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

101–110 of 135 posts

Re: NFL players: height and weight over time

#101

Post by jessriedel »

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?

Much more than other sports? No, I don't think so. Modern concussion tracking studies take baseline cognitive measurements and then periodically re-measure throughout the year, regardless of whether the player reports an injury.

Somebody ran a survey where they looked for replies that indicated "probable" concussions that were unreported, and they found

> The sports with the most unreported concussions were women’s soccer (24%), men’s football (21%), field hockey (13%), and cheerleading (10%).

http://www.sportsmedres.org/2014/02/unrecognized-concussion-...

I don't believe those numbers are normalized for the number of concussions, and in any case would indicate that women soccer players were slightly less likely than football players to report a concussion conditional on having one.

As for "unrecognized" concussions (i.e. the athlete gave a reply on the survey that sounded like maybe they had a concussion) they say

> The sports with highest potentially unrecognized concussions were football (55%), cheerleading (50%), and cross-country (28%).

which to me means you can't trust this survey at all. Whatever they're interpretting as an "unrecognized" concussion, it happens as often in cheerleading and over half as often in cross-country.

On the other hand, if you want a human interest piece, you can go read skierscott's link to the NYTimes blog post about how all those football players are toughing out brain damage....

Re: NFL players: height and weight over time

#102

Post by bane »

I like how in the 80s, height stopped increasing, but weight kept increasing, and a little blog of the highest weights just shot out to the right.

I live very close to one of the pro team's training camps, and see the players around town every once in a while. Professional athletes like this are truly in a league of their own. You can go to any random gym and look for the guys there in peak physical condition. The pro-NFL guys stand out easily in a crowd of gym guys. Not just the really huge guys, but you can spot one of the "smaller" players from a mile away. Their musculature and body motions are simply superhuman. It's something very very hard to see on TV when they're surrounded by their peers.

Re: NFL players: height and weight over time

#103

Post by bane »

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…

One of the few impact comparisons I've seen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7tGY-VDx3o

Re: NFL players: height and weight over time

#104

Post by ronaldx »

sesqu wrote: post #100
ronaldx wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

I agree with what you say.

To correctly compare the variances, the scale should be adjusted according to the square root of the ratio of sample sizes.

The author has not done this correctly, but I claim that zeroing the axis would be further from the correct graph.

Re: NFL players: height and weight over time

#105

Post by sesqu »

ronaldx wrote: post #104
sesqu wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

I agree with what you say. To correctly compare the variances, the scale should be adjusted according to the square root of the ratio of sample sizes. The author has not done this correctly, but I claim that zeroing the axis would be further from the correct graph.

I generally feel that zeroing the axis is never wrong, but yes, in this instance a (properly) cut axis would be better than correct. However, it should be apparent at a glance, and the presence of the other two graphs complicates things as well, so I have some reservations.

Re: NFL players: height and weight over time

#106

Post by cmpns8 »

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…

You are essentially correct - rugby is a game of field position and there are enough players on the field that you can simply lateral the ball to the next man before taking a huge hit and play continues. Having played both American football and rugby, I will say the individual collision is more spectacular in football but getting rucked in the head by 3/4" metal spikes is no walk in the park. I was always more sore after a football game but had far more cuts and bruises after a game of rugby.

Re: NFL players: height and weight over time

#107

Post by supercanuck »

bane wrote: post #102

I like how in the 80s, height stopped increasing, but weight kept increasing, and a little blog of the highest weights just shot out to the right. I live very close to one of the pro team's training camps, and see the players around town every once in a while. Professional athletes like this are truly in a league of their own. You can go to any random gym and look for the guys there in peak physical condition. The pr…

>and a little blog of the highest weights just shot out to the right

Offensive Lineman and Defensive Tackles.

Re: NFL players: height and weight over time

#108

Post by kansface »

jessriedel wrote: post #101
kansface wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are not concussions in football vastly under reported?

Much more than other sports? No, I don't think so. Modern concussion tracking studies take baseline cognitive measurements and then periodically re-measure throughout the year, regardless of whether the player reports an injury. Somebody ran a survey where they looked for replies that indicated "probable" concussions that were unreported, and they found > The sports with the most unreported concussions were women’s s…

Thanks for the info- perhaps they mean that 28% of probable concussions from CC are unreported? This seems reasonable.

Re: NFL players: height and weight over time

#109

Post by smky80 »

bane wrote: post #102

I like how in the 80s, height stopped increasing, but weight kept increasing, and a little blog of the highest weights just shot out to the right. I live very close to one of the pro team's training camps, and see the players around town every once in a while. Professional athletes like this are truly in a league of their own. You can go to any random gym and look for the guys there in peak physical condition. The pr…

Not all of them though.

http://theloveofsports.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/t...

Been looking for a Sebastian Janikowski draft picture but couldn't find one.

Re: NFL players: height and weight over time

#110

Post by brownbat »

diziet wrote: post #56
DavidSJ wrote: post #53

It seems to become bimodal towards the last decade or two. Any idea as to why?

Separation between light and fast players/roles and heavy and powerful players/roles.

I'm mostly stuck thinking about this in terms of tanks and spellcasters thanks to PA:

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2013/01/18

Post reply on HN