynch (big) and Gibcus (less big) for most of the year and their season actually was somewhat derailed early due to a stack up of injuries. They had a huge correlation between win rate and having 4 or less injuries, even if they ran out of steam late in the season while relatively healthy. Still, having 6 or more injuries around 30% of the time compared to almost 50% for Geelong was a notable difference. When healthy, Geelong certainly had a stronger win rate than Richmond. 67-78% win rate when "healthy" compared to 50-64% for Richmond. Both sides lacked the depth to cover a big injury list with a win rate of 25-28% in those games.

Great work, some evidence to the theory that the difference between the premier and the wooden spoon winner could be as little as 8 of the wrong players being injured.

I guess the next thing to look at would be what were the cause of missing games.

Contact vs wear and tear caused by age or suboptimal preparation.

Is there relationship between age and games missed?

 

[Partridge]

Nice work.

I agree with you that injuries destroyed our season. I think next year we still have a team who could compete for a GF based on two factors. First, hopefully, the Cats will have a better run with injuries in 2024. Not playing finals this year means our guys get a good rest/injury recovery period before pre-season training starts. This is something we haven't had for a few years. And second, finishing tenth this year will mean an easier drawer next year. Our drawer in 2023 was the hardest I've ever seen us get.

The draw doesn't account for losing to Gold Coast or Richmond or St.Kilda. Or losing to GWS and especially Fremantle at home.

 

[Mr Meow]

The draw doesn't account for losing to Gold Coast or Richmond or St.Kilda. Or losing to GWS and especially Fremantle at home.

6, 8, 7 and 7 pre/in-game injuries for the GC, Richmond, St Kilda and GWS games certainly didn't help though (the latter two were finalists as well, and 3 of the matches were at the opponents home ground). Sides with 7 or more injuries just find it difficult to win games unless those are all fringe players - e.g Richmond lost 4 out of 5 matches this season when they had that many. The Swans were losing every week once it piled up to that degree, and recovered when it subsided.

Freo was the worst one by far. Only one pre-game injury and then the two late ones to Blicavs and Hawkins. Losing that was the straw that broke the camel's back.

 

[moond0g]

I was listening to Trade Radio yesterday, and Tom Morris said he didn't think the Cats would make the 8 again next year because "there were no up-and-coming players" in the top 10 of Carji votes. Meaning we had no real young talent pushing through to carry the Cats forward and the old guys are done. God, I laugh at this hack. Geelong had 3 players named in the best under-22 players squad of 2023, and 1 got selected for the final team this year. Not to mention some good young prospects we've got coming through like Knevitt, Clark, Conway, Dempsey, Neale, and Mullin. I love it when they underestimate us.

TBF each team will have, on average, 2.2 players in the squad of 40 (40/18), and 1.2 players in the final team (22/18). So in this metric we're about bang on average.

I'm not underrating the young players you've mentioned. But they've all played <10 games. Every side would have a group of young players they rate internally that outsiders wouldn't know much about.

 

[Mr Meow]

Great work, some evidence to the theory that the difference between the premier and the wooden spoon winner could be as little as 8 of the wrong players being injured.

I guess the next thing to look at would be what were the cause of missing games.

Contact vs wear and tear caused by age or suboptimal preparation.

Is there relationship between age and games missed?

Nice follow up questions, although I'm not sure I'm the workhorse that's required.

I do know Collingwood 2023 and Geelong 2022 were both "old" sides who had 6 or more (best 22) injuries 12-15% of the time compared to a whopping 48% for Geelong 2023.

Geelong this season had the deadly combo of expected old player or "lack of an amazing pre season" soft tissue injuries and bizarre/unlucky accumulation of impact injuries. Is there a domino effect once injuries pile up to a certain degree, where older players are then forced to overexert and pick ones up? I suspect there is but it's harder to measure (I'd like to get paid for it, thanks). Much like there's likely a tipping point for how many players you can have missing in one part of the field before results suffer, or how many veterans can miss at the same time before the same thing happens. All seemed to hit Geelong this season whereas in 2022 it was mostly manageable.

 

[patience]

This also doesn't factor in the accumulative effect injuries have on the players who have to shoulder the extra workload. Eg. Blicavs, Atkins, Smith etc. They were tired by the time we got players back.

Players playing injured and those that have to carry the extra load must surely be detrimental to the games outcome.

