Injury Rating Creep

[Francoeurstein]

--First of all, I wanted to shoutout to the devs for fixing most of the issues that have plagued this version. I have been hard on you guys, but you've all done great.

Anyways, the creeping of injury ratings has been an issue for many versions now. I'm currently playing a save in 2035 and over half of the players are either 'fragile' or 'wrecked'. This naturally occurs after about 5 or so years of a sim. I try to balance it out by lowering the injury frequency, but I find that too few players get injured. So it's either: injuries run rampant or they don't occur enough. Is this something the devs have considered looking at? Thanks.

[Pelican]

Just curious if this is possibly related to fatigue. A couple versions back, I played a season, set up lineups, and found an increase in field injuries, and a lot of guys constantly tired or fragile. I figured out that my error was in forcing my daily lineups, preventing subs, even when a guy was tired. Guys got worse and worse, until they couldn't play, when a day off here or there (using the depth chart) would have rescued them.

Your issue may be different, as injuries, and propensity for injury, are different from fatigue, as I understand it.

[AirmenSmith]

2046 here and yeah pretty much all the stars in the games seem to have horrible injury ratings. Free agency is littered with them.

[Sweed]

Are you looking at how much time these fragile/ wrecked players are missing or are you only looking at the fact they are labeled as fragile and wrecked?

I haven't dug deep into the data but I have had several players that were fragile that didn't miss many games. I was just looking at the FA list in off-season and a CF I was interested in was fragile and in his mid 30's. 5 of the last 6 seasons he had over 600 PA. The season that was below 600 he had over 550. I've seen FA rated wrecked sign big contracts for AI teams and think "that was a mistake" only to discover that FA gave the team 5 full seasons on their 6 or 7 year deal.

I traded away a ace SP because his fragile had finally declined to wrecked, and he had missed large chunks of two seasons. Goes to a new team and doesn't miss a start over the next two seasons.

Sure each of these players is more likely to be injured and miss time, but without looking at data that shows how much time they are missing, it would be hard to quantify the affect of these ratings.

Again I haven't looked at data across my league. I certainly don't have a large sample of data and, you may very well come up with data that shows this is a problem. However IMHO the label itself isn't how to judge. I'd think like most things in OOTP there is a range of each rating, ie low fragile (just barely below normal) and high fragile (just short of wrecked) etc. I've noticed a lot of players ending up with bad injury ratings but never felt (yes, just my impression that nothing obvious was going on) they were missing too many game. I'll pay closer attention when playing my game and see if anything changes.

[Pdubya64]

I have been following Old School Sports Oakland A's series on YT and regardless of the reason(s) for the increase over time of Fragile and Wrecked tags on players it is certainly noticeable.

In light of the fact all we can see is a static category for injury proneness, I have to say I don't care for how the game is working this year. I preferred the way it used to work with less movement between stages or "creep" if that is what you want to call it.

Do I have objective data, no. But it sure feels out of whack this year. I have said before I have zero interest in having the OOTP guts revealed, but I cannot say I have been pleased with how injury proneness is handled in '25.

One last point, if a 16 or 17 year old was Fragile, they wouldn't even be playing baseball. It is overdone across the board, I much preferred the older way it was implemented where it seems they can recover w/o a loss of category and its future effects on a player.

[thenewchuckd]

From what I have observed, OOTP has been like this for many versions now. I complained about it in my complaint thread. I believe it is because crazy minor injuries add up, which eventually means the big injury hits and boom the guy is fragile or wrecked. Especially bad if you draft the guy out of high school.

The flu and bruised knees should not result in an injury slippery slope.

Even moderate injuries on young platers should get a forgiveness.

Yes, there are some injuries (eg: hamstring) that can linger. And major injuries can make you more prone. Guys later in their career may have more difficulty recovering (even from minor injuries). However, especially for young players, this should be the exception and not the rule.

Usually once I see a guy start to pick up 2-3 minor injuries in one season, I start to think about trading him away before he becomes fragile.

PS If it is player fatigue, can we get a better indicator? I am always resting guys once they go under 100% and still have these issues.

[Sweed]

Again are we only looking at the term fragile/wrecked and not looking at how much time players actually miss?

The SP I talk about in my first post I went and looked at in my game. He's been gone now for 10 seasons. In one of those seasons he started "only" 26 games. The other 9 he has always been between 28 and 30 starts while having the "wrecked" label for all of those seasons. IOW as a "wrecked" player he is missing about 2 starts per season. His biggest problem is with all of the injuries he did lose one point off of his stamina, going from 5 down to 4 on the 2/8 scale. This does mean he will probably finish around a 160 innings pitched as a ceiling for a season.

