[troyc]

Latest show posted on Sunday, going over a disastrous result against WSU. Injuries & fumbles pile up, the one Stanford player who nearly single-handedly kept the Card in it after WSU took its early 21-0 lead, and what's next for the RB room.

Always appreciate you checking out the show!

Troy C

The TreeCast with Troy Clardy: Card Lose A Must-Win

[troyc]

Latest show posted on Sunday, going over a disastrous result against WSU. Injuries & fumbles pile up, the one Stanford player who nearly single-handedly kept the Card in it after WSU took its early 21-0 lead, and what's next for the RB room.

Always appreciate you checking out the show!

Troy C

The TreeCast with Troy Clardy: Card Lose A Must-Win

[gailtate]

Volume of injuries this season has GOT to be statistically significant, right?? The opening minutes of last week's shellacking by Wazoo is Exhibit A! Troy, old man, I can understand the difficulty you would have managing media relations and navigating politics with Big Dave and sometimes having to convolute yourself into a pretzel when you formulate questions, but we listeners have to endure our own convolutions trying to understand why experienced, strapping young men can go down like bowling pins week after week. What's the Big Guy's take on S&C these days? Does it even exist anymore? Who's in charge there? What's his/her take?

[gailtate]

Volume of injuries this season has GOT to be statistically significant, right?? The opening minutes of last week's shellacking by Wazoo is Exhibit A! Troy, old man, I can understand the difficulty you would have managing media relations and navigating politics with Big Dave and sometimes having to convolute yourself into a pretzel when you formulate questions, but we listeners have to endure our own convolutions trying to understand why experienced, strapping young men can go down like bowling pins week after week. What's the Big Guy's take on S&C these days? Does it even exist anymore? Who's in charge there? What's his/her take?

[BostonCard]

 we listeners have to endure our own convolutions trying to understand why experienced, strapping young men can go down like bowling pins week after week. What's the Big Guy's take on S&C these days? Does it even exist anymore? Who's in charge there? What's his/her take?

No, we listeners don't have to.  We listeners could, if we really wanted to try to get those answers, put together our own free podcast and see if we could get past the SID to schedule interviews with the Big Guy ourselves.  I'm sure Troy would give us our money back if we listeners were unsatisfied with the product he provided, and I am sure many people on this board would be very appreciative of your hard hitting podcast that got to the bottom of the S&C mystery.

Or, you know, we listeners could be gracious to Mr. Clardy and appreciate the work he puts into the podcast that he provides us listeners for free.  And, FWIW, I'm thinking that a bit of positive feedback on how he could improve his podcast that wasn't dripping with sarcasm might be better received.  Yeah, the irony of me saying it is noted, so maybe to rephrase what you said in perhaps a more positive frame of reference:

"Hey Troy, love your podcast.  Since you mentioned injuries, I'm wondering if you might be able to schedule an interview with Culen Carroll, who is our Sports Performance Coach.  I'd love to hear his approach to S&C and injury prevention, what he makes of the current raft of injuries, and what he thinks the team needs to do better to keep players on the field.  Thanks, and keep up the good work!"

BC

[BostonCard]

 we listeners have to endure our own convolutions trying to understand why experienced, strapping young men can go down like bowling pins week after week. What's the Big Guy's take on S&C these days? Does it even exist anymore? Who's in charge there? What's his/her take?

No, we listeners don't have to.  We listeners could, if we really wanted to try to get those answers, put together our own free podcast and see if we could get past the SID to schedule interviews with the Big Guy ourselves.  I'm sure Troy would give us our money back if we listeners were unsatisfied with the product he provided, and I am sure many people on this board would be very appreciative of your hard hitting podcast that got to the bottom of the S&C mystery.

Or, you know, we listeners could be gracious to Mr. Clardy and appreciate the work he puts into the podcast that he provides us listeners for free.  And, FWIW, I'm thinking that a bit of positive feedback on how he could improve his podcast that wasn't dripping with sarcasm might be better received.  Yeah, the irony of me saying it is noted, so maybe to rephrase what you said in perhaps a more positive frame of reference:

"Hey Troy, love your podcast.  Since you mentioned injuries, I'm wondering if you might be able to schedule an interview with Culen Carroll, who is our Sports Performance Coach.  I'd love to hear his approach to S&C and injury prevention, what he makes of the current raft of injuries, and what he thinks the team needs to do better to keep players on the field.  Thanks, and keep up the good work!"

BC

[winflop]

Volume of injuries this season has GOT to be statistically significant, right?? The opening minutes of last week's shellacking by Wazoo is Exhibit A! Troy, old man, I can understand the difficulty you would have managing media relations and navigating politics with Big Dave and sometimes having to convolute yourself into a pretzel when you formulate questions, but we listeners have to endure our own convolutions trying to understand why experienced, strapping young men can go down like bowling pins week after week. What's the Big Guy's take on S&C these days? Does it even exist anymore? Who's in charge there? What's his/her take?

It's also gone up significantly since Turley was shown the door - every year.

[winflop]

Volume of injuries this season has GOT to be statistically significant, right?? The opening minutes of last week's shellacking by Wazoo is Exhibit A! Troy, old man, I can understand the difficulty you would have managing media relations and navigating politics with Big Dave and sometimes having to convolute yourself into a pretzel when you formulate questions, but we listeners have to endure our own convolutions trying to understand why experienced, strapping young men can go down like bowling pins week after week. What's the Big Guy's take on S&C these days? Does it even exist anymore? Who's in charge there? What's his/her take?

It's also gone up significantly since Turley was shown the door - every year.

[BostonCard]

I think @msqueri has done an in depth analysis of injuries, but I can't find the post and I can't remember the bottom line.  Maybe he can repost?

BC

[BostonCard]

I think @msqueri has done an in depth analysis of injuries, but I can't find the post and I can't remember the bottom line.  Maybe he can repost?

BC

[gailtate]

 we listeners have to endure our own convolutions trying to understand why experienced, strapping young men can go down like bowling pins week after week. What's the Big Guy's take on S&C these days? Does it even exist anymore? Who's in charge there? What's his/her take?

No, we listeners don't have to.  We listeners could, if we really wanted to try to get those answers, put together our own free podcast and see if we could get past the SID to schedule interviews with the Big Guy ourselves.  I'm sure Troy would give us our money back if we listeners were unsatisfied with the product he provided, and I am sure many people on this board would be very appreciative of your hard hitting podcast that got to the bottom of the S&C mystery.

Or, you know, we listeners could be gracious to Mr. Clardy and appreciate the work he puts into the podcast that he provides us listeners for free.  And, FWIW, I'm thinking that a bit of positive feedback on how he could improve his podcast that wasn't dripping with sarcasm might be better received.  Yeah, the irony of me saying it is noted, so maybe to rephrase what you said in perhaps a more positive frame of reference:

"Hey Troy, love your podcast.  Since you mentioned injuries, I'm wondering if you might be able to schedule an interview with Culen Carroll, who is our Sports Performance Coach.  I'd love to hear his approach to S&C and injury prevention, what he makes of the current raft of injuries, and what he thinks the team needs to do better to keep players on the field.  Thanks, and keep up the good work!"

BC

I think Troy Clardy is intelligent enough, emotionally mature enough and professional enough to handle the good natured needling that comes his way, as a sports journalist. It goes with the territory. Especially on this bingo-parlor board which I am sure he does gladly as a labor of love and some useful exposure for the Clardy brand. Wish I could say the same for you but I can't so I won't. Tell me, was it my throw-away "old man" line/reference that got under your thin skin or raised your  little hackles? I am probably a good 25 years older than he is, so WTF would your problem be, Mr. Boston? Get back in your box.

[gailtate]

 we listeners have to endure our own convolutions trying to understand why experienced, strapping young men can go down like bowling pins week after week. What's the Big Guy's take on S&C these days? Does it even exist anymore? Who's in charge there? What's his/her take?

No, we listeners don't have to.  We listeners could, if we really wanted to try to get those answers, put together our own free podcast and see if we could get past the SID to schedule interviews with the Big Guy ourselves.  I'm sure Troy would give us our money back if we listeners were unsatisfied with the product he provided, and I am sure many people on this board would be very appreciative of your hard hitting podcast that got to the bottom of the S&C mystery.

Or, you know, we listeners could be gracious to Mr. Clardy and appreciate the work he puts into the podcast that he provides us listeners for free.  And, FWIW, I'm thinking that a bit of positive feedback on how he could improve his podcast that wasn't dripping with sarcasm might be better received.  Yeah, the irony of me saying it is noted, so maybe to rephrase what you said in perhaps a more positive frame of reference:

"Hey Troy, love your podcast.  Since you mentioned injuries, I'm wondering if you might be able to schedule an interview with Culen Carroll, who is our Sports Performance Coach.  I'd love to hear his approach to S&C and injury prevention, what he makes of the current raft of injuries, and what he thinks the team needs to do better to keep players on the field.  Thanks, and keep up the good work!"

BC

I think Troy Clardy is intelligent enough, emotionally mature enough and professional enough to handle the good natured needling that comes his way, as a sports journalist. It goes with the territory. Especially on this bingo-parlor board which I am sure he does gladly as a labor of love and some useful exposure for the Clardy brand. Wish I could say the same for you but I can't so I won't. Tell me, was it my throw-away "old man" line/reference that got under your thin skin or raised your  little hackles? I am probably a good 25 years older than he is, so WTF would your problem be, Mr. Boston? Get back in your box.

[pefloresjr]

 we listeners have to endure our own convolutions trying to understand why experienced, strapping young men can go down like bowling pins week after week. What's the Big Guy's take on S&C these days? Does it even exist anymore? Who's in charge there? What's his/her take?

No, we listeners don't have to.  We listeners could, if we really wanted to try to get those answers, put together our own free podcast and see if we could get past the SID to schedule interviews with the Big Guy ourselves.  I'm sure Troy would give us our money back if we listeners were unsatisfied with the product he provided, and I am sure many people on this board would be very appreciative of your hard hitting podcast that got to the bottom of the S&C mystery.

Or, you know, we listeners could be gracious to Mr. Clardy and appreciate the work he puts into the podcast that he provides us listeners for free.  And, FWIW, I'm thinking that a bit of positive feedback on how he could improve his podcast that wasn't dripping with sarcasm might be better received.  Yeah, the irony of me saying it is noted, so maybe to rephrase what you said in perhaps a more positive frame of reference:

"Hey Troy, love your podcast.  Since you mentioned injuries, I'm wondering if you might be able to schedule an interview with Culen Carroll, who is our Sports Performance Coach.  I'd love to hear his approach to S&C and injury prevention, what he makes of the current raft of injuries, and what he thinks the team needs to do better to keep players on the field.  Thanks, and keep up the good work!"

BC

I think Troy Clardy is intelligent enough, emotionally mature enough and professional enough to handle the good natured needling that comes his way, as a sports journalist. It goes with the territory. Especially on this bingo-parlor board which I am sure he does gladly as a labor of love and some useful exposure for the Clardy brand. Wish I could say the same for you but I can't so I won't. Tell me, was it my throw-away "old man" line/reference that got under your thin skin or raised your  little hackles? I am probably a good 25 years older than he is, so WTF would your problem be, Mr. Boston? Get back in your box.

Sometimes it's best to recall the words of Sgt. Hulka: Lighten up, Francis.

Cheers,
Pete F.

[pefloresjr]

 we listeners have to endure our own convolutions trying to understand why experienced, strapping young men can go down like bowling pins week after week. What's the Big Guy's take on S&C these days? Does it even exist anymore? Who's in charge there? What's his/her take?

No, we listeners don't have to.  We listeners could, if we really wanted to try to get those answers, put together our own free podcast and see if we could get past the SID to schedule interviews with the Big Guy ourselves.  I'm sure Troy would give us our money back if we listeners were unsatisfied with the product he provided, and I am sure many people on this board would be very appreciative of your hard hitting podcast that got to the bottom of the S&C mystery.

Or, you know, we listeners could be gracious to Mr. Clardy and appreciate the work he puts into the podcast that he provides us listeners for free.  And, FWIW, I'm thinking that a bit of positive feedback on how he could improve his podcast that wasn't dripping with sarcasm might be better received.  Yeah, the irony of me saying it is noted, so maybe to rephrase what you said in perhaps a more positive frame of reference:

"Hey Troy, love your podcast.  Since you mentioned injuries, I'm wondering if you might be able to schedule an interview with Culen Carroll, who is our Sports Performance Coach.  I'd love to hear his approach to S&C and injury prevention, what he makes of the current raft of injuries, and what he thinks the team needs to do better to keep players on the field.  Thanks, and keep up the good work!"

BC

I think Troy Clardy is intelligent enough, emotionally mature enough and professional enough to handle the good natured needling that comes his way, as a sports journalist. It goes with the territory. Especially on this bingo-parlor board which I am sure he does gladly as a labor of love and some useful exposure for the Clardy brand. Wish I could say the same for you but I can't so I won't. Tell me, was it my throw-away "old man" line/reference that got under your thin skin or raised your  little hackles? I am probably a good 25 years older than he is, so WTF would your problem be, Mr. Boston? Get back in your box.

Sometimes it's best to recall the words of Sgt. Hulka: Lighten up, Francis.

Cheers,
Pete F.

[admin]

Wish I could say the same for you but I can't so I won't. Tell me, was it my throw-away "old man" line/reference that got under your thin skin or raised your  little hackles? I am probably a good 25 years older than he is, so WTF would your problem be, Mr. Boston? Get back in your box.

Which of those statements were necessary or helpful?

[admin]

Wish I could say the same for you but I can't so I won't. Tell me, was it my throw-away "old man" line/reference that got under your thin skin or raised your  little hackles? I am probably a good 25 years older than he is, so WTF would your problem be, Mr. Boston? Get back in your box.

Which of those statements were necessary or helpful?

[msqueri]

I think @msqueri has done an in depth analysis of injuries, but I can't find the post and I can't remember the bottom line.  Maybe he can repost?

BC

Sure thing. There were multiple pieces so I'll probably have to divide into multiple posts given the board's software. For what it's worth, so far this season our number of key contributors missing per game is 3.00, which as you can see below is high. It's the fifth straight full season in which we've been "unlucky" in this respect. The chances of losing five straight coin flips is 3.125 percent.

[msqueri]

I think @msqueri has done an in depth analysis of injuries, but I can't find the post and I can't remember the bottom line.  Maybe he can repost?

BC

Sure thing. There were multiple pieces so I'll probably have to divide into multiple posts given the board's software. For what it's worth, so far this season our number of key contributors missing per game is 3.00, which as you can see below is high. It's the fifth straight full season in which we've been "unlucky" in this respect. The chances of losing five straight coin flips is 3.125 percent.

[msqueri]

Anyway, here's the off-season analysis:

A discussion on another board got a bee in my bonnet about the ground truth on Stanford's propensity to injury in recent years and I couldn't get it out of my bonnet without empirical observations. With full acknowledgement of the sbortcuts/flaws/blind spots in this approach, here is a list of every Pac-12 team since 2014 ranked by number of games missed by players in their season-end top 15 for snaps on either offense or defense:

1. 2021 Washington - 61 (12 games) - 5.08
2. 2017 UCLA - 54 (12 games) - 4.50
3. 2020 Washington State - 16 (4 games) - 4.00
4. 2021 Arizona State - 50 (13 games) - 3.85
5. 2016 Arizona State - 46 (12 games) - 3.83
6. 2021 Oregon - 51 (14 games) - 3.64
7. 2019 USC - 47 (13 games) - 3.62
8. 2019 Stanford - 43 (12 games) - 3.58
9. 2020 Colorado - 21 (6 games) - 3.50
9. 2016 Oregon - 42 (12 games) - 3.50
11. 2016 Utah - 45 (13 games) - 3.46
12. 2016 Arizona - 41 (12 games) - 3.42
13. 2017 Arizona State - 44 (13 games) - 3.38
14. 2015 Oregon State - 40 (12 games) - 3.33
15. 2021 Cal - 38 (12 games) - 3.17
15. 2016 Oregon State - 38 (12 games) - 3.17
15. 2021 Stanford - 38 (12 games) - 3.17
18. 2017 Oregon State - 37 (12 games) - 3.08
18. 2016 UCLA - 37 (12 games) - 3.08
20. 2015 Oregon - 39 (13 games) - 3.00
20. 2020 Oregon State - 21 (7 games) - 3.00
20. 2014 Washington - 42 (14 games) - 3.00
20. 2014 Washington State - 36 (12 games) - 3.00
24. 2018 USC - 35 (12 games) - 2.92
25. 2017 USC - 40 (14 games) - 2.86
26. 2019 Cal - 37 (13 games) - 2.85
26. 2018 Stanford - 37 (13 games) - 2.85
28. 2019 Colorado - 34 (12 games) - 2.83
28. 2021 USC - 34 (12 games) - 2.83
30. 2020 Cal - 11 (4 games) - 2.75
31. 2017 Utah - 35 (13 games) - 2.69
32. 2021 Arizona - 32 (12 games) - 2.67
32. 2021 Colorado - 32 (12 games) - 2.67
32. 2014 Oregon State - 32 (12 games) - 2.67
32. 2019 Oregon State - 32 (12 games) - 2.67
36. 2015 USC - 36 (14 games) - 2.57
37. 2018 Cal - 33 (13 games) - 2.54
37. 2017 Oregon - 33 (13 games) - 2.54
39. 2018 Colorado - 30 (12 games) - 2.50
39. 2017 Stanford - 35 (14 games) - 2.50
39. 2020 USC - 15 (6 games) - 2.50
42. 2017 Washington - 32 (13 games) - 2.46
43. 2020 Utah - 12 (5 games) - 2.40
44. 2015 Arizona - 31 (13 games) - 2.38
45. 2018 Utah - 33 (14 games) - 2.36
46. 2017 Colorado - 28 (12 games) - 2.33
47. 2017 Arizona - 30 (13 games) - 2.31
47. 2015 Colorado - 30 (13 games) - 2.31
47. 2014 Utah - 30 (13 games) - 2.31
50. 2018 Oregon State - 27 (12 games) - 2.25
50. 2015 Utah - 27 (12 games) - 2.25
50. 2019 Washington - 27 (12 games) - 2.25
53. 2016 Stanford - 29 (13 games) - 2.23
54. 2018 Washington - 31 (14 games) - 2.21
55. 2016 Cal - 26 (12 games) - 2.17
55. 2018 UCLA - 26 (12 games) - 2.17
57. 2020 UCLA - 15 (7 games) - 2.14
57. 2021 Utah - 30 (14 games) - 2.14
59. 2014 Cal - 25 (12 games) - 2.08
59. 2017 Cal - 25 (12 games) - 2.08
61. 2014 Arizona - 29 (14 games) - 2.07
62. 2020 Arizona - 10 (5 games) - 2.00
63. 2019 UCLA - 23 (12 games) - 1.92
64. 2016 Washington - 26 (14 games) - 1.86
65. 2019 Arizona State - 24 (13 games) - 1.85
65. 2021 Washington State - 24 (13 games) - 1.85
67. 2018 Arizona - 22 (12 games) - 1.83
68. 2014 Oregon - 27 (15 games) - 1.80
69. 2018 Arizona State - 23 (13 games) - 1.77
70. 2014 Colorado - 21 (12 games) - 1.75
70. 2020 Washington - 7 (4 games) - 1.75
72. 2016 Colorado - 24 (14 games) - 1.71
73. 2014 Arizona State - 22 (13 games) - 1.69
73. 2015 Cal - 22 (13 games) - 1.69
73. 2015 Washington - 22 (13 games) - 1.69
76. 2014 UCLA - 21 (13 games) - 1.62
76. 2015 UCLA - 21 (13 games) - 1.62
78. 2019 Oregon - 22 (14 games) - 1.57
78. 2020 Oregon - 11 (7 games) - 1.57
80. 2015 Arizona State - 20 (13 games) - 1.54
81. 2020 Stanford - 9 (6 games) - 1.50
82. 2018 Oregon - 19 (13 games) - 1.46
82. 2021 Oregon State - 19 (13 games) - 1.46
82. 2014 USC - 19 (13 games) - 1.46
85. 2019 Arizona - 17 (12 games) - 1.42
86. 2016 USC - 17 (13 games) - 1.31
86. 2015 Washington State - 17 (13 games) - 1.31
88. 2020 Arizona State - 5 (4 games) - 1.25
89. 2017 Washington State - 15 (13 games) - 1.15
90. 2019 Utah - 14 (14 games) - 1.00
91. 2015 Stanford - 13 (14 games) - 0.93
92. 2014 Stanford - 12 (13 games) - 0.92
92. 2021 UCLA - 11 (12 games) - 0.92
94. 2016 Washington State - 11 (13 games) - 0.85
95. 2019 Washington State - 10 (13 games) - 0.77
96. 2018 Washington State - 9 (13 games) - 0.69

Observations:

* Shannon Turley was fired in April 2019. It is impossible not to draw a line between that date and a drop-off in Stanford's strength and conditioning but the propensity toward injury (or at least absences of contributing players) started at the tail end of Turley's tenure. The 2014, 2015, and 2016 teams were all healthier than the Pac-12 norm, with 2014 and 2015 spectacularly so. But 2016 was hovering around the median and then 2017 flipped over to the other side of the median. Turley's last team, 2018, was his most injury-prone.

* Still, the drop-off after that is eye-popping. 2019, as I don't need to remind anybody, was catastrophic in terms of injuries. 2020 was, of course a weird year for everybody and less comparable to all the other data points, but for what it's worth we stayed healthy for that half season. But then the only other full season without Turley beside 2019 was back to being very injury-prone. Part of the reason I wanted to do this analysis was to see if our coaches are right about all the rotten injury luck in 2021. In a word: yes. Last year was bottom 16 percent of Pac-12 seasons in terms of number of games missed by the top contributors.

* The question all of us have to be asking is the extent to which rotten injury seasons are pure luck or reflective of strength/weakness/scheme/playcalling/etc. such that certain programs can be expected to be more/less injury-prone heading into a season. One way that occurs to me to think about propensity to injury within programs over time is to look at which teams have been more or less injury-prone over the course of this entire sample. Here's what I found in terms of the team ranking over the full sweep: Oregon State (2.67), Washington (2.58), USC (2.51), Arizona State (2.45), Oregon (2.42), Cal (2.38), Colorado (2.37), Utah (2.31), Arizona (2.28), UCLA (2.24), Stanford (2.23), Washington State (1.36). Two things emerge: Washington State is sui generis, simply playing another sport than everybody else given the way they play (which incidentally is an interesting data point for those worried about injuries in sports), and otherwise these things seem to generally smooth out over time. Teams can be expected to be missing 2.37 major contributors per game but of course there is variance such that in a given season a team may experience considerably more or less luck than that.

* To my mind, this research bolsters Shaw's narrative. The last two full seasons for Stanford have been inordinately unlucky in terms of missed games by key contributors and there can be a reasonable expectation of reversion to the mean going forward. We can expect about one more key contributor per game than we had in the two seasons that serve as the major cases against Shaw.

* It would be a separate analysis to assess how much injuries are tied to team performance. That is, it's not clear how many wins (if it's even one) having one more key contributor per game would produce. Now that I have this data that might be the next project.

[msqueri]

Anyway, here's the off-season analysis:

A discussion on another board got a bee in my bonnet about the ground truth on Stanford's propensity to injury in recent years and I couldn't get it out of my bonnet without empirical observations. With full acknowledgement of the sbortcuts/flaws/blind spots in this approach, here is a list of every Pac-12 team since 2014 ranked by number of games missed by players in their season-end top 15 for snaps on either offense or defense:

1. 2021 Washington - 61 (12 games) - 5.08
2. 2017 UCLA - 54 (12 games) - 4.50
3. 2020 Washington State - 16 (4 games) - 4.00
4. 2021 Arizona State - 50 (13 games) - 3.85
5. 2016 Arizona State - 46 (12 games) - 3.83
6. 2021 Oregon - 51 (14 games) - 3.64
7. 2019 USC - 47 (13 games) - 3.62
8. 2019 Stanford - 43 (12 games) - 3.58
9. 2020 Colorado - 21 (6 games) - 3.50
9. 2016 Oregon - 42 (12 games) - 3.50
11. 2016 Utah - 45 (13 games) - 3.46
12. 2016 Arizona - 41 (12 games) - 3.42
13. 2017 Arizona State - 44 (13 games) - 3.38
14. 2015 Oregon State - 40 (12 games) - 3.33
15. 2021 Cal - 38 (12 games) - 3.17
15. 2016 Oregon State - 38 (12 games) - 3.17
15. 2021 Stanford - 38 (12 games) - 3.17
18. 2017 Oregon State - 37 (12 games) - 3.08
18. 2016 UCLA - 37 (12 games) - 3.08
20. 2015 Oregon - 39 (13 games) - 3.00
20. 2020 Oregon State - 21 (7 games) - 3.00
20. 2014 Washington - 42 (14 games) - 3.00
20. 2014 Washington State - 36 (12 games) - 3.00
24. 2018 USC - 35 (12 games) - 2.92
25. 2017 USC - 40 (14 games) - 2.86
26. 2019 Cal - 37 (13 games) - 2.85
26. 2018 Stanford - 37 (13 games) - 2.85
28. 2019 Colorado - 34 (12 games) - 2.83
28. 2021 USC - 34 (12 games) - 2.83
30. 2020 Cal - 11 (4 games) - 2.75
31. 2017 Utah - 35 (13 games) - 2.69
32. 2021 Arizona - 32 (12 games) - 2.67
32. 2021 Colorado - 32 (12 games) - 2.67
32. 2014 Oregon State - 32 (12 games) - 2.67
32. 2019 Oregon State - 32 (12 games) - 2.67
36. 2015 USC - 36 (14 games) - 2.57
37. 2018 Cal - 33 (13 games) - 2.54
37. 2017 Oregon - 33 (13 games) - 2.54
39. 2018 Colorado - 30 (12 games) - 2.50
39. 2017 Stanford - 35 (14 games) - 2.50
39. 2020 USC - 15 (6 games) - 2.50
42. 2017 Washington - 32 (13 games) - 2.46
43. 2020 Utah - 12 (5 games) - 2.40
44. 2015 Arizona - 31 (13 games) - 2.38
45. 2018 Utah - 33 (14 games) - 2.36
46. 2017 Colorado - 28 (12 games) - 2.33
47. 2017 Arizona - 30 (13 games) - 2.31
47. 2015 Colorado - 30 (13 games) - 2.31
47. 2014 Utah - 30 (13 games) - 2.31
50. 2018 Oregon State - 27 (12 games) - 2.25
50. 2015 Utah - 27 (12 games) - 2.25
50. 2019 Washington - 27 (12 games) - 2.25
53. 2016 Stanford - 29 (13 games) - 2.23
54. 2018 Washington - 31 (14 games) - 2.21
55. 2016 Cal - 26 (12 games) - 2.17
55. 2018 UCLA - 26 (12 games) - 2.17
57. 2020 UCLA - 15 (7 games) - 2.14
57. 2021 Utah - 30 (14 games) - 2.14
59. 2014 Cal - 25 (12 games) - 2.08
59. 2017 Cal - 25 (12 games) - 2.08
61. 2014 Arizona - 29 (14 games) - 2.07
62. 2020 Arizona - 10 (5 games) - 2.00
63. 2019 UCLA - 23 (12 games) - 1.92
64. 2016 Washington - 26 (14 games) - 1.86
65. 2019 Arizona State - 24 (13 games) - 1.85
65. 2021 Washington State - 24 (13 games) - 1.85
67. 2018 Arizona - 22 (12 games) - 1.83
68. 2014 Oregon - 27 (15 games) - 1.80
69. 2018 Arizona State - 23 (13 games) - 1.77
70. 2014 Colorado - 21 (12 games) - 1.75
70. 2020 Washington - 7 (4 games) - 1.75
72. 2016 Colorado - 24 (14 games) - 1.71
73. 2014 Arizona State - 22 (13 games) - 1.69
73. 2015 Cal - 22 (13 games) - 1.69
73. 2015 Washington - 22 (13 games) - 1.69
76. 2014 UCLA - 21 (13 games) - 1.62
76. 2015 UCLA - 21 (13 games) - 1.62
78. 2019 Oregon - 22 (14 games) - 1.57
78. 2020 Oregon - 11 (7 games) - 1.57
80. 2015 Arizona State - 20 (13 games) - 1.54
81. 2020 Stanford - 9 (6 games) - 1.50
82. 2018 Oregon - 19 (13 games) - 1.46
82. 2021 Oregon State - 19 (13 games) - 1.46
82. 2014 USC - 19 (13 games) - 1.46
85. 2019 Arizona - 17 (12 games) - 1.42
86. 2016 USC - 17 (13 games) - 1.31
86. 2015 Washington State - 17 (13 games) - 1.31
88. 2020 Arizona State - 5 (4 games) - 1.25
89. 2017 Washington State - 15 (13 games) - 1.15
90. 2019 Utah - 14 (14 games) - 1.00
91. 2015 Stanford - 13 (14 games) - 0.93
92. 2014 Stanford - 12 (13 games) - 0.92
92. 2021 UCLA - 11 (12 games) - 0.92
94. 2016 Washington State - 11 (13 games) - 0.85
95. 2019 Washington State - 10 (13 games) - 0.77
96. 2018 Washington State - 9 (13 games) - 0.69

Observations:

* Shannon Turley was fired in April 2019. It is impossible not to draw a line between that date and a drop-off in Stanford's strength and conditioning but the propensity toward injury (or at least absences of contributing players) started at the tail end of Turley's tenure. The 2014, 2015, and 2016 teams were all healthier than the Pac-12 norm, with 2014 and 2015 spectacularly so. But 2016 was hovering around the median and then 2017 flipped over to the other side of the median. Turley's last team, 2018, was his most injury-prone.

* Still, the drop-off after that is eye-popping. 2019, as I don't need to remind anybody, was catastrophic in terms of injuries. 2020 was, of course a weird year for everybody and less comparable to all the other data points, but for what it's worth we stayed healthy for that half season. But then the only other full season without Turley beside 2019 was back to being very injury-prone. Part of the reason I wanted to do this analysis was to see if our coaches are right about all the rotten injury luck in 2021. In a word: yes. Last year was bottom 16 percent of Pac-12 seasons in terms of number of games missed by the top contributors.

* The question all of us have to be asking is the extent to which rotten injury seasons are pure luck or reflective of strength/weakness/scheme/playcalling/etc. such that certain programs can be expected to be more/less injury-prone heading into a season. One way that occurs to me to think about propensity to injury within programs over time is to look at which teams have been more or less injury-prone over the course of this entire sample. Here's what I found in terms of the team ranking over the full sweep: Oregon State (2.67), Washington (2.58), USC (2.51), Arizona State (2.45), Oregon (2.42), Cal (2.38), Colorado (2.37), Utah (2.31), Arizona (2.28), UCLA (2.24), Stanford (2.23), Washington State (1.36). Two things emerge: Washington State is sui generis, simply playing another sport than everybody else given the way they play (which incidentally is an interesting data point for those worried about injuries in sports), and otherwise these things seem to generally smooth out over time. Teams can be expected to be missing 2.37 major contributors per game but of course there is variance such that in a given season a team may experience considerably more or less luck than that.

* To my mind, this research bolsters Shaw's narrative. The last two full seasons for Stanford have been inordinately unlucky in terms of missed games by key contributors and there can be a reasonable expectation of reversion to the mean going forward. We can expect about one more key contributor per game than we had in the two seasons that serve as the major cases against Shaw.

* It would be a separate analysis to assess how much injuries are tied to team performance. That is, it's not clear how many wins (if it's even one) having one more key contributor per game would produce. Now that I have this data that might be the next project.

[msqueri]

I attempted to visualize this by taking the same list to represent the teams by frequency of key contributor absences and including for each the win percentage that year, parenthetically listing the delta between that win percentage and the average win percentage of the four nearest seasons. I want to say up front that the shortcomings of this approach are quite evident to me. I realize team success/failure ebbs and flows based on numerous factors and that single year win percentages are subject to significant variance. I just want a way to visualize the relationship between injury absences and win/loss record in a way that made sense to me, so take this for what it's worth.

1. 2021 Washington - .333 (- .372)
2. 2017 UCLA - .462 (+ .074)
3. 2020 Washington State - .250 (- .375)
4. 2021 Arizona State - .615 (+ .057)
5. 2016 Arizona State - .417 (- .160)
6. 2021 Oregon - .714 (+ 0.33)
7. 2019 USC - .615 (+ .047)
8. 2019 Stanford - .333 (- .223)
9. 2020 Colorado - .667 (+ .271)
9. 2016 Oregon - .333 (- .371)
11. 2016 Utah - .692 (+ .032)
12. 2016 Arizona - .250 (- .308)
13. 2017 Arizona State - .538 (+ .028)
14. 2015 Oregon State - .167 (- .180)
15. 2021 Cal - .417 (- .083)
15. 2016 Oregon State - .333 (+ .125)
15. 2021 Stanford - .250 (- .328)
18. 2017 Oregon State - .083 (- .188)
18. 2016 UCLA - .333 (- .196)
20. 2015 Oregon - .692 (+ .032)
20. 2020 Oregon State - .286 (- .020)
20. 2014 Washington - .571 (- .089)
20. 2014 Washington State - .250 (- .260)
24. 2018 USC - .417 (- .322)
25. 2017 USC - .786 (+ .190)
26. 2019 Cal - .615 (+ .176)
26. 2018 Stanford - .692 (+ .092)
28. 2019 Colorado - .417 (- .012)
28. 2021 USC - .333 (- .311)
30. 2020 Cal - .250 (- .250)
31. 2017 Utah - .538 (- .184)
32. 2021 Arizona - .091 (- .153)
32. 2021 Colorado - .333 (- .119)
32. 2014 Oregon State - .417 (- .023)
32. 2019 Oregon State - .417 (+ .144)
36. 2015 USC - .571 (- .170)
37. 2018 Cal - .538 (+ .075)
37. 2017 Oregon - .538 (- .116)
39. 2018 Colorado - .417 (- .128)
39. 2017 Stanford - .643 (- .030)
39. 2020 USC - .833 (+ .284)
42. 2017 Washington - .769 (+ .084)
43. 2020 Utah - .600 (- .073)
44. 2015 Arizona - .538 (EVEN)
45. 2018 Utah - .643 (- .024)
46. 2017 Colorado - .417 (- .054)
47. 2017 Arizona - .538 (+ .150)
47. 2015 Colorado - .308 (- .112)
47. 2014 Utah - .692 (+ .112)

50. 2018 Oregon State - .167 (- .112)
50. 2015 Utah - .769 (+ .181)
50. 2019 Washington - .615 (- .013)
53. 2016 Stanford - .769 (+ .065)
54. 2018 Washington - .714 (- .036)
55. 2016 Cal - .417 (- .083)
55. 2018 UCLA - .250 (- .136)
57. 2020 UCLA - .429 (EVEN)
57. 2021 Utah - .714 (+ .062)
59. 2014 Cal - .417 (+ .070)
59. 2017 Cal - .417 (+ .132)
61. 2014 Arizona - .714 (+ .204)
62. 2020 Arizona - .000 (- .347)
63. 2019 UCLA - .333 (- .122)
64. 2016 Washington - .857 (+ .209)
65. 2019 Arizona State - .615 (+.057)
65. 2021 Washington State - .538 (- .090)
67. 2018 Arizona - .417 (+ .084)
68. 2014 Oregon - .867 (+ .161)
69. 2018 Arizona State - .538 (+ .060)
70. 2014 Colorado - .167 (- .206)
70. 2020 Washington - .750 (+ .135)
72. 2016 Colorado - .714 (+ .387)
73. 2014 Arizona State - .769 (+ .211)
73. 2015 Cal - .615 (+ .282)
73. 2015 Washington - .538 (- .184)
76. 2014 UCLA - .769 (+ .173)
76. 2015 UCLA - .615 (+ .027)
78. 2019 Oregon - .857 (+ .219)
78. 2020 Oregon - .571 (- .133)
80. 2015 Arizona State - .462 (- .153)
81. 2020 Stanford - .667 (+ .177)
82. 2018 Oregon - .692 (+ .105)
82. 2021 Oregon State - .538 (+ .305)
82. 2014 USC - .692 (+ .044)
85. 2019 Arizona - .333 (+ .023)
86. 2016 USC - .769 (+ .144)
86. 2015 Washington State - .692 (+ .182)
88. 2020 Arizona State - .500 (- .077)
89. 2017 Washington State - .692 (+ .038)
90. 2019 Utah - .786 (+ .156)
91. 2015 Stanford - .857 (+ .153)
92. 2014 Stanford - .615 (- .203)
92. 2021 UCLA - .667 (+ .303)
94. 2016 Washington State - .615 (- .012)
95. 2019 Washington State - .462 (- .189)
96. 2018 Washington State - .846 (+ .288)

Somebody better than me at statistics can perhaps let me know if this data shows anything interesting, but just eye balling it I can see that 61 percent of the teams in the bottom half of injury luck (the first 49 listed) had negative numbers (i.e., worst seasons than the program's average of that era) and 64 percent of the teams in the top half of injury luck (i.e., the second 47 listed) had positive numbers (i.e., better seasons than the program's average of that era). To me that suggests that a) injury luck is not determinative for a season but b) it's generally better to not have injuries than to have injuries. I realize these are exceedingly obvious observations, but I wanted to be empirical about this.

To further test this, I divided the teams into groups to see if things looked any different if I tried to look at it more in terms of teams with rotten, average, or good injury luck. What I found:

Rotten luck (teams 1-31): 61 percent had negative seasons; median was a - .089 effect

Average luck (teams 32-64): 55 percent had negative seasons, median was a - .023

Good luck (teams 65-96): 28 percent had negative seasons a + .084/+ /.105

This is interesting, if I do say so myself. The results seem so intuitive.

The median impact of rotten luck, negative 8.9 percent compared to a team's norm for that era, is very close to a one game difference ( one game is 8.3 percent of a 12 game season).

The median impact of average luck, negative 2.3 percent, is arguably negligible. That's about a quarter of one game.

The median impact of good luck, positive 8.4 percent or positive 10.1 percent, is in the ballpark of a one game difference. Perhaps others will have views on whether the positive impact of good luck being a bit bigger than the negative impact of rotten luck is significant or if it's just an issue of my flawed sample size/methodology/etc.

As a general, back of the envelope, Matt is not a statistician approximation, a team with rotten luck could generally be expected for that to cost them about one game. IMHO, this corroborates the gut instinct of most on this board, that poor injury luck in 2019 and 2021 explains part of those seasons but is a far cry from justifying those failures. Those teams were sub-par teams regardless of the injuries. Injuries may have made them 4 and 3 win seasons, but healthy they likely would have been 4-6 win seasons. Those weren't good teams irrespective of injuries.

Forecasting ahead to 2022, our four year program average is a .465 winning percentage. In other words, our current sea level as a program is an expectation of 5.58 wins. A 5-6 win regular season even if you give us the benefit of the feels-very-long-ago 2018 season. If we have rotten injury luck again, one might peg us for 4-5 wins. If we can actually benefit from some good injury luck, one might peg us for 6-7 wins. I actually don't think those win totals necessarily tell different things about the health of the program, but making a bowl would mean a lot to me and to the players so that's what I'll be hoping for this year. Six wins or bust!

[msqueri]

I attempted to visualize this by taking the same list to represent the teams by frequency of key contributor absences and including for each the win percentage that year, parenthetically listing the delta between that win percentage and the average win percentage of the four nearest seasons. I want to say up front that the shortcomings of this approach are quite evident to me. I realize team success/failure ebbs and flows based on numerous factors and that single year win percentages are subject to significant variance. I just want a way to visualize the relationship between injury absences and win/loss record in a way that made sense to me, so take this for what it's worth.

1. 2021 Washington - .333 (- .372)
2. 2017 UCLA - .462 (+ .074)
3. 2020 Washington State - .250 (- .375)
4. 2021 Arizona State - .615 (+ .057)
5. 2016 Arizona State - .417 (- .160)
6. 2021 Oregon - .714 (+ 0.33)
7. 2019 USC - .615 (+ .047)
8. 2019 Stanford - .333 (- .223)
9. 2020 Colorado - .667 (+ .271)
9. 2016 Oregon - .333 (- .371)
11. 2016 Utah - .692 (+ .032)
12. 2016 Arizona - .250 (- .308)
13. 2017 Arizona State - .538 (+ .028)
14. 2015 Oregon State - .167 (- .180)
15. 2021 Cal - .417 (- .083)
15. 2016 Oregon State - .333 (+ .125)
15. 2021 Stanford - .250 (- .328)
18. 2017 Oregon State - .083 (- .188)
18. 2016 UCLA - .333 (- .196)
20. 2015 Oregon - .692 (+ .032)
20. 2020 Oregon State - .286 (- .020)
20. 2014 Washington - .571 (- .089)
20. 2014 Washington State - .250 (- .260)
24. 2018 USC - .417 (- .322)
25. 2017 USC - .786 (+ .190)
26. 2019 Cal - .615 (+ .176)
26. 2018 Stanford - .692 (+ .092)
28. 2019 Colorado - .417 (- .012)
28. 2021 USC - .333 (- .311)
30. 2020 Cal - .250 (- .250)
31. 2017 Utah - .538 (- .184)
32. 2021 Arizona - .091 (- .153)
32. 2021 Colorado - .333 (- .119)
32. 2014 Oregon State - .417 (- .023)
32. 2019 Oregon State - .417 (+ .144)
36. 2015 USC - .571 (- .170)
37. 2018 Cal - .538 (+ .075)
37. 2017 Oregon - .538 (- .116)
39. 2018 Colorado - .417 (- .128)
39. 2017 Stanford - .643 (- .030)
39. 2020 USC - .833 (+ .284)
42. 2017 Washington - .769 (+ .084)
43. 2020 Utah - .600 (- .073)
44. 2015 Arizona - .538 (EVEN)
45. 2018 Utah - .643 (- .024)
46. 2017 Colorado - .417 (- .054)
47. 2017 Arizona - .538 (+ .150)
47. 2015 Colorado - .308 (- .112)
47. 2014 Utah - .692 (+ .112)

