Are smaller players more injury-prone?

[MHS831]

Are smaller players more injury-prone?

There are many ideas about what makes a player more injury prone, and many people point to size as a possible culprit. Namely, some people claim that smaller players are more likely to get injured playing football because their bodies are less suited to handle NFL collisions. This is at least a fairly straightforward question to study, as originally done here. However, we should separate this by position group, as we saw in Part 1 of this series that different position groups have different rates of injury, and more mobile positions (RB, WR, DB, LB) tend to have the highest rate of injury, while less mobile positions (OL, QB) tend to have the lowest rate of injury. The overall injury rate by position is summarized in the table below. Remember than an Athlete Exposure (AE) is defined as a game played or a practice session in which a player was listed as a full participant.

Injury Rate By Position

Position	Injury Rate per 1000 AEs (Standard Error)
RB	20.7 (0.5)
DB	17.4 (0.3)
WR	17.1 (0.4)
LB	17.1 (0.3)
TE	16.9 (0.5)
DL	15.1 (0.3)
OL	12.8 (0.3)
QB	8.6 (0.4)
ST	4.4 (0.3)
Total	15.1 (0.1)

Clearly, if we just looked at injury rate vs weight, it would appear that smaller players are more likely to be injured, but that is only because the most injured position groups happen to have smaller, more mobile players. Having established this baseline, we can then plot the injury rate vs weight for each of these position groups.

For the most part, it actually looks like smaller players are less likely to be injured, not more likely. However, each graph has a slightly different pattern that is worth describing.

• DB is perhaps the easiest plot to interpret, and shows a clear increasing risk of injury based on size.
• DL shows a similar pattern, but the effect is not as large and it is overall a much flatter plot, indicating size is not strongly correlated to injury for DL. The up-down-up shape of the curve may be due to conflation of DEs and DTs.
• LB actually shows a slightly decreased risk of injury for larger LBs up until the heaviest weight category, which has significantly increased risk.
• OL shows a clearly increasing risk of injury based on size, except for the highest weight category, which has greatly decreased risk of injury (this may be the threshold at which OL can simply win with size).
• QB also shows a clearly increasing injury rate based on size.
• RB shows an increasing injury rate based on size up to a point, then a decreasing injury rate. This pattern may again be because two slightly different position groups (HBs and FBs) are being lumped in the same category together.
• TE also shows an increasing injury rate up to a point, then a decrease. It may be due to larger TEs being used primarily as blockers rather than pass catchers.
• WR shows a strong correlation between increased size and increased rate of injury, although the very smallest weight category of WR also had an increased rate of injury.

Overall, these data seem to indicate that smaller players are actually a bit less prone to injury within a given position group, although usage seems to play a much bigger role than size in determining injury rate. My big takeaway from this is not that teams should target smaller or larger players, but rather just that teams should not assume that smaller players are more prone to injury, as injury history is a much better predictor of future injury than size.

https://www.hogshaven.com/2019/6/22/18658887/understanding-injuries-in-the-nfl-part-3

 

 

[ForJimmy]

There are way too many factors IMO like playing style, types of hits etc.  If all things are constant then I would imagine a smaller player/object would be more damaged by impact than a larger one.  

[rayzor]

The only reason height should come into question between Young and Stroud is the ability to scan the field from the pocket. Young is forced to be more mobile to get a better view of the field. He does it really well, but, again forced to choose, I'd rather have a QB who wasn't forced to be mobile so he could see the field better.

Focused in on a potential to be injured on a player with no injury history is waste of time.

[MHS831]

3 minutes ago, ForJimmy said:

There are way too many factors IMO like playing style, types of hits etc.  If all things are constant then I would imagine a smaller player/object would be more damaged by impact than a larger one.  

Right--but if the size is not as significant at the football intelligence, processing, release time, etc, then why would size be a factor when it can be so easily overcome with other variables?  One article claimed that the tissue around the joints for larger athletes is under more stress ans subject to injury as a result.  If the NFL rules protecting QBs are upheld and Bryce understands that he must make plays without attempting to extend them, he could be effective as a "point guard" as the team has often said.  There could be data supporting the opposite, but until I see it, I will consider this--I was actually shocked when I read these results.

