Quote:
Originally Posted by injury log
The facts are these:
-in OOTP, injury proneness increases as a player gets injured. Older players, and players with an injury history, are therefore more likely to be injured again. They are therefore more likely to incur a CEI. Because OOTP breaks proneness into categories by body part, a player with a previous arm injury is more likely to incur an arm injury CEI than a player without any history of arm injury. So to say that OOTP is incapable of modeling that 'at all, really' is simply incorrect;
-that said, OOTP does not model this properly, which is a different issue. Ideally OOTP would track which severe injuries a player had suffered in the past, and the type of each injury. A player who has returned from an elbow injury likely shouldn't be at increased risk of retiring if he goes on to suffer a serious finger injury. OOTP could do better here;
-because injury proneness increases over time, older players are also more likely than younger players to suffer a CEI in OOTP. I wouldn't say OOTP models this precisely, but the effect is built into the game.
I'd add that I'm not interested in discussing what amount to ad hominem arguments (saying an argument is not 'GOOD' doesn't make the argument any less good, no matter how many capital letters you use), and nor am I interested in discussing straw men (one example doesn't prove a rule, it only proves the example - to say something happened to Mo Vaughn only proves that what happened to Mo Vaughn can happen in real life, not that all players are like Mo Vaughn). I'll stick to the facts if everyone else can as well.
|
I don't recall "discussing" Mo Vaughn with you. In fact, I agree, Mo Vaughn has no relevance to your argument or mine. Nor did I mention him in regard to anything you posted...So I am unsure of why you are bringing him up. I used him as an example to another poster in regards to the complexity of determining if a player is "finished"- it isn't cut and dry, and it's part of the intrigue of game for me.....You are correct that one example doesn't prove anything- but if you disagree with that general premise, than no amount of examples will convince you anyway.....It's all beside the point of the general argument in any case. If you want to take issue with that statement, than do so under the context in which I presented it- and quote the appropriate thread.
In terms of the general injury model- which I DID take issue with, I will defer to your expertise and knowledge on how the game operates. To be clear: Whatever it's intent and mode of operation, I would prefer to never see a player- of any age- (although I agree it would be much more realistic for an older player) retire immediately because of one injury. Whatever the model is- I see this way too often. I maintain it can't be defended with statistics under these specific circumstances. You gave several examples- only a fraction of which were relevant to your point- about players retiring "suddenly" with a CEI. The others were just bad examples, and in any case, as you like to say:
...nor am I interested in discussing straw men (one example doesn't prove a rule, it only proves the example - to say something happened to Mo Vaughn only proves that what happened to Mo Vaughn can happen in real life, not that all players are like Mo Vaughn...
I would say that is spot on, and is why I maintain that citing one or two examples of a player that might have "retired" immediately- or close to it- because of a CEI is not evidence that this is general practice. You can't have it both ways.
I
think you are agreeing with me that this should be modeled better;
I am simply saying that I believe eliminating CEI's as they are currently construed will instantly make this part of the game better- as players will now retire due to eroding skills caused by the injury- but over time- not over night. I guess you don't agree with this part?