The Giants Injury History- Every Bit As Bad As It Is Inexplicable

[Painter]

Do we really think that there are Giants fans who are unaware that the team has had a greater than average number of player injuries in recent seasons? But do we really know how bad it has been and how inexplicable?
 
Last season, the Giants led the League in most injuries to players as they have twice before in the past ten years. And while they rank 8th in most total injuries during that time, the picture is far worse when measured as Avg Adjusted Games Lost which doesn't just add up total injuries. It accounts for both absent players and those playing at less than 100%, and it gives more weight to injuries to expected starters and situational players than to expected backups.

In the past nine season (2013-2021), the Giants were second to only the Forty-Niners, both of which were well above League Avg Adjusted Games Lost and perhaps first if we were to add in last season.

As bad as it, and as troubling, we DO NOT know nor is it likely that we will ever know the exact cause or causes. Clearly, it is too consistent a result to think of it as a consequence of chance and misfortune.
 
Still, quite understandably, some of us will feel a need to find fault and to assign blame to someone or something, which no doubt will reflect our biases and preconceptions.

Yet even then, we must overcome the push back from the recent NFLPA player survey in which the often finger-pointed Giants Training Staff was rated A+, and ranked T-1st. Consequently, the Giants T-18th ranked Strength Coach (S&C) got the icy stare despite the fact that 17 other teams gave theirs's the same B+ rating.

Moreover, unless we have evidence that the Giants Medical Staff/Doctors are incapable of proper diagnoses and treatment or tend to clear and return to action their players prematurely thus irresponsibly, I would not want to see them referenced in this context in the future.

In any case, there seems to be no satisfactory explanation for the Giants injury woes as neither are there are for those of the 49ers as analyzed and detailed in this article.

https://www.knbr.com/2022/10/16/the-49ers-decade-long-injury-woes-defy-explanation/

You might wish to begin with the last chart and what follows.

Cheers! or maybe not.

[GMenRF]

We can't be hit with the injury bug for 3 years in a row.  Or are we?

[Painter]

We can't be hit with the injury bug for 3 years in a row.  Or are we?

We simply don't know which is the point of the thread. And we aren't just talking 3 years but rather the best part off a decade.

Cheers!

[Symphony Steve]

How much of it is the playing surface?  I read that the NFLPA considers it the most dangerous in the league.

[Ed Vette]

Causation and stacking the odds.

[ViewFromSection129]

The key takeaway Larry, as you mentioned, is that there is no way that the Giants' injury history is just bad luck.  And as such, it would behoove the franchise to turn over every stone to figure it out. 

The field itself?  Almost certainly, as many players from multiple teams have complained about that.

The training staff?  Depends on if we are talking the doctors and trainers that treat injuries, versus those that direct the stretching and weight lifting programs.  Might account for the difference in ratings.  The medical staff might be very good while the training staff itself isn't.  Do they need more pilates?  Yoga?

In the end, the Giants really need to spare no expense and analyze this until an answer is found.

[MightyGiants]

The Giants Strength and Conditioning coach has a BS in history.   Teams with better injury track records have their S and C coaches with masters in degrees related to their occupations.   

[AZGiantFan]

How much of it is the playing surface?  I read that the NFLPA considers it the most dangerous in the league.

It is a good theory.  But unlike the Giants medical and training staff responsibity theory, the playing surface theory can be tested.  It wouldn't be that hard to look at the non-Giants teams that play here, i.e., the Jets and visiting teams, and analyze their injury history on this surface over the past half dozen years and compare it to the Giants'.  And also look at the incidence of Giants' injuries at home compared to away.

I'm a little astonished that these studies either haven't been done, or if done the results not made public.

[kartanoman]

The Giants Strength and Conditioning coach has a BS in history.  Teams with better injury track records have their S and C coaches with masters in degrees related to their occupations. 

Hi Rich.

We compared educational accomplishments between the Giants and the Rams, for example, whose staff had higher levels of academic achievement, advanced programs which, even I, stated were promising in terms of engaging the players and analyzing injuries in manners which were unconventional but, from an analytics standpoint, were very thought provoking and worthy of consideration. Why not? The team had boasted some of the lowest injury rates in the NFL over the last five years.

Then, all of a sudden, season 2022 kicked in, and all of that gee-whiz analytics were overrun by season-ending injuries and the March of the Crutch Brigade in Inglewood, California. So, what happened over the course of a single season for things to go so wrong for them?

The answer may be as simple as someone picked up the bad penny over there and, last year, it was their turn. I can't comment on the 49ers (other than Purdy's elbow was an absolute freak accident that I still haven't gotten over), except when they played at the Sardine Can on the dangerous turf, but I do expect to see a marked decrease in the number of non-contact injuries in the Sardine Can next season. The rationale is quite simple. The site has received national attention for all the wrong reasons and the NJSEA, the Jets and Giants can ill afford to get this one wrong once again, lest they want a lawsuit drawn up against them by the NFLPA. They will get it right this time, have "beta testers" come in to make sure it has been installed correctly, and Certificate of Compliance shall be signed and turned over before any NFL player is even allowed to set foot on the field. Every "I" will be dotted and every "T" will be crossed. I wouldn't be surprised if Goodell even has to give a thumbs' up before players are allowed on it; too much is at stake.