[mrcompletely11]

Just now, MHS831 said:

Right--but if the size is not as significant at the football intelligence, processing, release time, etc, then why would size be a factor when it can be so easily overcome with other variables?  One article claimed that the tissue around the joints for larger athletes is under more stress ans subject to injury as a result.  If the NFL rules protecting QBs are upheld and Bryce understands that he must make plays without attempting to extend them, he could be effective as a "point guard" as the team has often said.  There could be data supporting the opposite, but until I see it, I will consider this--I was actually shocked when I read these results.

If this was truly the case then why is everyone (coaches, scouts, execs, analysts etc) making a huge deal out of his size? 

[MHS831]

If nothing else, this article should cause people to second-guess their theories based on Young's size when the variables that matter are related to how he will be used/play.

Cam Newton, according to that thinking, should never have been injured and should have had a long career--enter Ron Rivera and Marty Hurney....

[rayzor]

2 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

If this was truly the case then why is everyone (coaches, scouts, execs, analysts etc) making a huge deal out of his size? 

Is it a consideration or a "huge deal"?

[mrcompletely11]

1 minute ago, rayzor said:

Is it a consideration or a "huge deal"?

I would say its a huge deal as he is the best qb and it might keep him from going #1 overall.  But I guess its semantics

[Wes21]

3 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

If this was truly the case then why is everyone (coaches, scouts, execs, analysts etc) making a huge deal out of his size? 

First - its the predraft process.  People make a "big deal" about a guys arms being 3/4" shorter than some other guys arms. LOL

Second - I would imagine its hard to be around the beasts that play defense in the NFL on a daily basis and not have some level of fear of what they could do to someone Bryce's size.

[ForJimmy]

5 minutes ago, MHS831 said:

Right--but if the size is not as significant at the football intelligence, processing, release time, etc, then why would size be a factor when it can be so easily overcome with other variables?  One article claimed that the tissue around the joints for larger athletes is under more stress ans subject to injury as a result.  If the NFL rules protecting QBs are upheld and Bryce understands that he must make plays without attempting to extend them, he could be effective as a "point guard" as the team has often said.  There could be data supporting the opposite, but until I see it, I will consider this--I was actually shocked when I read these results.

That's why I am comfortable with us taking Young.  I think his awareness and intelligence could possibly overcompensate for his size.  It is still something that can't be ignored and that's the conservation out staff is probably having.  Can Young adjust his style of play to take less hits, while still being great at extending plays?  Can his intelligence overcompensate for his lack of size?  The answer very well could be yes.

[rayzor]

4 minutes ago, MHS831 said:

If nothing else, this article should cause people to second-guess their theories based on Young's size when the variables that matter are related to how he will be used/play.

Cam Newton, according to that thinking, should never have been injured and should have had a long career--enter Ron Rivera and Marty Hurney....

Imo, there are reasons to believe that size is a factor, but potential for injury is not one of them.

Unless a player has a injury history beyond what us normal for the position, it should not be a factor. 

[mrcompletely11]

2 minutes ago, rayzor said:

Imo, there are reasons to believe that size is a factor, but potential for injury is not one of them.

Unless a player has a injury history beyond what us normal for the position, it should not be a factor. 

But it is a reason 

[MHS831]

1 minute ago, mrcompletely11 said:

If this was truly the case then why is everyone (coaches, scouts, execs, analysts etc) making a huge deal out of his size? 

You mean the NFL executives who have a 56% success rate drafting the first overall pick? I think everyone wants that 6-4 QB who can scan the field, but in relation to injury, they could be basing a decision on a myth.  Maybe they have not looked at data?  Maybe they simply assumed and based their opinions on a false assumption.  There will be people who criticize the data without supportive data for their opinions, basing an opinion on "common sense."  Like people who refuse to look at the overwhelming psychological and emotional data on the long term impacts of spanking-dismissing it as nonsense without any evidence that demonstrates it is effective without potential long-term cognitive and behavioral consequences.  People are close-minded in general, and that is a form of ignorance.  Just an example of human nature.

[rayzor]

4 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

But it is a reason 

A reason for what? If you're looking for one...I'm sure you can make it into a bigger deal than it actually is, but aside from that it's just a waste of time to project injury on a player without an injury history, especially when you aren't doing it for anyone else.

If you don't like a player or just prefer another one, fine, but just admit it. You don't have to grasp at straws saying "he's small so he's more likely to get hurt than someone 2 inches taller" because history and statistics just don't bear that out.