Analysis How bad were the Lions Injuries in Season 2016?

[BRAB]

Credit to /u/Duffercoat of Reddit.

"I recently did some investigation into injury lists and found the results pretty interesting so wanted to share. What you’ll see is that there’s huge variance of injuries over the season between teams. Clubs like St Kilda and Melbourne have managed to stay remarkably injury-free whilst Brisbane, Gold Coast and Fremantle have clearly angered some powerful football demons.

Before I get into the results I should declare some assumptions I have made to produce this and not all of these assumptions are correct I know, but it simplifies things significantly (especially in the case of players labelled ‘test’ on an injury list).

• Everyone on the injury list the week before a round of footy is too injured to play.
  
  
• The effects of suspended and rested players on injury lists is negligible.
  
  
• All players with over 50 games played are experienced and equally important to their club.
  

First check out the total player-games missed (cumulative number of players on an injury list) for each club over the whole season. The 3rd column also shows the player-games missed by 50+ game players who I've considered to be experienced players. This gives an indicator of who has suffered from the most injuries.

Brisbane in particular has had more experienced players missing for each game of the year than Geelong has had for any one game. Brisbane also reportedly has the least experienced list in the AFL – no wonder they’ve struggled.

Overall I think the injury lists can almost tell the tale of the season on their own (particularly North’s season). There seems to be a pretty clear trend between meeting/exceeding expectations and a lack of injuries – especially those to experienced players.

Notes:

• Each player’s games of experience were taken at the time of analysis, pre round 22 2016.
  
  
• Players on the injury list are considered as according to supercoachtalk.com (the only site that seems to archive weekly injury lists, so a huge thanks to them!)
  
  
• I excluded players that were suspended from the Essendon scandal but included those that retired prematurely due to injury (Clarke and Jaensch) including all rounds after retirement.
  
  
• There has been no adjustment for the clubs with greater/fewer experienced players, meaning less experienced teams may appear less hurt by injury than in reality.

Really interesting analysis of our injuries this year. It goes on and goes through the injuries for each club. If you'd like to read that, here's the link. https://www.reddit.com/r/AFL/comments/4ygcxn/your_clubs_2016_injury_fortunes/

Just another aspect of a perfect storm that was our disastrous season 2016. Something to consider for the future though, if we have a season that is down on injuries, things may end up significantly better, you just never know.

 

[luthor]

Thank you.

Great research and presentation.

 

[Elixuh]

There is a point at which injuries do become part of the excuse. Weren't the stats similar last year (or even worse maybe)?

Not a lot has gone right these past 3 years.

 

[Grizzly86]

Haven't heard the club use it as an excuse, nor have the media given them the option. Whereas the media have given the Dogs an out for the season with their injuries and Buckley often mentions their injuries before saying "It's not an excuse".

 

[Biggies]

Does this simply just come down to bad luck? Or do our facilities/development staff/medical team etc play a part. Seems we've had it pretty rough for a while now.

 

[James North]

DM this to Leppa for his Tuesday Powerpoint session?

Freo missing 250 games experience with old list - 3 wins ... Lions missing 250 games experience with youngest list in comp ... 3 wins.

 

[braddsey]

Interesting how similar the numbers are for Brisbane, Freo & Gold Coast, considering the respective ladder positions:
Bris: 250/126
Freo: 256/127
GC: 240/129

 

[braddsey]

Does this simply just come down to bad luck? Or do our facilities/development staff/medical team etc play a part. Seems we've had it pretty rough for a while now.

For some reason the Lions have suffered with injuries for a long time. Remember back in the days of the dreaded GABBA hardness and center wicket debates?

 

[Biggies]

For some reason the Lions have suffered with injuries for a long time. Remember back in the days of the dreaded GABBA hardness and center wicket debates?

Absolutely. And I'm not sure it's a coincidence Leuenberger is finally stringing together a relatively full season now he's at a big club with excellent resources.

 

[Schache It Off]

I blame Burton.

 

[jackess]

I blame Burton.

Sack him

 

[luthor]

Sack him

Heads must roll!!!!!

 

[Ray Button]

Bet those figures don't include 22 games lost for an experienced Justin Clarke.

 

[BRAB]

Bet those figures don't include 22 games lost for an experienced Justin Clarke.

They do

 

[Albi_Mangler]

What stands out to me is our injury list based on those figures is very similar to Freo... a team that was top of the table last season. They have won same number of games as us!

Seriously a tanking investigation needs to be undertaken on Freo. Massive questions over their season for mine.

 

[Big Sauce 21]

What stands out to me is our injury list based on those figures is very similar to Freo... a team that was top of the table last season. They have won same number of games as us!

