10-17-2022, 03:27 PM
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
we're favored by 3 over ASU
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
10-17-2022, 03:37 PM
I don’t see why it wouldn’t. Three points is exactly what the computers predict. Both teams are improving after early stumbles, essentially a tossup.
(10-17-2022, 03:37 PM)msqueri Wrote: I don’t see why it wouldn’t. Three points is exactly what the computers predict. Both teams are improving after early stumbles, essentially a tossup.
we'll see what the injury report reveals for the OL, Wilson, and Bailey...
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
(10-17-2022, 03:37 PM)msqueri Wrote: I don’t see why it wouldn’t. Three points is exactly what the computers predict. Both teams are improving after early stumbles, essentially a tossup.
we'll see what the injury report reveals for the OL, Wilson, and Bailey...
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
10-17-2022, 03:56 PM
(10-17-2022, 03:42 PM)82lsju Wrote:(10-17-2022, 03:37 PM)msqueri Wrote: I don’t see why it wouldn’t. Three points is exactly what the computers predict. Both teams are improving after early stumbles, essentially a tossup.
we'll see what the injury report reveals for the OL, Wilson, and Bailey...
It would be shocking if Wilson or Bailey played and that kind of thing doesn’t do much to move lines anyway. Personally, as a fan, I’m interested in the injury update and particularly hope Rouse is healthy and the shoulders/collarbones/whatever for Wilson and Bailey aren’t season-ending. But this being a game in which Stanford may not have a good (but neither currently game-breaking) WR and edge is not the kind of thing that moves Vegas. In any case, Vegas probably knows the injury report already (at least in the broad sense of the line pricing in what it needs to price in).
(10-17-2022, 03:42 PM)82lsju Wrote:(10-17-2022, 03:37 PM)msqueri Wrote: I don’t see why it wouldn’t. Three points is exactly what the computers predict. Both teams are improving after early stumbles, essentially a tossup.
we'll see what the injury report reveals for the OL, Wilson, and Bailey...
It would be shocking if Wilson or Bailey played and that kind of thing doesn’t do much to move lines anyway. Personally, as a fan, I’m interested in the injury update and particularly hope Rouse is healthy and the shoulders/collarbones/whatever for Wilson and Bailey aren’t season-ending. But this being a game in which Stanford may not have a good (but neither currently game-breaking) WR and edge is not the kind of thing that moves Vegas. In any case, Vegas probably knows the injury report already (at least in the broad sense of the line pricing in what it needs to price in).
10-17-2022, 04:16 PM
What a shock (not) that Stanford's star Freshman recruit is injured.
Do the Niners and Stanford drink the same water? Share the same S&C techniques? Something else?
Do the Niners and Stanford drink the same water? Share the same S&C techniques? Something else?
What a shock (not) that Stanford's star Freshman recruit is injured.
Do the Niners and Stanford drink the same water? Share the same S&C techniques? Something else?
Do the Niners and Stanford drink the same water? Share the same S&C techniques? Something else?
10-17-2022, 04:31 PM
Injuries happen in football. Another term for having a starter or two out on either side of the ball in the seventh game of the season is football. Thanks for coming to my TED Talk.
10-18-2022, 10:21 AM
(10-17-2022, 04:16 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: What a shock (not) that Stanford's star Freshman recruit is injured.
Do the Niners and Stanford drink the same water? Share the same S&C techniques? Something else?
Does Stanford have more injuries than the average College team? Or does it just seem worse cause they have no depth.
(10-17-2022, 04:16 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: What a shock (not) that Stanford's star Freshman recruit is injured.
Do the Niners and Stanford drink the same water? Share the same S&C techniques? Something else?
Does Stanford have more injuries than the average College team? Or does it just seem worse cause they have no depth.
(10-18-2022, 10:21 AM)lex24 Wrote:(10-17-2022, 04:16 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: What a shock (not) that Stanford's star Freshman recruit is injured.
Do the Niners and Stanford drink the same water? Share the same S&C techniques? Something else?
Does Stanford have more injuries than the average College team? Or does it just seem worse cause they have no depth.
It seems bad because it's very unhelpfully concentrated in a very important position group (offensive line) and because fans always think their team has rotten luck, but Stanford may indeed be unluckier than most.
