There is no known formula or equation for determining one teams odds of a major injury versus another team's odds of a major injury. PAST INJURY HISTORY is ONLY ONE FACTOR. I don't need to talk to doctors to realize that it has an effect. That's not the point. The point is that you can't look at that factor alone and determine that one team has a higher probability of future major injury. There is only ONE MAJOR PLAYER on the Pelies. That is Anthony Davis. He hasn't suffered major injury. He's missed some games, yes. But he hasn't suffered a major injury. The kid is 21 years old. They've played cautiously with him. He's gotten dinged. And they weren't even trying to make the playoffs. So they sat him down. Posters that are basing our chances at making the playoffs and being a better team than New Orleans because they believe New Orleans has worst past injury history than us are making a mistake.
No, that's not a true statement. I've never said one way or the other whether the Pelies are more injury prone than the Rockets. Off the top of my head, if I had to guess, I would say the Pelies probably have been more injury prone than this current collection of Rockets players. You are twisting my point. You know what you are doing. There is no known formula to calculate the odds of a major injury to one team versus another team going forward. Anybody that thinks one team has a greater or lesser chance of injury than another team is just guessing.
Jeeeeeeeee-zus, what did cyberx start with his seemingly innocuous "I think the Pellicans might be better than the Rockets" statement. Remembering that he's (a) a Lakers fan to begin with and (b) the citizen of a democracy and has the right to his opinion, however misguided . Well, it's "his" thread. He has more right to derail it than another.
Posted in the Cisco thread as well, but FYI And re: sugrlndkid's post above, Timmy is right either way it goes - he could choose A or B
The reason he made that statement is because it is a distinct possibility right now. We need another acquisition to lift this team up to top 5 status in the West. Otherwise, cyber could turn out to be right.
LOL. Do I need to twist your point? Why do you think everybody is piling on you? You said that because H&H have been relatively healthy, so the chances of them having major injuries in the future are greater. I don't know what kind of "twisted" logic that is...
BBH has got the diarrhea of the mouth. He just spews out what he "thinks" is right in his mind. I stopped reading his posts a long long time ago.
Going by Basketballholic's thinking, Eric Gordon is going to be healthy for the rest of his career....he's due!
This is such a bizarre detour lol. There are two schools of thoughts in statistics. One is frequentist, in which many people have correctly pointed out that each event is independent of the other, i.e. a coin that has flipped heads 60% of the time still only has a 50/50 chance on each individual event to be heads. The other is Bayesian, in which you have a pre-test and post-test probability of something happening. This implies that you have previous data to base your pre-test probability off of, otherwise at worst you have frequentist odds of 50/50 for each event. So in a vacuum, not knowing anything about injury history, then its equally likely any two teams or players develop an injury in a given season, as these events are independent of prior events. However, knowing injury history, and that prior injuries contribute to the risk of future injuries, one can say from a Bayesian standpoint that a player or team with more prior injuries will be MORE likely to develop these in the future. So you can't boil down basketball to simple frequentist probability assumptions because you have prior knowledge of injury history and know how that affects injury risk on an individual or team basis. That being said, if you don't believe in a Bayesian approach, then the assumption that every subsequent "coin toss" or injury risk is 50/50 is technically correct as they would are assumed to be independent events. But simplifying injury risk to this degree is silly. Can we go back to speculation on whether we are getting Dragic/Bledsoe??
Unfortunately that is the nature of a lot of posters on this board to do that without taking the totality of the conversation into consideration. The original point is that it is a guess as to which team has the greater probability of major injury in the future. You are parsing what I said to your own devices. What I said was they have been relatively healthy but Dwight has played a lot of minutes (doesn't that sound like Kobe a couple years ago?) and Harden plays a rough, rough game (doesn't that sound like Westbrook a couple years ago?). The more minutes they play the greater their chance of a serious injury. That all plays into a teams probability of a major injury. Not just past injury history.
Once again, for like the hundredth time, what you are saying is true...that prior injury history affects injury risk going forward. That is absolutely true. BUT IT IS NOT THE ONLY FACTOR THAT AFFECTS INJURY RISK GOING FORWARD. Other factors are age, minutes already played, estimated minutes to be played, body type, style of play, etc... There are probably other factors I'm not even familiar with. So if you are going to develop a probability formula or model to determine the probability of future injury to an NBA team and it is going to be worth a hoot you're going to have to take all those factors into consideration. If you just look at past injury history ONLY and determine that it is the only factor in calculating the probability of future major injury to a team.....then you're just guessing. There is no formula or predictability model publicly available to properly assess all these factors today.
I will say that referring to injuries it is not the same as flipping a coin. It is more than pure chance. Diet, fitness routine, prior injury history and frankly genetics. Some people are just more prone to injury.... Why are we even talking about this in this thread? Lol
I'm not arguing with you. There are dozens of variables that would go into a predictive model of injury risk. I was just trying to boil down all the discussion of statistics because depending on your assumptions, either approach could be correct. But, as you say, you have prior data and experience to guide your probabilities, so a Bayesian approach would be appropriate and it's not a coin flip in a vacuum.
Because Cyber made the statement that he thought the Pelies were a better team than the Rockets right now. And other posters argument that the Rockets would wind up better was because the Pelicans (in their minds) have a higher probability of suffering a major injury next season. I'm pointing out that that is a fallacy. Banking on us being better than the Pelies because we "THINK" they have a higher probability of major injury is false.
I appreciate that. The coin flip in a vacuum analogy was brought on because without knowing all the factors and having a proven formula or model it is like a coin flip predicting which team has the higher probability of major injury.
I'm not a superstitious person... except when it comes to the Rockets. All this talk about the "odds" of our two best players, or any of our players, getting injured this season? It's bad juju! If you guys want to discuss the relative merits of birds and rockets flying into a wall, can you start your own thread for that so I won't have to read it? I'm still checking in on this one, but right now it has me busy grinding my teeth in frustration and worry. One should never, ever tempt fate. By all that's unholy, it's bad juju!
Let's say that PHX is willing to trade Bledsoe or Dragic to us. Who would we pay more for? At first I thought Bledsoe, but the more you look at it, the more you start to wonder. Bledsoe 1) Injury history 2) High turnover player 3) Only has half of one year worth of exceptional basketball 4) Demanding a max contract right now Dragic 1) No injury history 2) Will be paid HALF of what Bledsoe will be this coming year (more flexibility) 3) Has produced at a high level over multiple seasons On the open market, I'm not sure Dragic wouldn't be the more coveted/highly compensated player of the two. Of course you have to take situtation into account. Dragic will be an UFA next year, and Bledsoe is a RFA now. And Dragic is older by 4 years. Still....there is significantly more risk to Bledsoe as a player than there is Dragic.