Seriously a tanking investigation needs to be undertaken on Freo. Massive questions over their season for mine.

Not really, have a look at their team now. It's fairly average.

 

[Albi_Mangler]

Not really, have a look at their team now. It's fairly average.

Who are they missing really other than Fyfe and Barlow? They won 14 more games last season.

We should offer Fyfe 1.5 million a year. Obviously he is the difference between wooden spoon and a minor premiership.

 

[dlanod]

Who are they missing really other than Fyfe and Barlow? They won 14 more games last season.

We should offer Fyfe 1.5 million a year. Obviously he is the difference between wooden spoon and a minor premiership.

Sandilands has missed a lot of the year. Pav is basically done and dusted this year. Last year that'd be four of their best half dozen players (Mundy and Walters the other two).

 

[lioninthesand]

Yeah we were ranked 4th on the AFL injury ladder about a month ago. I personally don't feel it's been the defining factor of our season, or that it has told the tale of our year.

Players are being sat in the last 6 weeks with injuries they wouldn't be missing with if we were finals bound or had a finals spot on the line, especially young guys.

We have had Rich, Zorko, Robinson, Martin, Walker, Merrett, rocky (to a lesser extent) mayes, dizzy, andrews, hanley, bastinac + others.. and our most promising kids available for a majority of the season, theres been plenty to work with, last year was a lot worse.

It certinally hasn't helped Leppa but the fact we have zero depth was a club decision for 'list turnover' and sympotomatic of a botched rebuild ..

It needs to be considered by the board, but its not enough to save his job IMO.

Thats not to say there arnt ticks in the plus coloum that might. Coz there are some ticks.

 

[Roylion]

It certinally hasn't helped Leppa but the fact we have zero depth was a club decision for 'list turnover' and sympotomatic of a botched rebuild ..

We have very limited depth certainly, but I'm not sure how that indicates a "botched rebuild."

 

[Roylion]

Whereas the media have given the Dogs an out for the season with their injuries and Buckley often mentions their injuries before saying "It's not an excuse".

I really don't understand the mantra "injuries are not an excuse." Of course they are an excuse. A club missing, for example, a third of its best 22 is almost always going to put in a lesser performance.

 

[jackess]

I was surprised by the numbers. I guess Beams and Clarke both missed the whole season, Bell, Bundy, Paparone and Harzy each missed about half and then McStay, Green, Bewick, Rocky, Cutler and Lester all missing games must add up.

 

[scoman]

Thanks for that. I started anthread on the main board on this minus the research. Some made comment on the issue, the rest just cried their club had injuries too.

For the record ideas put forward included:

Stronger clubs have better facilities, staff and programs

Clubs near the bottom of the ladder tend to put the odd player 'on ice' possibly inflating the stats

Clubs at the bottom of the ladder tend to have younger lists and the added workload causes issues across the age groups

Injuries do have an effect on ladder position, although it is hard to determine how much

 

[lioninthesand]

We have very limited depth certainly, but I'm not sure how that indicates a "botched rebuild."

I should clarify it has been botched to this point. I dont think the foundation of our rebuild is bad and i have hope for this group. I think it was the correct call at the correct time. I also think the right players were brought in. But we stripped too much meat of the bone too quickly. Leppa is 'rebuilding' and he stands to lose his job due to our youth being way too over exposed, thus IMO - the way the rebuild has been carried out, along with the dire state of our NEAFL side, indicates.. it has not worked or been balanced and executed properly.

 

[Skoob]

I should clarify it has been botched to this point. I dont think the foundation of our rebuild is bad and i have hope for this group. I think it was the correct call at the correct time. I also think the right players were brought in. But we stripped too much meat of the bone too quickly. Leppa is 'rebuilding' and he stands to lose his job due to our youth being way too over exposed, thus IMO - the way the rebuild has been carried out, along with the dire state of our NEAFL side, indicates.. it has not worked or been balanced and executed properly.

Not sure what everbody's idea of a rebuild is, but there's a hint in the word "rebuild". To do it slowly with gradual list turnover is not rebuilding, it's rennovating and papering over cracks. To do it slowly is just day to day normal transformation that goes on at any club. Some go, some come on board, keeping an age balance. That's not a rebuild. Out with the old, in with the new, that's a rebuild.
To do it any other way means that when you get to your target list (say in 4 years time), your young blokes have played half as many games (or less) they haven't grown & developed together, and bad habits/culture that existed at the start, have permeated the group you're now stuck with.

I don't understand the concept of a gradual rebuild, because it wouldn't then be a rebuild, it would just be a slightly larger than normal list turnover, over a long period, leaving you with a disproportionate level of inexperience and the end result will be in 8 years, instead of 4 or 5.