In terms of the number of absences overall, our top contributors (top 15 in snaps on either offense or defense) have missed 14 games, with 13 of those being on the offensive line. In essence, we have been incredibly decimated at offensive line and incredibly healthy otherwise. Overall, 2.33 key contributors out per game is almost exactly what my detailed off-season analysis of injury prevalence in the Pac-12 from 2014-2021 found was average for a Pac-12 team (2.37 average, 2.31 median). Given the grind of football I think it's more likely that the number would go up over the course of the season than go down, so for us to be right at the average midway through the season suggests that we are probably in line to be "unlucky" for the third straight consecutive season.
The overall point on injuries is something we can assess with more perspective in the off-season, but the OL absences are undoubtedly quite a string of bad luck.
P.S. Stanford's walking wounded OL rooms in 2019 and 2022 are unusual. OL is not a position that is historically extremely injury-prone. You'd expect intense attrition at positions like RB, WR, and DB, not OL.
P.P.S. Anecdotally, it seems like a pretty high number (majority?) of Stanford's OL issues are concussions. What may be happening is Stanford opting in to high OL attrition by being more protective of the brains/futures of our players than many teams would be.
(10-18-2022, 10:21 AM)lex24 Wrote:(10-17-2022, 04:16 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: What a shock (not) that Stanford's star Freshman recruit is injured.
Do the Niners and Stanford drink the same water? Share the same S&C techniques? Something else?
Does Stanford have more injuries than the average College team? Or does it just seem worse cause they have no depth.
It seems bad because it's very unhelpfully concentrated in a very important position group (offensive line) and because fans always think their team has rotten luck, but Stanford may indeed be unluckier than most.
In terms of the number of absences overall, our top contributors (top 15 in snaps on either offense or defense) have missed 14 games, with 13 of those being on the offensive line. In essence, we have been incredibly decimated at offensive line and incredibly healthy otherwise. Overall, 2.33 key contributors out per game is almost exactly what my detailed off-season analysis of injury prevalence in the Pac-12 from 2014-2021 found was average for a Pac-12 team (2.37 average, 2.31 median). Given the grind of football I think it's more likely that the number would go up over the course of the season than go down, so for us to be right at the average midway through the season suggests that we are probably in line to be "unlucky" for the third straight consecutive season.
The overall point on injuries is something we can assess with more perspective in the off-season, but the OL absences are undoubtedly quite a string of bad luck.
P.S. Stanford's walking wounded OL rooms in 2019 and 2022 are unusual. OL is not a position that is historically extremely injury-prone. You'd expect intense attrition at positions like RB, WR, and DB, not OL.
P.P.S. Anecdotally, it seems like a pretty high number (majority?) of Stanford's OL issues are concussions. What may be happening is Stanford opting in to high OL attrition by being more protective of the brains/futures of our players than many teams would be.
10-18-2022, 10:56 AM
(10-18-2022, 10:38 AM)msqueri Wrote: P.P.S. Anecdotally, it seems like a pretty high number (majority?) of Stanford's OL issues are concussions. What may be happening is Stanford opting in to high OL attrition by being more protective of the brains/futures of our players than many teams would be.
I wanted to ask this across the board, is it possible that Stanford is more protective in general with injuries than other teams?
I have no reason to believe this other than just trying to hypothesize reasons for our rotten luck.
(10-18-2022, 10:38 AM)msqueri Wrote: P.P.S. Anecdotally, it seems like a pretty high number (majority?) of Stanford's OL issues are concussions. What may be happening is Stanford opting in to high OL attrition by being more protective of the brains/futures of our players than many teams would be.
I wanted to ask this across the board, is it possible that Stanford is more protective in general with injuries than other teams?
I have no reason to believe this other than just trying to hypothesize reasons for our rotten luck.
10-18-2022, 11:19 AM
(10-18-2022, 10:56 AM)TriangleTree Wrote:(10-18-2022, 10:38 AM)msqueri Wrote: P.P.S. Anecdotally, it seems like a pretty high number (majority?) of Stanford's OL issues are concussions. What may be happening is Stanford opting in to high OL attrition by being more protective of the brains/futures of our players than many teams would be.
I wanted to ask this across the board, is it possible that Stanford is more protective in general with injuries than other teams?
I have no reason to believe this other than just trying to hypothesize reasons for our rotten luck.
Good question. And another that would never be asked, let alone answered.
Life is too short to waste on crap football.
