Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

NFL players: height and weight over time

noahveltman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 135 posts

Re: NFL players: height and weight over time

#91

Post by bps4484 »

torbit wrote: post #64

Anytime I see a post about football I wonder how it is different from rugby, so I'll just post this intresting article "In rugby, the only collision (i.e., running at speed for the purpose of forcing a player to the ground) is when one has the ball. The other 29 lads on the pitch are there for support. In American football, 21 of the 22 players had better be colliding with someone on every down - at full speed. In gr…

I think there is something even more fundamentally different between football and rugby that lead to bigger, head on collisions (and what makes the padding in football a necessity).

Specifically, in rugby, the way you maintain possession of the ball is by falling properly with your body in front of the ball (not lunging forward) and making sure your team is around you so you can ruck[1] properly and continue on with the ball.

In football, there are 4 attempts to get 10 yards and you want to make sure with each of those chances you absolutely get the most amount of yardage (running backs are taught to always fall forward, defenses are taught to run people over head on, etc) and of course that doesn't even mention the forward pass where there is an incentive to hit a player as hard as you can to "separate the man from the ball" (this is something that is drilled into you as a defensive player).

[1] for people who haven't watched rugby, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2htLUcu-lcs is a video which explains what rucking is. Note how it's not important that you lunge forward for an extra yard. In fact, it's stupid to do so! The defense would allow you to do that, and then just take the ball from you once you're down.

This is also just my understanding of rugby having watched it from a distance. If I'm incorrect about my assumptions of the rules I'm happy to be corrected.

Re: NFL players: height and weight over time

#92

Post by bps4484 »

markdown wrote: post #84
torbit wrote: post #64

Anytime I see a post about football I wonder how it is different from rugby, so I'll just post this intresting article "In rugby, the only collision (i.e., running at speed for the purpose of forcing a player to the ground) is when one has the ball. The other 29 lads on the pitch are there for support. In American football, 21 of the 22 players had better be colliding with someone on every down - at full speed. In gr…

Another factor is the lack of a helmet and padding. Because of this, players are much more careful when tackling. Eg: * NEVER leading with the head, which is quite common in American Football * There must be an attempt to wrap your arms around the player. Not doing so is a shoulder charge, and illegal. * High tackles (above the shoulders) are illegal and can result in yellow or red card depending on severity. * Spear…

See my sibling comment to you, markdown. I think the helmet and padding came because of the rules, not the other way around.

Also, just an FYI that high tackles (at the head) are also illegal in football. The "head tackle" was made illegal after being popularized by Dick "Night Train" Lane. See this, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPm-6ZlTM5o, for the savagery of yesteryear.

Re: NFL players: height and weight over time

#93

Post by bps4484 »

zacinbusiness wrote: post #14
S_A_P wrote: post #10

I wonder if this has compounded the TBI and concussion issue over the years. I think sports medicine in general has gotten much better and the average player is probably bigger and stronger and thus able to hit harder than 20+ years ago...

In other words, steroids have become more effective.

steroids, nutrition, weight training, and specialization have all become more effective.

Re: NFL players: height and weight over time

#94

Post by kansface »

jessriedel wrote: post #90
markdown wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't make sense. You're saying that Football (where hitting another player is illegal) is as dangerous as American Football, where hitting another player with the full weight of your body at high momentum is the point of the game for most positions. Does not compute. From the study you linked to: > Contact with another person was the risk factor responsible for most concussions among high school athletes. You…

My understanding is that the concussions in soccer come from direct head-to-head collisions (which are not cushioned by helmets) and from heading the ball (which is moving significantly faster than a human being). The fact that you find the similar concussion rates between these two sports surprising is good reason for you to doubt your ability to identify dangerous sports based on your intuition for how violent they…

Are not concussions in football vastly under reported?

Re: NFL players: height and weight over time

#95

Post by skierscott »

ry0ohki wrote: post #61
Zelphyr wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'll never let my children play football. I wish more people had this attitude.

Or Hockey or Soccer? Concussions are common in many sports, soccer which is considered a "safe" alternative to football has the second highest rate. Also not unlikely to occur in Basketball or Baseball.

> hockey or soccer?

The biggest thing for me is the aim of the sport. The aim of American football is to stop the opposing team using your body; soccer and hockey both involve pretty intense strategy to get the ball/puck in the net.