50. 2018 Oregon State - .167 (- .112)
50. 2015 Utah - .769 (+ .181)
50. 2019 Washington - .615 (- .013)
53. 2016 Stanford - .769 (+ .065)
54. 2018 Washington - .714 (- .036)
55. 2016 Cal - .417 (- .083)
55. 2018 UCLA - .250 (- .136)
57. 2020 UCLA - .429 (EVEN)
57. 2021 Utah - .714 (+ .062)
59. 2014 Cal - .417 (+ .070)
59. 2017 Cal - .417 (+ .132)
61. 2014 Arizona - .714 (+ .204)
62. 2020 Arizona - .000 (- .347)
63. 2019 UCLA - .333 (- .122)
64. 2016 Washington - .857 (+ .209)
65. 2019 Arizona State - .615 (+.057)
65. 2021 Washington State - .538 (- .090)
67. 2018 Arizona - .417 (+ .084)
68. 2014 Oregon - .867 (+ .161)
69. 2018 Arizona State - .538 (+ .060)
70. 2014 Colorado - .167 (- .206)
70. 2020 Washington - .750 (+ .135)
72. 2016 Colorado - .714 (+ .387)
73. 2014 Arizona State - .769 (+ .211)
73. 2015 Cal - .615 (+ .282)
73. 2015 Washington - .538 (- .184)
76. 2014 UCLA - .769 (+ .173)
76. 2015 UCLA - .615 (+ .027)
78. 2019 Oregon - .857 (+ .219)
78. 2020 Oregon - .571 (- .133)
80. 2015 Arizona State - .462 (- .153)
81. 2020 Stanford - .667 (+ .177)
82. 2018 Oregon - .692 (+ .105)
82. 2021 Oregon State - .538 (+ .305)
82. 2014 USC - .692 (+ .044)
85. 2019 Arizona - .333 (+ .023)
86. 2016 USC - .769 (+ .144)
86. 2015 Washington State - .692 (+ .182)
88. 2020 Arizona State - .500 (- .077)
89. 2017 Washington State - .692 (+ .038)
90. 2019 Utah - .786 (+ .156)
91. 2015 Stanford - .857 (+ .153)
92. 2014 Stanford - .615 (- .203)
92. 2021 UCLA - .667 (+ .303)
94. 2016 Washington State - .615 (- .012)
95. 2019 Washington State - .462 (- .189)
96. 2018 Washington State - .846 (+ .288)

Somebody better than me at statistics can perhaps let me know if this data shows anything interesting, but just eye balling it I can see that 61 percent of the teams in the bottom half of injury luck (the first 49 listed) had negative numbers (i.e., worst seasons than the program's average of that era) and 64 percent of the teams in the top half of injury luck (i.e., the second 47 listed) had positive numbers (i.e., better seasons than the program's average of that era). To me that suggests that a) injury luck is not determinative for a season but b) it's generally better to not have injuries than to have injuries. I realize these are exceedingly obvious observations, but I wanted to be empirical about this.

To further test this, I divided the teams into groups to see if things looked any different if I tried to look at it more in terms of teams with rotten, average, or good injury luck. What I found:

Rotten luck (teams 1-31): 61 percent had negative seasons; median was a - .089 effect

Average luck (teams 32-64): 55 percent had negative seasons, median was a - .023

Good luck (teams 65-96): 28 percent had negative seasons a + .084/+ /.105

This is interesting, if I do say so myself. The results seem so intuitive.

The median impact of rotten luck, negative 8.9 percent compared to a team's norm for that era, is very close to a one game difference ( one game is 8.3 percent of a 12 game season).

The median impact of average luck, negative 2.3 percent, is arguably negligible. That's about a quarter of one game.

The median impact of good luck, positive 8.4 percent or positive 10.1 percent, is in the ballpark of a one game difference. Perhaps others will have views on whether the positive impact of good luck being a bit bigger than the negative impact of rotten luck is significant or if it's just an issue of my flawed sample size/methodology/etc.

As a general, back of the envelope, Matt is not a statistician approximation, a team with rotten luck could generally be expected for that to cost them about one game. IMHO, this corroborates the gut instinct of most on this board, that poor injury luck in 2019 and 2021 explains part of those seasons but is a far cry from justifying those failures. Those teams were sub-par teams regardless of the injuries. Injuries may have made them 4 and 3 win seasons, but healthy they likely would have been 4-6 win seasons. Those weren't good teams irrespective of injuries.

Forecasting ahead to 2022, our four year program average is a .465 winning percentage. In other words, our current sea level as a program is an expectation of 5.58 wins. A 5-6 win regular season even if you give us the benefit of the feels-very-long-ago 2018 season. If we have rotten injury luck again, one might peg us for 4-5 wins. If we can actually benefit from some good injury luck, one might peg us for 6-7 wins. I actually don't think those win totals necessarily tell different things about the health of the program, but making a bowl would mean a lot to me and to the players so that's what I'll be hoping for this year. Six wins or bust!