(10-18-2022, 10:56 AM)TriangleTree Wrote:(10-18-2022, 10:38 AM)msqueri Wrote: P.P.S. Anecdotally, it seems like a pretty high number (majority?) of Stanford's OL issues are concussions. What may be happening is Stanford opting in to high OL attrition by being more protective of the brains/futures of our players than many teams would be.
I wanted to ask this across the board, is it possible that Stanford is more protective in general with injuries than other teams?
I have no reason to believe this other than just trying to hypothesize reasons for our rotten luck.
Good question. And another that would never be asked, let alone answered.
Life is too short to waste on crap football.
10-18-2022, 01:35 PM
Injury report.
[twitter]https://twitter.com/TroyClardy/status/1582462294318927872[/twitter]
[twitter]https://twitter.com/TroyClardy/status/1582462294318927872[/twitter]
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
Injury report.
[twitter]https://twitter.com/TroyClardy/status/1582462294318927872[/twitter]
[twitter]https://twitter.com/TroyClardy/status/1582462294318927872[/twitter]
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
10-18-2022, 01:51 PM
(10-18-2022, 11:19 AM)gailtate Wrote: Good question. And another that would never be asked, let alone answered.Seriously, is it even theoretically possible to answer that question? I am pretty sure neither Stanford nor our opponents make public exactly what their clinical protocols are, and even if they did it is very probable there are clinical judgements involved that may be made differently by different clinicians. This would be true even if everybody was operating on the "up and up", which may or may not be true. I strongly suspect Stanford tends to err on the side of caution, possibly more than other institutions, but I really don't expect there is a document you can find that will support that idea.
(10-18-2022, 11:19 AM)gailtate Wrote: Good question. And another that would never be asked, let alone answered.Seriously, is it even theoretically possible to answer that question? I am pretty sure neither Stanford nor our opponents make public exactly what their clinical protocols are, and even if they did it is very probable there are clinical judgements involved that may be made differently by different clinicians. This would be true even if everybody was operating on the "up and up", which may or may not be true. I strongly suspect Stanford tends to err on the side of caution, possibly more than other institutions, but I really don't expect there is a document you can find that will support that idea.
10-18-2022, 03:20 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-18-2022, 03:22 PM by old spanish trail.)
(10-18-2022, 01:35 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: Injury report.
[twitter]https://twitter.com/TroyClardy/status/1582462294318927872[/twitter]
At least Bailey and Damuni are only doubtful and questionable. Really too bad about Wilson.
(This post was last modified: 10-18-2022, 03:22 PM by old spanish trail.)
(10-18-2022, 01:35 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: Injury report.
[twitter]https://twitter.com/TroyClardy/status/1582462294318927872[/twitter]
At least Bailey and Damuni are only doubtful and questionable. Really too bad about Wilson.
10-18-2022, 03:32 PM
(10-18-2022, 01:51 PM)Goose Wrote:(10-18-2022, 11:19 AM)gailtate Wrote: Good question. And another that would never be asked, let alone answered.Seriously, is it even theoretically possible to answer that question? I am pretty sure neither Stanford nor our opponents make public exactly what their clinical protocols are, and even if they did it is very probable there are clinical judgements involved that may be made differently by different clinicians. This would be true even if everybody was operating on the "up and up", which may or may not be true. I strongly suspect Stanford tends to err on the side of caution, possibly more than other institutions, but I really don't expect there is a document you can find that will support that idea.
one very old data point, in 2002 Jamie Carey (women's b-ball) had concussion issues and transferred to Texas which cleared her to play
https://www.sfgate.com/sports/article/Ca...811191.php
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
(10-18-2022, 01:51 PM)Goose Wrote:(10-18-2022, 11:19 AM)gailtate Wrote: Good question. And another that would never be asked, let alone answered.Seriously, is it even theoretically possible to answer that question? I am pretty sure neither Stanford nor our opponents make public exactly what their clinical protocols are, and even if they did it is very probable there are clinical judgements involved that may be made differently by different clinicians. This would be true even if everybody was operating on the "up and up", which may or may not be true. I strongly suspect Stanford tends to err on the side of caution, possibly more than other institutions, but I really don't expect there is a document you can find that will support that idea.
one very old data point, in 2002 Jamie Carey (women's b-ball) had concussion issues and transferred to Texas which cleared her to play
https://www.sfgate.com/sports/article/Ca...811191.php
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
10-18-2022, 06:40 PM
(10-18-2022, 03:20 PM)old spanish trail Wrote:(10-18-2022, 01:35 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: Injury report.
