- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Score Board
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- SEC Score Board
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
If the Saints ran a pay to injure program, the numbers would bear it out...
Posted on 7/15/12 at 6:29 pm
Posted on 7/15/12 at 6:29 pm
Well, a funny thing happened. The numbers DON'T support the claim that the Saints ran a pay to injure program. Why do I say that? I say that because when you incentivize certain behavior, you will see an uptick in such behavior. Many of us have claimed that the Saints haven't caused more injuries to other teams, but we lack the hard numbers.
Until now.
LINK
Now, the main flaw that I see in this analysis is that it presupposes that the NFL's argument that there was a bounty program is accurate.
I assert that the conclusion that we can draw from this data must be one of two things:
1) The claim made by the author, which is that the coaches instituted a pay-for-injury program, but the players ignored them, or
2) There never was a pay-for-injury program, which is why the Saints did not injure opponents at a higher rate than other teams in the NFL.
Which of these is more likely, that people would ignore a monetary incentive or that the alleged incentive did not exist? Before you answer, remember the first thing you learned in your Econ classes...
Until now.
LINK
quote:
Did the New Orleans Saints injure more players?
The data-driven answer is a resounding "no." The Saints appear to have injured far fewer players over the 2009, 2010 and 2011 seasons. The numbers are striking. From 2009 to 2011, the Saints injured, on average, 3.2 opposing players each game. The rest of the teams in the league caused, on average, 3.8 injuries per game. This difference is highly statistically significant, or in other words, it would hold up in a court of law or a fancy academic journal. In each year of the bounty program, the Saints injured fewer players than the average for the league. In 2009, the Saints injured 2.8 players a game, and other teams injured on average 3.8. In 2010, it was 3.5 and 3.6, and in 2011 it was 3.3 and 3.8.
The Saints' behavior on the field was certainly aberrant, but positively so. Only one other team, the San Diego Chargers, injured fewer opponents per game over this entire time frame (3.1 injuries). Of the 32 teams, the Saints injured the third fewest in the 2009 season, the 15th fewest in 2010 and the third fewest in 2011. Might this record be linked to the Saints' being too weak or cowardly to respond to the bounties? Certainly not. Lily-livered players don't win Super Bowls.
Now, the main flaw that I see in this analysis is that it presupposes that the NFL's argument that there was a bounty program is accurate.
I assert that the conclusion that we can draw from this data must be one of two things:
1) The claim made by the author, which is that the coaches instituted a pay-for-injury program, but the players ignored them, or
2) There never was a pay-for-injury program, which is why the Saints did not injure opponents at a higher rate than other teams in the NFL.
Which of these is more likely, that people would ignore a monetary incentive or that the alleged incentive did not exist? Before you answer, remember the first thing you learned in your Econ classes...
6
Posted on 7/15/12 at 6:32 pm to Sophandros
quote:
2) There never was a pay-for-injury program, which is why the Saints did not injure opponents at a higher rate than other teams in the NFL
Saints coaches gave out the equivalent of helmets stickers with a bunch of curse words in the process!
Posted on 7/15/12 at 6:39 pm to Sophandros
He does because he can.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Posted on 7/15/12 at 6:40 pm to Douglas Quaid
quote:
He does because he can. Absolute power corrupts absolutely
While I agree with you, that's not the discussion here.
Posted on 7/15/12 at 6:43 pm to STEVED00
i would also say #2.......also i would like to know how many personal foul penalties was called on the saints in that time frame compared to the rest of the nfl.i would think that that number is also lower than a lot of other teams.
Posted on 7/15/12 at 6:52 pm to Sophandros
Thanks for that link Sophandros - I wouldn't have otherwise read that.
It only re-emphasizes what Goodell doesn't want to hear or read - we didn't deliberately injure players. Wasn't that precisely their accusation - pay to injure?
Regarldless how bad or inept our D was only one other team injured fewer players the past three years - San Diego!!! The Saints ranked 31st out of 32 teams the past three years in opponent injuries. That stat WOULD prevail in a legitmate court of law.
It only re-emphasizes what Goodell doesn't want to hear or read - we didn't deliberately injure players. Wasn't that precisely their accusation - pay to injure?
Regarldless how bad or inept our D was only one other team injured fewer players the past three years - San Diego!!! The Saints ranked 31st out of 32 teams the past three years in opponent injuries. That stat WOULD prevail in a legitmate court of law.
Posted on 7/15/12 at 7:10 pm to Sophandros
Thanks for the link, especially from a newspaper that's not from Louisiana.