 

[Partridge]

I was listening to Trade Radio yesterday, and Tom Morris said he didn't think the Cats would make the 8 again next year because "there were no up-and-coming players" in the top 10 of Carji votes. Meaning we had no real young talent pushing through to carry the Cats forward and the old guys are done. God, I laugh at this hack. Geelong had 3 players named in the best under-22 players squad of 2023, and 1 got selected for the final team this year. Not to mention some good young prospects we've got coming through like Knevitt, Clark, Conway, Dempsey, Neale, and Mullin. I love it when they underestimate us.

Except of course we did finish 12th on the ladder. The underestimating for last season at least seemed pretty accurate.

 

[bulletproof]

Except of course we did finish 12th on the ladder. The underestimating for last season at least seemed pretty accurate.

Every team has a story they can tell themselves why they will be better next year. But a group of 30yos having an impeccable injury run and rediscovering career best form is probably one of the least plausible.

I think we could bounce back quickly, but it would not be my base case.

 

[Mr Meow]

Every team has a story they can tell themselves why they will be better next year. But a group of 30yos having an impeccable injury run and rediscovering career best form is probably one of the least plausible.

I think we could bounce back quickly, but it would not be my base case.

That's exactly what happened between 2021 and 2022 though. And our list was older on average in 2022 than it will be next year.

 

[Partridge]

That's exactly what happened between 2021 and 2022 though. And our list was older on average in 2022 than it will be next year.

Except that the core senior players that we relied on then - and still rely on now - will all be two years older.

That's Hawkins, Cameron, Dangerfield, Duncan, Guthrie, Rohan, Stanley, Stewart, and Tuohy for starters.

 

[Mr Meow]

Except that the core senior players that we relied on then - and still rely on now - will all be two years older.

That's Hawkins, Cameron, Dangerfield, Duncan, Guthrie, Rohan, Stanley, Stewart, and Tuohy for starters.

Every team relies on veterans but it's ignorant to dismiss the effect of SDK, Holmes and Close's breakout seasons in 2022. Kolo busting a career best year out of nowhere. Miers excelling in his new high half forward creative role, O'Connor and Zuthrie stepping up, Atkins and Blicavs moving inside stoppages to overhaul us in there and Stengle having a blistering year. Only one player I mentioned there is over 30 next year and all but Miers and Atkins (who were very good this season) have plenty of upside on their 2023. Then we have O.Henry, Bruhn and any other youngsters (there are a few exciting ones) who could join them. Why would we expect worst case on all of these scenarios and think all of our veterans will fall off a cliff too? As I've shown, injuries were a massive factor despite your claims that this was a myth.

 

[Mr Meow]

Except that the core senior players that we relied on then - and still rely on now - will all be two years older.

That's Hawkins, Cameron, Dangerfield, Duncan, Guthrie, Rohan, Stanley, Stewart, and Tuohy for starters.

From your list only Tuohy and Cameron (because of his injury riddled second half of the year) had a big decline in 2023 compared to 2022 on KPIs. The rest when on the park showed no real signs of slowing down, but injuries accumulated when we were 5-6 down most weeks and workloads increased.

The days of writing off veterans are over. We'll have a pretty good blend next year - younger on average than 2022, and probably about the same age profile as Collingwood 2023.

 

[Partridge]

Every team relies on veterans but it's ignorant to dismiss the effect of SDK, Holmes and Close's breakout seasons in 2022. Kolo busting a career best year out of nowhere. Miers excelling in his new high half forward creative role, O'Connor and Zuthrie stepping up, Atkins and Blicavs moving inside stoppages to overhaul us in there and Stengle having a blistering year. Only one player I mentioned there is over 30 next year and all but Miers and Atkins (who were very good this season) have plenty of upside on their 2023. Then we have O.Henry, Bruhn and any other youngsters (there are a few exciting ones) who could join them. Why would we expect worst case on all of these scenarios and think all of our veterans will fall off a cliff too? As I've shown, injuries were a massive factor despite your claims that this was a myth.

Wrong. I didn't say that at all. Interestingly, what I said about that wasn't even in this thread.

Here's what I DID say - and here was your original post (and here's the link because I wouldn't believe me either):

Rumour - GFC 2023 Player Trading, Drafting FA, Rumours and Wish lists Pt II

Yep, this is making an appearance here also, and probably getting more useful as the season draws to a close and this discussion ramps up

www.bigfooty.com

Your post:

Time to start rectifying some myths.

Dangerfield: more coaches votes and Brownlow votes this year than last, just had an awkwardly timed rib break/lung puncture.
Hawkins: goal/assist average were both above career averages and close to 2022.

Stengle, SDK and Holmes are young with big ceilings and could easily bounce back. Ceglar was always irrelevant. Stanley/Blicavs will remain a solid combo. Bruhn is borderline as a potential break out player and Guthrie returns as our two time BnF midfielder. Duncan should be able to slot back and replace Tuohy's half back drive (leaving Holmes and Dempsey/Knevitt etc for the wings). We do need a Bews replacement - let's hope one of the Irish boys can step up.

We had 6-9 best 22 players missing half the season and usually a few of them were very important ones. It's a ridiculous overreaction to write us off when our having a best 18-19 out of 22 had us beating Melbourne, Port, Adelaide, Bulldogs (first time) etc.

My response - and I asked specifically who those 6-9 players were:

Now that's a myth. Who exactly were these 6-9 best players that missed "half a season". I can find three:

• Cam Guthrie - played 6 games
• Jack Henry - played 11 games
• Rhys Stanley - played 13 games

Our best 18-19 was absolutely good enough to beat Melbourne, Port, Adelaide, and the Dogs. But our best 18-19 also lost to Gold Coast, St.Kilda, Port, and worst of all Fremantle at Geelong. Pretending it was due to injuries is denying reality.

I like how you've twisted that to suddenly me saying injuries were a myth.

Still waiting to hear who the remaining 3-6 players were by the way.

 

[Mr Meow]

Wrong. I didn't say that at all. Interestingly, what I said about that wasn't even in this thread.

Here's what I DID say - and here was your original post (and here's the link because I wouldn't believe me either):

Rumour - GFC 2023 Player Trading, Drafting FA, Rumours and Wish lists Pt II

Yep, this is making an appearance here also, and probably getting more useful as the season draws to a close and this discussion ramps up

www.bigfooty.com

Your post:



My response - and I asked specifically who those 6-9 players were:


I like how you've twisted that to suddenly me saying injuries were a myth.

Still waiting to hear who the remaining 3-6 players were by the way.

My contention was that in around 50% of the games this season we had 6 or more best-22 players missing/injured - fair enough if the wording confused you but I did clarify what I meant in the very next post.

Meaning: in a given game, were 6 or more players missing/injured. Turns out it was 48% of the season. It doesn't mean "6 to 9 players missed half a season". Rather embarrassingly this was explained to you by another poster and you either missed it or couldn't comprehend it.

If the concept remains too challenging to understand, then I can't help you (although I did try with this lengthy analysis). If you are aware of it and are doubling down, that is hilarious.

 

[Mr Meow]

Partridge the take home of this analysis was that on average Geelong had a best 17 available in 2023 and incurred one in-game injury. In 2022 on average we had a best 19 available and had 8 less in-game injuries during the Home and Away season. There was a massive inverse correlation between win rate and injury number in both seasons (3x as likely to win a game with 5 or less injuries, compared to 6 or more) - but in one season (2023) this pile up of injuries happened much more frequently. As it did for Richmond. As it didn't for Collingwood and Brisbane.

 

[Partridge]

My contention was that in around 50% of the games this season we had 6 or more best-22 players missing/injured - fair enough if the wording confused you but I did clarify what I meant in the very next post.

Meaning: in a given game, were 6 or more players missing/injured. Turns out it was 48% of the season. It doesn't mean "6 to 9 players missed half a season". Rather embarrassingly this was explained to you by another poster and you either missed it or couldn't comprehend it.

If the concept remains too challenging to understand, then I can't help you (although I did try with this lengthy analysis). If you are aware of it and are doubling down, that is hilarious.

I'm not the one who deliberately misrepresented my post. That's hilarious as well.

 

[Partridge]

From your list only Tuohy and Cameron (because of his injury riddled second half of the year) had a big decline in 2023 compared to 2022 on KPIs. The rest when on the park showed no real signs of slowing down, but injuries accumulated when we were 5-6 down most weeks and workloads increased.

The days of writing off veterans are over. We'll have a pretty good blend next year - younger on average than 2022, and probably about the same age profile as Collingwood 2023.

We watch different games. Dangerfield clearly slowed down to me. He averaged his lowest amount of possessions since 2011. The longer the season went, the less impact he had, and more and more it seemed he was capable of a good quarter or two but couldn't sustain it over a whole game. Since he'll be 34 in April that's not a shock. Hawkins averaged his lowest disposals and lowest marks since 2013. Lowest goals since 2015 (equal to the short year of 2020). He'll be 36 in July.

Veterans are managed far better than ever, are lasting longer than ever, but they still decline, and can be absolutely written off. They aren't going to improve now. People can think otherwise, that's great.

 

[Mr Meow]

I'm not the one who deliberately misrepresented my post. That's hilarious as well.

You asked who the 6-9 players were who missed half a season. My actual contention was that in half of the games we had 6 or more missing/injured. Not the same players. A rotating cast.

