Gronk alarmism (or not)

[zydecochris]

It's the gambler's fallacy -- trying to find a pattern in random events. For his first few seasons, people remarked on the reckless way Gronk played (somersaulting on his neck) and how it was a miracle he wasn't injured more often. Now he's had a bad run and people assume that it will continue.

Let's separate things. Tedy B seemed to escape injury by being very flexible for a big, strong guy. It's not clear that Gronk will continue to be that as he gets older (he needs to train with Alex Guerrero). Still, there's no reason to think that he'll be struck by lightning again.

Mike, I thought this post was one of the more thought provoking posts I have seen recently (and your very interesting comments on the gambler's fallacy have led me to some other trains of thought I won't go into here). What is the real reason that someone like Gronk (or someone else labeled injury prone) gets injured more often than usual?

Option 1: For either Gronk (although he wasn't injured much early on) or some other so-called "injury prone" player, is it because of his style of play, having some type of particularly injury prone body, or just the result of accumulation of injuries or surgeries? As other posters have pointed out, he does have a certain reckless style of play. That is almost certainly a part of the puzzle, some players are just more flexible (like your example of Tedy B.) and some just seem to have a knack for avoiding the big hit (like E. Smith years ago).

Option 2: Or, is it just "bad luck"? Let's do a little "thought experiment" (in honor of the "Gedanken experiments" of the late, great Albert Einstein). Suppose that to save costs the NFL made 1696 clones of one player, so that exactly the same player was playing every position for every team, and each one played the same number of snaps. Suppose also that the average number of injuries per player per year in this new league was 4. Would that mean that every one of those identical players would have 4 injuries per year? Of course not! There would be a statistical distribution centered around 4 injuries, with some of these identical players having much fewer injuries and some much more, just due to statistical odds. If one averaged over 3-4 years, there would still be some identical players with no injuries (just due to statistical "good luck") and some that were injured constantly (due to statistical "bad luck").

So: is the explanation for an often injured player Option 1 or Option 2? Beats me, I'll leave that for smarter people than me (which includes most people on this forum when it comes to football), it is easier to pose questions than to answer them.

....However, if I had to guess, it would be that it is some type of complicated combination of the two.

 

[mcmurtry86]

Other than the vast multitude of games he has missed due to injury, he is in fact quite durable.

Let's be honest, here. Gronk is injury-prone. Whether that means he will continue to be in the future is not a given - it's as much about luck as it is the way he plays - but I'm not particularly optimistic.

Saying "Gronk is injury-prone" - by definition - implies that it will continue in the future. So, by your statement, it is a given.

 

[PATS16N0]

Gronk.

Smash.

 

[primetime]

Saying "Gronk is injury-prone" - by definition - implies that it will continue in the future. So, by your statement, it is a given.

Injuries are partly a function of luck. Gronk could continue to play recklessly and never get hurt again. Its unlikely, but possible. The probability, given his history, is that he will not play a full season if the status quo continues.

 

[Fencer]

To recap:

1. Gronk is a prolific receiver who, when he catches a ball, tends to be surrounded by the kinds of defensive players likely to deal hard hits. Calling that "reckless" is neither fair nor relevant.

2. Gronk is a vehement blocker. Again, "recklessness" isn't in play.

3. Gronk is very good at breaking tackles. This is an obvious injury risk.

4. Gronk throws his body around. This is also an obvious injury risk.

5. Gronk had back issues in college. This is an obvious area of concern.

#1 and #4 have surely contributed to Gronk injuries in the NFL.
#2 and #3 can be argued either way.
I'm not aware of any effect on his pro career from #5.

 

[Joker]

all these negative waves man....

 

[Mike the Brit]

@Zydechochris Thanks for those thoughts. I basically agree. I'm travelling for the next few days so have to be brief. First reaction. Yes, it's a function of three things. Some people will, because of flexibility, conditioning and the way they play be less liable to injury. Second, there's sheer random bad luck. Third, there's past history. You get less flexible and resilient as you get older and recovery from injury has consequences for your body. A general guess is that people underestimate the random bad luck.

BB has shown that he's very prepared to give an injured player who is older a chance to show that he can still do it (Rodney, Antowain Smith?). But, if he's decided that he can't they're out of the door very, very quickly (Will Smith, Fred Taylor, Leigh Bodden, Ty Warren, Steve Gregory ???).

 

[RIpats88]

Maybe Gronkowski just has to alter his style of play abit to preserve his body. Instead of taking 3 DB's with you, just go out of bounds.

I just dont think his body is necessarily "glass" and its just bad luck the last couple of years for his major injuries.