Hockey does have some body-body impact (through checks). I haven't played much hockey, so I don't know how severe it is.

Re: NFL players: height and weight over time

#96

Post by markdown »

jessriedel wrote: post #90
markdown wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't make sense. You're saying that Football (where hitting another player is illegal) is as dangerous as American Football, where hitting another player with the full weight of your body at high momentum is the point of the game for most positions. Does not compute. From the study you linked to: > Contact with another person was the risk factor responsible for most concussions among high school athletes. You…

My understanding is that the concussions in soccer come from direct head-to-head collisions (which are not cushioned by helmets) and from heading the ball (which is moving significantly faster than a human being). The fact that you find the similar concussion rates between these two sports surprising is good reason for you to doubt your ability to identify dangerous sports based on your intuition for how violent they…

Head to head collisions are relatively rare. You could play an entire career without getting one. Heading the ball isn't that bad, actually, and certainly doesn't happen often. Players can go through a season without ever doing it.

Either you don't watch much Football, or you don't watch much American Football. One only needs to watch a few games of each to see how violent they are. American Football has dozens of people smashing into each other (often head-first) every minute of the game.

Re: NFL players: height and weight over time

#97

Post by markdown »

bps4484 wrote: post #91
torbit wrote: post #64

Anytime I see a post about football I wonder how it is different from rugby, so I'll just post this intresting article "In rugby, the only collision (i.e., running at speed for the purpose of forcing a player to the ground) is when one has the ball. The other 29 lads on the pitch are there for support. In American football, 21 of the 22 players had better be colliding with someone on every down - at full speed. In gr…

I think there is something even more fundamentally different between football and rugby that lead to bigger, head on collisions (and what makes the padding in football a necessity). Specifically, in rugby, the way you maintain possession of the ball is by falling properly with your body in front of the ball (not lunging forward) and making sure your team is around you so you can ruck[1] properly and continue on with…

> If I'm incorrect about my assumptions of the rules I'm happy to be corrected.

Nope. Spot on.

Re: NFL players: height and weight over time

#98

Post by Avshalom »

kansface wrote: post #94
jessriedel wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that the concussions in soccer come from direct head-to-head collisions (which are not cushioned by helmets) and from heading the ball (which is moving significantly faster than a human being). The fact that you find the similar concussion rates between these two sports surprising is good reason for you to doubt your ability to identify dangerous sports based on your intuition for how violent they…

Are not concussions in football vastly under reported?

Every time some one does a study they find they're under reported in every sport. They might be more underreported in football but its also under more scrutiny so its hard to say who knows how the reporting rates compare.

Re: NFL players: height and weight over time

#99

Post by markdown »

girvo wrote: post #89
markdown wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another factor is the lack of a helmet and padding. Because of this, players are much more careful when tackling. Eg: * NEVER leading with the head, which is quite common in American Football * There must be an attempt to wrap your arms around the player. Not doing so is a shoulder charge, and illegal. * High tackles (above the shoulders) are illegal and can result in yellow or red card depending on severity. * Spear…

I'm an ex referee, used to ref first grade club and schoolboy rugby in SEQ. I've seen first hand why those rules are in place. I will disagree with having the ball being the only collision points however: rucks, mauls and scrums (the latter of which are neutered now) involved any number of players but still don't quite compare to the one on one that NFL involves. Fascinating sports IMO :)

> the latter of which are neutered now

Only if you're talking about Rugby League.

Re: NFL players: height and weight over time

#100

Post by sesqu »

ronaldx wrote: post #70
mbauman wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ugh, on [3], watch out for the non-zero axes. NHL and NBA start their axes at 0, while the others do not. Very tricky, and very deceiving. I think NFL would look very similar to NBA if plotted the same way (they're both within ~10-15% of the expected value).

The author points out in the text that the NFL result is statistically significant and the NBA result is not. A larger random sample ought to fall closer to the line than a smaller sample: it would be statistically highly remarkable if the graphs did look similar with zeroed axes - the larger sample should look much flatter. Starting both graphs from zero is unhelpful if the goal is correct visual interpretation.

One could argue that the large difference in sample sizes (more than fivefold) justifies scale manipulation to bring the variances into line, but it doesn't appear to me that the author normalized on variance at all (the axis should be something like 800-2000).
Post reply on HN