Before I have anything to say about one's educational credentials, I want to see the turf issue completely resolved, once and for all. Once that issue drops off the Pareto, let's talk about the next heavy hitter. Then, you will still have to show me your Ishikawa Diagram (i.e. Cause and Effect Tree) which isolates the root cause to be inadequate organizational procedures due to non-capable staff. I'm not sure how you get to there from here, but we're listening (NOTE TO SELF: wishing we had some kind of collaborative tool to draw one so we could discuss and build it as we go).

Peace!

[Symphony Steve]

Good points. I wonder, though, about the cumulative effect that playing on a dangerous field has. 

If the field is unforgiving for example, you might be able to empirically determine how many injuries are due to repetitive motion and repeated collisions with this dangerous turf.

What I don't understand:  Why don't they just bleeping upgrade the field? 

[kartanoman]

It is a good theory.  But unlike the Giants medical and training staff responsibity theory, the playing surface theory can be tested.  It wouldn't be that hard to look at the non-Giants teams that play here, i.e., the Jets and visiting teams, and analyze their injury history on this surface over the past half dozen years and compare it to the Giants'.  And also look at the incidence of Giants' injuries at home compared to away.

I'm a little astonished that these studies either haven't been done, or if done the results not made public.

AZ comrade - I've already extrapolated a study Rich posted a while back, pertaining to non-contact ACL injuries at the Sardine Can. The Giants finished with five (5) for the season, which four (4) occurred at home. The Ravens, when they played the Jets in the opener, last season, lost two (2) players to non-contact injuries ... one an ACL and the other an Achilles, I believe.

I'm fairly confident there were others carted off but I'd have to dig a bit more.

Peace!

[Painter]

I didn't mention the currently planned and soon to be made change in the Met Life Stadium's playing surface, as I had earlier this week, for two distinct reasons:

Firstly, because I wanted folks here to fully appreciate the extent of the 49er's injury dilemma and ten year, not yet successful, struggle to identify its causes and effects.

Secondly, so as not to create in the current context any sort of distraction, or conclusion leaping resulting from yet another change in playing surface, one which will not meet the players wish for it to be of natural grass. Moreover, as I did mention elsewhere and earlier, a NFL study not long ago failed to note any significant difference in frequency and nature of injuries between games played on real grass as compared to synthetic grass surfaces.

Cheers!

[kartanoman]

Secondly, so as not to create in the current context any sort of distraction, or conclusion leaping resulting from yet another change in playing surface, one which will not meet the players wish for it to be of natural grass. Moreover, as I did mention elsewhere and earlier, a NFL study not long ago failed to note any significant difference in frequency and nature of injuries between games played on real grass as compared to synthetic grass surfaces

Mr. Larry, the subject has become confusing primarily because there are no absolutes when it comes down to the "ideal" surface. Regions in the country are a driving factor but, also, higher utility venues which are shared between multiple organizations, as well as other non-NFL events, limit the practicality of certain selections.

While one team may beseech its ownership to move over to grass from turf, other teams (e.g. Tennessee) are moving away from grass due to the complications of weather and maintenance and the impacts of a "less than perfect field" on its players (e.g. higher lower body injury trends). It is certainly far from an exact science, and it might be said that the heuristics are as firm as warm jello at this time, but they are using data, collaborating and attempting to model field surfaces which will offer both durability AND mitigate player non-contact injuries. As long as lab experiments, such as the New Meadowlands Sardine Can Circa 2020-22 have been in existence, the NFL knows it can, and must, do better.

As for explaining the unexplainable, you, as well as I, and anyone else here educated in the scientific method will attempt to use data, science, analysis and formulation of theories and development of tests to validate one's theories, have them peer reviewed, and go back to work to factor in other variables not considered the first go-around. Let your Quality folks Plan-Do-Check-Act it into some semblance of order and, if we're lucky, we have a point of departure. It will work until, one day, it doesn't work, and we go back to the drawing board or, if we're lucky, it works and 1. we've figured it out or 2. we think we've figured it out until some nerdy genius kid comes along and debunks it entirely, we're out of a job, and he's on the fast track. Such is life when the name of the game is taking care of the players (read: keep the shareholders happy).

Peace!

[jimc]

In the end, the Giants really need to spare no expense and analyze this until an answer is found.

You are assuming this is not being done or has not been done. I believe replacing the playing surface this year is due to pressure from the players association in a desperate attempt to address the problem.

[MightyGiants]

I didn't mention the currently planned and soon to be made change in the Met Life Stadium's playing surface, as I had earlier this week, for two distinct reasons:

Firstly, because I wanted folks here to fully appreciate the extent of the 49er's injury dilemma and ten year, not yet successful, struggle to identify its causes and effects.

Secondly, so as not to create in the current context any sort of distraction, or conclusion leaping resulting from yet another change in playing surface, one which will not meet the players wish for it to be of natural grass. Moreover, as I did mention elsewhere and earlier, a NFL study not long ago failed to note any significant difference in frequency and nature of injuries between games played on real grass as compared to synthetic grass surfaces.

Cheers!

I saw a picture yesterday; the old surface (3 year old) was ripped up and gone.  My issue with blaming the playing surface is that other teams using the same product or even playing on the same field don't show the same high level of injuries.  I also read an article on the split grass system that was just removed.  The explanation they provided as to why it causes more injuries left me unconvinced.   I think if anything the fact that it's a very fast surface could be a contributing factor, rather than the surface itself