I'd say fragile and wrecked are just words used by the game. It doesn't mean 90 yrs old with brittle bones and arthritis. They could just as easily be labeled "more prone" and "most prone". Would we question a 17 yr old playing if a scout described him as "more prone" to injury?

We just went from having a "disabled list" to an "injured list". Disabled in the older versions didn't actually mean disabled in the general sense of the word.

I'm still not saying there isn't an issue as I haven't dug deep into the data of my game. But like many things with OOTP what are we asking to be done to fix an issue, if we don't have data to show what needs fixing?

Personally I don't think much has changed in the labeling of injury proneness.
thenewchuckd comments "OOTP has been like this for many versions now" and I agree. So then back to the question, what is the result to these fragile and wrecked players? Are they actually missing too much time due to their injury history?

I've always seen a lot of fragile and wrecked players in my league. I also see many of those players playing against my team. Could be my impression is wrong as I don't sim out many seasons per version and without that large sample size I'm not "feeling" the change?

[Francoeurstein]

Originally Posted by Sweed

Again are we only looking at the term fragile/wrecked and not looking at how much time players actually miss?

The SP I talk about in my first post I went and looked at in my game. He's been gone now for 10 seasons. In one of those seasons he started "only" 26 games. The other 9 he has always been between 28 and 30 starts while having the "wrecked" label for all of those seasons. IOW as a "wrecked" player he is missing about 2 starts per season. His biggest problem is with all of the injuries he did lose one point off of his stamina, going from 5 down to 4 on the 2/8 scale. This does mean he will probably finish around a 160 innings pitched as a ceiling for a season.

I'd say fragile and wrecked are just words used by the game. It doesn't mean 90 yrs old with brittle bones and arthritis. They could just as easily be labeled "more prone" and "most prone". Would we question a 17 yr old playing if a scout described him as "more prone" to injury?

We just went from having a "disabled list" to an "injured list". Disabled in the older versions didn't actually mean disabled in the general sense of the word.

I'm still not saying there isn't an issue as I haven't dug deep into the data of my game. But like many things with OOTP what are we asking to be done to fix an issue, if we don't have data to show what needs fixing?

Personally I don't think much has changed in the labeling of injury proneness.
thenewchuckd comments "OOTP has been like this for many versions now" and I agree. So then back to the question, what is the result to these fragile and wrecked players? Are they actually missing too much time due to their injury history?

I've always seen a lot of fragile and wrecked players in my league. I also see many of those players playing against my team. Could be my impression is wrong as I don't sim out many seasons per version and without that large sample size I'm not "feeling" the change?

I don't have any data to support my claim, but I may gather some, idk. Time is precious and I'm not sure if I want to spend it collecting data for a game that doesn't even have a manual.

With that said, it certainly feels like the fragile & wrecked players on my team spent a lot of time on the IL. For fragile players it seems like they are prone to moderate injuries and frequent short IL stints. For wrecked players, they can hardly stay on the field at all. Most of them feel like a modern Royce Lewis or Byron Buxton.

To play devil's advocate, let's pretend I crunched some numbers and found there was little correlation between injury rate and injury proneness. Wouldn't that also be an issue? When you are running a team, a players injury proneness rating should absolutely be taken into account. When you boot up a quick-start or modern save, there are far less players with negative injury proneness ratings, but the ones whose ratings are poor tend to get injured more often -- this reflects reality.

[fredbeene]

<Snipped false information that may mislead users. Poster has been warned via another post.>

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by Francoeurstein

I don't have any data to support my claim, but I may gather some, idk. Time is precious and I'm not sure if I want to spend it collecting data for a game that doesn't even have a manual.

With that said, it certainly feels like the fragile & wrecked players on my team spent a lot of time on the IL. For fragile players it seems like they are prone to moderate injuries and frequent short IL stints. For wrecked players, they can hardly stay on the field at all. Most of them feel like a modern Royce Lewis or Byron Buxton.

To play devil's advocate, let's pretend I crunched some numbers and found there was little correlation between injury rate and injury proneness. Wouldn't that also be an issue? When you are running a team, a players injury proneness rating should absolutely be taken into account. When you boot up a quick-start or modern save, there are far less players with negative injury proneness ratings, but the ones whose ratings are poor tend to get injured more often -- this reflects reality.

