I understood that but it left the impression that we were as likely as not to be in similar situation as last year when, in fact, it should be viewed as highly unlikely if injuries occur on totally random basis. Think about it. We had 45 scholarship players available for IL. Some were RS but even some of those were because of injuries. Could it happen? Dure but it is highly unlikely. Not because of the number we had last year but strictly because it is highly improbable that we would ever have that number of injuries in any year.
As Glades said, however, some of the injuries we had last year might have lingering effect and that could still skew things a bit. But even with that, the number of injuries we have had in each of the last two years should be considered highly unusual. Not that they happened back to back but that they happened at all.
But even with that, the number of injuries we have had in each of the last two years should be considered highly unusual. Not that they happened back to back but that they happened at all.
The foundational assumption is that the injuries are random chance (such as a coin toss or a dice roll) rather than something systemic. The fact that we have had what we consider to be unusually high injury rates in two consecutive years clearly opens the argument that it may not be random chance. There are multiple controllable factors that could impact injury rates. The easiest to understand being a tendency for a coaching staff that does not have a great deal of depth to always take the low end of the range given to them by the doctors for a recovery period. Every coaching staff does this but a coaching staff with a lot of depth is going to be prone to be a little more conservative than one that desperately needs the players back in the starting line-up.
Is that NU? I have no idea. Just explaining that from - an engineering standpoint - repeats of an event make the odds that it is random chance go down.
