{Thread From Yesteryear-correct link posted later in the thread}"The Saints Ain't Sinners" (op-ed by 2 AEI economists in LA Times

{Thread From Yesteryear-correct link posted later in the thread}"The Saints Ain't Sinners" (op-ed by 2 AEI economists in LA Times - merged)

Sophandros said
There were several of us on this site who asked the question whether or not we caused more injuries than what would be expected and whether we committed an abnormal amount of penalties.

If we were incentivizing injuries, then the numbers would bear that out. As this report shows, that was clearly not the case.

We are left with two conclusions:

Either the coaches attempted to incentivize injuries and the players ignored those enticements (the conclusion that the LA Times came to, which presupposes that the league's assertion is accurate),

OR

Such incentives did not exist, which explains why the Saints did not injury opponents at a higher than average rate.

Regarding the former....it's possible the incentives were not enough to alter performance and not just ignored. There are tons of psychological studies that demonstrate failed intervention strategies.

Regarding the latter...pay-for-performance incentives DID exist, as has been admitted by just about everyone associated with this scandal, and the evidence suggests these incentives WERE EFFECTIVE in reducing penalties and sloppy, reckless playing because GW financially penalized players who made big plays but got a flag on the play. Perhaps THAT was GW's motivation: to get players to make clean, penalty-free big plays.

Regardless, it's not likely that we will never know the answer as to why the Saints have below average opponent injury rates, as there are too many variables to consider. But as a social scientist, I would love to run an experiment to see if pay-for-performance pools are an effective motivational tactic and yield better, safer performances.