Will the New Kickoff Rules Really Reduce Injuries?

The NFL play-by-play reports when players are injured on each play, or at least when the injury stops play so trainers can attend to the injured player. These are far from 100% all injuries suffered in the course of play, but they are the ones that tend to be significant or severe--ACLs, broken bones, separated shoulders, concussions--the kind of things that really worry players, teams, and the league.

With that information in hand, we can see the injury rates for each type of play, including kickoffs.

Injury Rates and An Extended Season

At the recent owners meeting, the NFL disseminated a study that concluded an increase in the season schedule from 16 to 18 games would not increase injury rates. The report caught a lot of criticism as a halfhearted attempt to obscure the toll a longer season would take on the players. Judy Battista of the New York Times and Mike Reiss of the Boston Globe both point to flaws in the study.

But I suspect there is a fundamental misunderstanding about what the report says and how it's being interpreted. All I really know about the report is that it says, "the NFL's injury rate doesn't increase at the end of the season." There is no doubt a longer season would result in more total injuries. The bigger question is how many more injuries--does the injury rate itself increase?

Much of the criticism of the study focuses on the use of team injury reports, well known for their deceptive omissions. In an excellent article, Bill Barnwell at Football Outsiders found an additional flaw in the study. It left out players who go on the IR. Before you consider players on the IR, it appears that the injury rate peaks at week 10 before it decreases for the remainder of the season. Barnwell explains why this isn't really the case.

Since team injury reports are notoriously unreliable, the best information is actual games missed. Thankfuly, Barnwell provides that data in his article, and it's very interesting stuff. When you factor in the IR, the number of games missed climbs steadily. He concludes, "the data looks totally different, and in a bad way for the NFL..."

The way I see it, however, is that the NFL report is right, no matter what the intent was of its authors. There is no increase in injury rates toward the end of the season. The injury rate is effectively linear. Of course, as the season wears on, the number of players unable to play due to injury will accumulate, creating an upward climbing injury total. Once you go on the IR, you don't come off. This cuts to the heart of the debate about whether players become increasingly susceptible to injury as the season, along with the number of cuts and collisions, wears on.

Here is a graph of the data included in the Barnwell article.


The blue line is the games missed by roster players (those not on the IR). Except for the uptick on the final week, when playoff bound players nurse their wounds and everyone else has their bags packed for the Caribbean, it's very steady. The green line is the number of games missed by IR or physically unable to perform (PUP) players. Note how its slope steadily increases. The red line is the combination of the injured roster players and IR/PUP players.

Here's what I take away from this data. Players on the IR increase at a (very) slightly exponential rate--specifically it's:

#IR = 0.006w² + 0.1w + 1.6, where w=week.

That .006 term is extremely small, and when combined with the negative camber of the blue line, results in a very linear total, (especially when week 17 is thrown out, although you don't need to.) [Note: By the way, the slight non-linearity of the increase is evidence, however tiny, for the notion that players become more susceptible to injury as they endure the season.]

Ultimately, the total number of players who miss games due to injury is indistinguishable from a linear line (r-squared of .97). Its increase is exclusively due to players going on the IR, which is a one-way check valve.

So will there be more players missing games at the end of the season if the NFL adds two more games? Of course. But it won't be Iwo Jima out there. No explosion of wounded players with "cascading" injuries. It will be a demanding, grueling, even cruel extra two games for the players, but it would barely be noticeable to the fan and to the game itself. I suspect that's what the NFL report is trying to spell out. Even counting the uptick in the final week, each team would average an extra half a missed player by a potential week 19.

Personally, I'm against lengthening the season for a lot of reasons. The nerdiest is that there is a mathematical elegance to 2 conferences, 4 teams per division, 8 divisions, 16 games, 32 teams, and 256 games per season. Please, no 17th game or 33rd team--I'd have to redo all my algorithms and equations! Actually, I just think 16 is plenty. The fewer the number of games, the more unpredictable the season, and I like that.