I don't think you would find a lack of correlation at all. Wrecked would be injured more than fragile. Fragile would be injured more than normal etc. etc.

Here's a quick dirty look at my league using a filter for injury proneness. First pool is mlb players plus FA and the percent of each

MLB + FA 1357,
wrecked 118, .087
fragile 267, .197
normal 597, .439
durable 299, .220
iron man 76, .045

MLB + FA (age 28 and older) 720
wrecked 118 .163
fragile 166 .230
normal 239 .331
durable 121 .168
iron man 76 .106

28 yrs old is just a number I picked figuring 27 is still young and 29 is getting old. YMMV.


Add minor leaugers to the mix

MLB+FA+Minors 4959
wrecked 136, .027
fragile 538, .108
normal 2809, .567
durable 1392, .281
iron 84, .017

Approx 70% of the league has no on-going injury problem/rating.

Interesting that all wrecked are on the 28 and older list. Wrecked is not an issue for the younger players in my league.

Also interesting that all iron men are also on the 28 and older list.

This is a league that uses "High realistic modern day" for both long and short term injuries.

No surprise the percentages are lower when including the younger minor league players. After that I guess you can make of these numbers what you will. Unfortunately I'm in December so can't sort by players that are currently injured by category. I think that would be very interesting to see in real time mid to late season.

I get you don't want to take the time to get data but without it there is no definition of what the problem is, or if there is one. Let's say you believe 8.7% of MLB + FA players is too large a number and they need to be decreased. The question then becomes how much does it need to be lowered and how does that affect the league? If we lower wrecked and fragile won't more players stay in the league longer holding back minor leaguers thar are ready to move up? It's a complicated issue with a lot of variables that would have knock on effects. It's not something one can where one can just say "there are too many players with "x" IMHO.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by thenewchuckd

From what I have observed, OOTP has been like this for many versions now. I complained about it in my complaint thread. I believe it is because crazy minor injuries add up, which eventually means the big injury hits and boom the guy is fragile or wrecked. Especially bad if you draft the guy out of high school.

The flu and bruised knees should not result in an injury slippery slope.

Even moderate injuries on young platers should get a forgiveness.

Yes, there are some injuries (eg: hamstring) that can linger. And major injuries can make you more prone. Guys later in their career may have more difficulty recovering (even from minor injuries). However, especially for young players, this should be the exception and not the rule.

Usually once I see a guy start to pick up 2-3 minor injuries in one season, I start to think about trading him away before he becomes fragile.

PS If it is player fatigue, can we get a better indicator? I am always resting guys once they go under 100% and still have these issues.

I definitely see this as well, the weight of smaller injuries adding up over time and making any pitcher who still has good, starter-level stuff into their late 30s rare to non-existent unless you go in and edit them. I think this may also just reflect what modern baseball looks like though. Like, Verlander is an old man who pitches effectively, and Rich Hill just got recalled (although the fact that he's been in the minors all season is itself telling) and... who else is there?

I think it's just a combination of a few things:

1. Pitching is inherently hard on arms
2. In real life, virtually all pitchers will get injured eventually. It's not a matter of if.
3. In OOTP players simply don't become less injury prone over time. Injury "points" only grow.

I see this in my long-term dynasty where the all-time wins leader has I think 239 in spite of it having started in 1946 and currently being in 1973. That guy was all but impossible to use his last couple years in the league, like he was sooo injury prone that even with a pitch count he'd come out of a good half of his starts with some injury or other. Granted, at one point IRL in the early 60s when Early Wynn got #300, it was widely opined that he'd be the last of those, but even so there were guys by that period who, even before the rubber-armed 1970s, were well beyond that win total, which is as much a function of pitcher longevity as it is being good and having the good fortune of playing for a winning team.

To me the way of counterbalancing this would be to make 3 not true either by TCR or (and/or) the after-effects of certain injuries / their treatments. TJ, for example, should reset or at least lower arm injury ratings. Really, anything that leaves a player out for a long time, like a year or more, should at least have the chance of lowering injury ratings across the board because the player isn't playing (at the same time there are some things like a torn rotator cuff that pitchers just plain don't seem to come back from - even if they keep pitching, they have a timer on that arm).

[jcard]

Originally Posted by Sweed

I don't think you would find a lack of correlation at all. Wrecked would be injured more than fragile. Fragile would be injured more than normal etc. etc.

Here's a quick dirty look at my league using a filter for injury proneness. First pool is mlb players plus FA and the percent of each

MLB + FA 1357,
wrecked 118, .087
fragile 267, .197
normal 597, .439
durable 299, .220
iron man 76, .045

MLB + FA (age 28 and older) 720
wrecked 118 .163
fragile 166 .230
normal 239 .331
durable 121 .168
iron man 76 .106

28 yrs old is just a number I picked figuring 27 is still young and 29 is getting old. YMMV.


Add minor leaugers to the mix

MLB+FA+Minors 4959
wrecked 136, .027
fragile 538, .108
normal 2809, .567
durable 1392, .281
iron 84, .017

Approx 70% of the league has no on-going injury problem/rating.

Interesting that all wrecked are on the 28 and older list. Wrecked is not an issue for the younger players in my league.

Also interesting that all iron men are also on the 28 and older list.

This is a league that uses "High realistic modern day" for both long and short term injuries.

No surprise the percentages are lower when including the younger minor league players. After that I guess you can make of these numbers what you will. Unfortunately I'm in December so can't sort by players that are currently injured by category. I think that would be very interesting to see in real time mid to late season.

I get you don't want to take the time to get data but without it there is no definition of what the problem is, or if there is one. Let's say you believe 8.7% of MLB + FA players is too large a number and they need to be decreased. The question then becomes how much does it need to be lowered and how does that affect the league? If we lower wrecked and fragile won't more players stay in the league longer holding back minor leaguers thar are ready to move up? It's a complicated issue with a lot of variables that would have knock on effects. It's not something one can where one can just say "there are too many players with "x" IMHO.

First, I appreciate that you took the time to compile and then document this data. I do have one question. If I am reading your first two tables correctly, there are 637 MLB or FA players in your league—and ZERO are rated either Wrecked or Iron Man (versus a combined 27% of the 28+ cadre of 720 players)? Do you know why that is? For example, did you change versions of OOTP between the points when players now age 28 and 27, respectively, were first generated?

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by jcard

First, I appreciate that you took the time to compile and then document this data. I do have one question. If I am reading your first two tables correctly, there are 637 MLB or FA players in your league—and ZERO are rated either Wrecked or Iron Man (versus a combined 27% of the 28+ cadre of 720 players)? Do you know why that is? For example, did you change versions of OOTP between the points when players now age 28 and 27, respectively, were first generated?

I import my game into each new version and play two or three seasons per version. So depending on when my current 27-28 yr old players came into the league (high school, college) they were generated anywhere from one to five versions ago, I think. Not 100% sure when OOTP generates international players for discovery or signing meaning I have no idea what version those 27/28's were create in.

As thenewchuckd said

"From what I have observed, OOTP has been like this for many versions now".

I agree with this so don't think the version the players were generated in make a difference. Though I suppose it's possible the players in my game came in with a v24 and before rating bypassing a potential problem that occurs if one creates a new league in v25.

I was surprised at the clean break on the 27/28 age line. I could "guess" that both wrecked and iron man take time to be "made" as both are a result of injuries or lack of injuries over time before one gets the rating. At least I don't recall ever seeing a wrecked player in an OOTP generated draft class. I don't run feeders so can't comment on those players getting injured enough to become wrecked.

As I said earlier I'm not saying there isn't a problem and I recognize my league being imported from version to version isn't the best test, but it's all I've got. I became curious about how many of each type of player was in my league and figured a filter would be easy to build and find out. As I did this I figured I'd post what I saw and others would hopefully do the same. It took me longer to type the post than sort the players in the game.

[jcard]

Originally Posted by Sweed

I import my game into each new version and play two or three seasons per version. So depending on when my current 27-28 yr old players came into the league (high school, college) they were generated anywhere from one to five versions ago, I think. Not 100% sure when OOTP generates international players for discovery or signing meaning I have no idea what version those 27/28's were create in.

As thenewchuckd said I agree with this so don't think the version the players were generated in make a difference. Though I suppose it's possible the players in my game came in with a v24 and before rating bypassing a potential problem that occurs if one creates a new league in v25.

I was surprised at the clean break on the 27/28 age line. I could "guess" that both wrecked and iron man take time to be "made" as both are a result of injuries or lack of injuries over time before one gets the rating. At least I don't recall ever seeing a wrecked player in an OOTP generated draft class. I don't run feeders so can't comment on those players getting injured enough to become wrecked.

As I said earlier I'm not saying there isn't a problem and I recognize my league being imported from version to version isn't the best test, but it's all I've got. I became curious about how many of each type of player was in my league and figured a filter would be easy to build and find out. As I did this I figured I'd post what I saw and others would hopefully do the same. It took me longer to type the post than sort the players in the game.

Thanks again for the time. I was not trying to make the case that something was broken; I was just curious about the break and wanted to be sure that (a) I was interpreting the data correctly and (b) you had not accidentally transcribed the Wrecked and Iron Man numbers when writing your post.

One clarification: I used 28 and 27 as the seeming break point, but of course it could have happened before that (say, between the generation of the current 31- and 30-year-olds).

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by jcard

Thanks again for the time. I was not trying to make the case that something was broken; I was just curious about the break and wanted to be sure that (a) I was interpreting the data correctly and (b) you had not accidentally transcribed the Wrecked and Iron Man numbers when writing your post.

One clarification: I used 28 and 27 as the seeming break point, but of course it could have happened before that (say, between the generation of the current 31- and 30-year-olds).

Yeah, understood you weren't taking a position on whether there's something broke or not.

As far as the 27/28 break goes, that is the only sort I ran. It could be if I did 28/29 there would be zero wrecked/iron men in the 28 and under class. It would be easy enough to change the test upwards to 29,30, 31 etc. to find where those ratings come into play. I may do that later today, but like yesterday I have places to be this morning and may or may not get to it.

One could go way deeper than I did using the sorts. Look into player stats of the wrecked and fragile to see how many games they played, IP, PA etc. last season and the 2? before (I think the sorts are last/2 yr/ and 3yr ago?). Looking at each players injury log on their player card gives a lot of info but is time consuming. One could do the same by scrolling the players from the sort page and just have it on the pitching or batting stat page to see their career in a year to year format, again time consuming, but easier on the eyes than the injury history page IMHO.

[jpeters1734]

Originally Posted by thenewchuckd

From what I have observed, OOTP has been like this for many versions now. I complained about it in my complaint thread. I believe it is because crazy minor injuries add up, which eventually means the big injury hits and boom the guy is fragile or wrecked. Especially bad if you draft the guy out of high school.

The flu and bruised knees should not result in an injury slippery slope.

Even moderate injuries on young platers should get a forgiveness.

Yes, there are some injuries (eg: hamstring) that can linger. And major injuries can make you more prone. Guys later in their career may have more difficulty recovering (even from minor injuries). However, especially for young players, this should be the exception and not the rule.

Usually once I see a guy start to pick up 2-3 minor injuries in one season, I start to think about trading him away before he becomes fragile.

PS If it is player fatigue, can we get a better indicator? I am always resting guys once they go under 100% and still have these issues.

This is spot on. Regardless of what the numbers of "wrecked" players are, things like a cold should not increase the proneness rating nor should very minor injuries when a player is young

[jcard]

Originally Posted by Sweed

Yeah, understood you weren't taking a position on whether there's something broke or not.

As far as the 27/28 break goes, that is the only sort I ran. It could be if I did 28/29 there would be zero wrecked/iron men in the 28 and under class. It would be easy enough to change the test upwards to 29,30, 31 etc. to find where those ratings come into play. I may do that later today, but like yesterday I have places to be this morning and may or may not get to it.

One could go way deeper than I did using the sorts. Look into player stats of the wrecked and fragile to see how many games they played, IP, PA etc. last season and the 2? before (I think the sorts are last/2 yr/ and 3yr ago?). Looking at each players injury log on their player card gives a lot of info but is time consuming. One could do the same by scrolling the players from the sort page and just have it on the pitching or batting stat page to see their career in a year to year format, again time consuming, but easier on the eyes than the injury history page IMHO.

All true—but I hope I did not give the impression of recommending or requesting additional analysis. Anything you wish to undertake and share is of course appreciated, but should be a product of your initiative alone.

[thenewchuckd]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

To me the way of counterbalancing this would be to make 3 not true either by TCR or (and/or) the after-effects of certain injuries / their treatments. TJ, for example, should reset or at least lower arm injury ratings. Really, anything that leaves a player out for a long time, like a year or more, should at least have the chance of lowering injury ratings across the board because the player isn't playing (at the same time there are some things like a torn rotator cuff that pitchers just plain don't seem to come back from - even if they keep pitching, they have a timer on that arm).

I agree with you for the long term injuries. My gripe is about the flu, bruised knees and the like. From what I've seen every injury - no matter how minor - impacts the injury rating. This just shouldn't be (at all for some injuries and should be lessened for younger players).