 

[Mr Meow]

We watch different games. Dangerfield clearly slowed down to me. He averaged his lowest amount of possessions since 2011. The longer the season went, the less impact he had, and more and more it seemed he was capable of a good quarter or two but couldn't sustain it over a whole game. Since he'll be 34 in April that's not a shock. Hawkins averaged his lowest disposals and lowest marks since 2013. Lowest goals since 2015 (equal to the short year of 2020). He'll be 36 in July.

Veterans are managed far better than ever, are lasting longer than ever, but they still decline, and can be absolutely written off. They aren't going to improve now. People can think otherwise, that's great.

Dangerfield improved on coaches/Brownlow votes per game compared to 2022 and improved on his BnF standing. 20 disposals, 1.94 goals/assists and 2.3 coaches votes per game remain an objectively good combination of numbers (right around his 2020 and 2021 seasons) for a midfielder - remember he is spending 65% of the game on the field compared to 85% in his prime. Pound for pound, per minute he's performing well.

You're right that once he played with broken ribs his impact lessened compared to his strong first half of the season. And you bring up a good point, if we can go back to even 50% of the management plan of 2022 we can keep him and Cameron etc fresh. if we have a trainwreck of injuries that kind of thing isn't possible.

I do agree that the group you selected will decline to some degree. We also have 21 players on the list who have played AFL and will be pushing for best 22 that are under 30. That's where there is a 2, 5 or even 20% chance of improvement. That and a big pre season. If you get that, you also reduce likelihood of your veterans being burnt out or picking up those series of niggles. I reckon if we get a good output out of those 21 players then the 10 veterans will hold up their end of the bargain.

 

[Footy Smarts]

I'm not the one who deliberately misrepresented my post. That's hilarious as well.

This is trash Partridge

You took Mr Meow comments to mean something other than what they meant. Fair enough misunderstandings happen.

Mr Meow took the time and effort to explain why your interpretation wasn't what they meant. And your responses is to ignore their clarrification and continue with your misrepresentation.

If it makes you happy to win arguments in your own mind by misrepresenting others great. But the rest of us see through it.

 

[Pollywaffle]

If I get even more bored I'll run a 2022 comparison. But, it would seem with a good run of injuries in 2024 we would be more than competitive barring an overall decline in form of the squad (possible, and a different debate).

Tough to quantify as you say. The cliff beckons a few of our important 2022 players along with post premiership complacency (Stengle SDK ?)

 

[Partridge]

This is trash Partridge

You took Mr Meow comments to mean something other than what they meant. Fair enough misunderstandings happen.

Mr Meow took the time and effort to explain why your interpretation wasn't what they meant. And your responses is to ignore their clarrification and continue with your misrepresentation.

If it makes you happy to win arguments in your own mind by misrepresenting others great. But the rest of us see through it.

As you say, fair enough misunderstandings happen. I took it to mean the same 6-9 players.

The other part was responding to this:

Why would we expect worst case on all of these scenarios and think all of our veterans will fall off a cliff too? As I've shown, injuries were a massive factor despite your claims that this was a myth.

Never at any point did I say injuries were a myth.

Go ahead and see through that.

 

[Mr Meow]

As you say, fair enough misunderstandings happen. I took it to mean the same 6-9 players.

The other part was responding to this:



Never at any point did I say injuries were a myth.

Go ahead and see through that.

So you agree they were a MASSIVE factor this season? That's massive with an M. That would be a delightful surprise based on your other posts on the matter, but I accept I may have misinterpreted those?

 

[Partridge]

So you agree they were a MASSIVE factor this season? That's massive with an M. That would be a delightful surprise based on your other posts on the matter, but I accept I may have misinterpreted those?

Nope I don't. A factor yes. But not that massive. Because we had bad losses when the injury list was not massive (Gold Coast, Fremantle, St.Kilda come to mind instantly), and we had good wins with more injuries (first Dogs game).

What I do think is that it's become a very convenient catch all for the inevitable decline of a lot of players. We don't want to admit some stars are just players now, so it's easier to pin it on injuries.

 

[Mr Meow]

Nope I don't. A factor yes. But not that massive. Because we had bad losses when the injury list was not massive (Gold Coast, Fremantle, St.Kilda come to mind instantly), and we had good wins with more injuries (first Dogs game).

What I do think is that it's become a very convenient catch all for the inevitable decline of a lot of players. We don't want to admit some stars are just players now, so it's easier to pin it on injuries.

So then it was a myth (in your eyes) that it was a massive factor. And therefore I didn't misrepresent your view on the matter.