Posted on 7/15/12 at 8:56 pm to Sophandros
quote:Maybe your players on D were just that inept?
The numbers DON'T support the claim that the Saints ran a pay to injure program. Why do I say that? I say that because when you incentivize certain behavior, you will see an uptick in such behavior
Posted on 7/15/12 at 9:02 pm to RemouladeSawce
quote:
Maybe your players on D were just that inept?
Then none of them should have been suspended.
Posted on 7/15/12 at 9:07 pm to RemouladeSawce
quote:
Maybe your players on D were just that inept
My favorite argument from other team's fans. "It doesn't matter that no one was actually hurt. They were still trying."
Yeh, right.
Posted on 7/15/12 at 9:08 pm to Sophandros
quote:
Then none of them should have been suspended.
But you see, there was intent, and they contributed large sums of money to the...no they lied about it.
I'm sorry, but what is the NFL's current meme about the players suspensions?
Posted on 7/15/12 at 9:11 pm to RemouladeSawce
The real question is why would you intentionally try to injure players with dirty tactics when the fines would exceed the rewards offered?
Posted on 7/15/12 at 9:42 pm to Patrick O Rly
quote:
The real question is why would you intentionally try to injure players with dirty tactics when the fines would exceed the rewards offered?
This is pretty much how I feel. There is no concrete proof about a bounty program. Goodell has over stepped and knows it.
This post was edited on 7/15/12 at 9:42 pm
Posted on 7/15/12 at 9:44 pm to Sophandros
All is true and I would agree with conclusion number 1.
In fact, the only dirty play I saw last year was Roman Harper's late hit on Steve Smith after the TD in Carolina.
In fact, the only dirty play I saw last year was Roman Harper's late hit on Steve Smith after the TD in Carolina.
Posted on 7/15/12 at 9:44 pm to Patrick O Rly
quote:Exactly.
The real question is why would you intentionally try to injure players with dirty tactics when the fines would exceed the rewards offered?
Posted on 7/15/12 at 9:54 pm to TigerRanter
It's my counter argument to people who say "Why would Goodell make this whole thing up?"
Most lies aren't fabricated from nothing. Most lies are based in truth.
Goodell didn't make it up. He was opportunistic. He took the ambiguous and made it the definitive. Why? Because the NFL is facing an onslaught of law suits related to player health, and the NFL needs to give the impression that they're serious about player safety.
Most lies aren't fabricated from nothing. Most lies are based in truth.
Goodell didn't make it up. He was opportunistic. He took the ambiguous and made it the definitive. Why? Because the NFL is facing an onslaught of law suits related to player health, and the NFL needs to give the impression that they're serious about player safety.
Posted on 7/15/12 at 10:15 pm to Patrick O Rly
quote:
The real question is why would you intentionally try to injure players with dirty tactics when the fines would exceed the rewards offered?
It's my counter argument to people who say "Why would Goodell make this whole thing up?"
Most lies aren't fabricated from nothing. Most lies are based in truth.
Goodell didn't make it up. He was opportunistic. He took the ambiguous and made it the definitive. Why? Because the NFL is facing an onslaught of law suits related to player health, and the NFL needs to give the impression that they're serious about player safety.
And with that I'm done. I could give 2 shits about the bounty scandal at this point.
I'm done. Bring on training camp!
Posted on 7/16/12 at 4:30 am to Sophandros
The comments to that article are just appalling. Typical west coast bs.
Posted on 7/16/12 at 6:17 am to oak71
quote:
Roman Harper's late hit on Steve Smith after the TD in Carolina.
That was most embarassing to be a Saints fan at that particular moment.
Posted on 7/16/12 at 9:35 am to tigerswin03
you can attempt to do anything...it doesn't mean you wil succeed. You can attempt to rob a bank or pull off a heist...doesn't mean someone else can't and won't stop you from pulling it off. Like most of the players in the league have stated on this issue. They aren't mad. They play the game like everyone is out to hurt them, it is their job to prevent them from hurting them or hurt them themselves. Simple as that...whoever is bigger, stronger, faster....wins!
So again, somone with a knife, say's "I'ma kill u mother fricka!" I say "Come on and get you some of this", then this MMA trained mutha fricka breaks his fricking wrist and body slams his head into the concrete....done deal. I win...wanna try again
So again, somone with a knife, say's "I'ma kill u mother fricka!" I say "Come on and get you some of this", then this MMA trained mutha fricka breaks his fricking wrist and body slams his head into the concrete....done deal. I win...wanna try again
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News