I might say - well the development lab does what you in particular are asking for. I've been able to get nice injury improvements (occasionally). If I have a top prospect with normal IP, and he starts to pick up these minor injuries, he's for sure going that route. On the other hand, unless you manually add more, you only have 6 spots at the development lab (and in a good season you'll only succeed 3/10 times). So 1) it doesn't solve the issue and 2) it is pure random, which I hate

I might do another rant post about why drafting college players in early rounds is so OP as compared to high schoolers, this is just one example.

[thenewchuckd]

Also, I'd like to see the addition of a sports science page. To tell me things like:

1) My young pitcher / position players have player enough this season (to get ratings bumps or whatever). Obviously, the less they play, the less chance of injury.

2) If they have some sort of hidden fatigue that I can't see that is bumping their injury rating (I keep seeing people imply this)

3) To manage pitchers. There seems to be an implication of a certain number of pitches required at different league levels. I'd like an option to have my sports scientist set this optimally - both to stave off pitchers getting the "overuse" injury bump and to avoid injuries in game. Also, an option to cap the number of pitches no matter what. I don't care if my dude is throwing a no-hitter, I don't want him pitching 130 pitches in a game.

ETC - whatever this position could do to manage injuries that I can't see in the game (because there is no manual or this stuff is just hidden). To help me playing the game to have the tools to make these kinds of decisions.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by jpeters1734

This is spot on. Regardless of what the numbers of "wrecked" players are, things like a cold should not increase the proneness rating nor should very minor injuries when a player is young

Originally Posted by thenewchuckd

I agree with you for the long term injuries. My gripe is about the flu, bruised knees and the like. From what I've seen every injury - no matter how minor - impacts the injury rating. This just shouldn't be (at all for some injuries and should be lessened for younger players).

I've never thought that cold or flu would have any influence on the injury rating. It's just an assumption based on common sense and not based in looking at any type of data.

Have either of you confirmed that cold/flu do have an affect on injury ratings? I don't go into the detailed player editor very often but with your posts in mind I just opened it up to what is there.

I found entries for overall, arms, legs, and back. I then sorted my MLB by all players and filtered for Iron Man. I found two players that never had an injury, and two that had only had a cold or flu. There are more but I stopped at two or each.

Every player had at least a 1 in overall. One player that never had an injury in had a 1 in each category. Another player that over 18 pro yrs, 5+ MLB years had an ear ache and flu showed the same 1 in all four categories.

These are scales of 1-200. Are we sure things like flu are being added to the scale. My sort had 59 Iron Men and when looking at them in the editor I'm not seeing evidence that those flu injuries had any affect. IE some had flu/cold but still had a rating of 1 in overall.

There were Iron Men that had an overall that was greater than 1. All of those guys had arm, leg, or back ratings that were higher than 1 despite never having an injury to any of those areas of the body. An example I looked at was a 10 year pro, had flu once, no other injuries. His injury ratings on the 1-200 scale in the editor were..
overall... 3
back..... 1
leg....... 1
arm..... 2
Was the overall 3 because of flu? IDK as stated above I have players that had the flu but were still a 1.

For a look at a "new" player I found a guy in Toronto's complex. 17 yrs, just discovered, so no games played, and no injuries in his history, but still labeled as fragile. His ratings..
overall.... 126
back...... 128
leg........ 130
arm...... 131

Not sure what all of this shows? Players are created with a tendency to become Iron Man down to wrecked? All Iron Men are created with ratings under 10 and as low as four ones?

Perhaps the overall encompasses all of the non-physical injuries like cold and flu? If so this would suggest that while it may increase due to a bout with cold/flu it wouldn't make them more likely to suffer a hamstring injury. Rather it makes them more likely to have a cold or flu again? Some people are more susceptible than others so, if it works this way, that would be realistic.

I've done this "on the fly" so make of it what you will. My best guess is flu/cold is only more likely to bring on more cold/flu. Bruised knees and other minor nagging injury? I don't know. But from what I have seen is players that
quickly become fragile etc. were probably created with a higher number in their body injury scales. IOW players aren't all created with zero (nor should they be) and only luck controls the path they travel. Take the 17 year old example above with ratings of 128-131 for body parts. This could take into account his life up to that point. Perhaps he crashed his bike when he was 12 and broke his leg, sustained an arm injury playing HS, Little League, or travel ball?

In the end I'm still not seeing data showing the affect of these injury labels with regard to how much the players actually play. Instead it seems we read "wrecked" or "fragile" and assume it is a problem that needs a fix. Looking around my league I'm not seeing it, but that is admittedly with a pitifully small sample size.