[twitter]https://twitter.com/TroyClardy/status/1582462294318927872[/twitter]
At least Bailey and Damuni are only doubtful and questionable. Really too bad about Wilson.
I think when Shaw says anything other than "probable," that's code for "they're out."
(10-18-2022, 03:20 PM)old spanish trail Wrote:(10-18-2022, 01:35 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: Injury report.
[twitter]https://twitter.com/TroyClardy/status/1582462294318927872[/twitter]
At least Bailey and Damuni are only doubtful and questionable. Really too bad about Wilson.
I think when Shaw says anything other than "probable," that's code for "they're out."
10-18-2022, 07:36 PM
https://www.teamrankings.com/college-foo...e-by-other
This is the first week we are above any other Pac-12 team other than Colorado and Cal. It just so happens we're a bit (1.9 points) above ASU. High variability in their play.
This is the first week we are above any other Pac-12 team other than Colorado and Cal. It just so happens we're a bit (1.9 points) above ASU. High variability in their play.
https://www.teamrankings.com/college-foo...e-by-other
This is the first week we are above any other Pac-12 team other than Colorado and Cal. It just so happens we're a bit (1.9 points) above ASU. High variability in their play.
This is the first week we are above any other Pac-12 team other than Colorado and Cal. It just so happens we're a bit (1.9 points) above ASU. High variability in their play.
10-18-2022, 07:54 PM
(10-18-2022, 06:19 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(10-18-2022, 10:38 AM)msqueri Wrote: ...my detailed off-season analysis...
Isn't "detailed" redundant when we talk about your analyses?
BC
When I call one detailed it means “batshit crazy.” Most of my analyses are little 30-45 minute spurts when I have some free time/energy, but maybe four or five times a year I get a bee in my bonnet that I can only get out with a project that takes much longer, and those get stretched out over several nights as I wrestle with it on the patio after work over some beers. The injury one was one of those. That was a lot to look at, if my memory/calculations are right, 2880 data points for the first part of the analysis and then a mind-numbing series of about 600 calculations for the second part. And if I were smart I’d use Excel and/or train a program for it but I’m a Luddite (plus there’s something therapeutic about laboriously chipping away at the data until it resembles something interesting). Like I said, batshit crazy.
I do enjoy being able to share those crazy ones here because you always have smart points on methodology and I know you’re much more scientific/technical than Matt who never grew up from the 12 year old using basic arithmetic and algebra to crunch baseball stats.
(10-18-2022, 06:19 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(10-18-2022, 10:38 AM)msqueri Wrote: ...my detailed off-season analysis...
Isn't "detailed" redundant when we talk about your analyses?
BC
When I call one detailed it means “batshit crazy.” Most of my analyses are little 30-45 minute spurts when I have some free time/energy, but maybe four or five times a year I get a bee in my bonnet that I can only get out with a project that takes much longer, and those get stretched out over several nights as I wrestle with it on the patio after work over some beers. The injury one was one of those. That was a lot to look at, if my memory/calculations are right, 2880 data points for the first part of the analysis and then a mind-numbing series of about 600 calculations for the second part. And if I were smart I’d use Excel and/or train a program for it but I’m a Luddite (plus there’s something therapeutic about laboriously chipping away at the data until it resembles something interesting). Like I said, batshit crazy.
I do enjoy being able to share those crazy ones here because you always have smart points on methodology and I know you’re much more scientific/technical than Matt who never grew up from the 12 year old using basic arithmetic and algebra to crunch baseball stats.
10-18-2022, 09:37 PM
(10-18-2022, 03:32 PM)82lsju Wrote: one very old data point, in 2002 Jamie Carey (women's b-ball) had concussion issues and transferred to Texas which cleared her to play
https://www.sfgate.com/sports/article/Ca...811191.php
She took two years off to clear her head, then crushed it at Texas, which soared to #1.
Carey leading Longhorns after leaving troubles behind (myplainview.com)
Audaces fortuna iuvat
(10-18-2022, 03:32 PM)82lsju Wrote: one very old data point, in 2002 Jamie Carey (women's b-ball) had concussion issues and transferred to Texas which cleared her to play
https://www.sfgate.com/sports/article/Ca...811191.php
She took two years off to clear her head, then crushed it at Texas, which soared to #1.
Carey leading Longhorns after leaving troubles behind (myplainview.com)
Audaces fortuna iuvat
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »