|
Further to this, I'm taking a look at individual players. I have a strong suspicion that OOTP players are suffering more long-term injuries than individual players do in real life. In other words, players get hurt in real life and often multiple times, but I don't think OOTP is distributing injuries on an individual basis. The randomness factor is leading some players to get injured so many times that it defies their injury proneness ratings and skews their performances dramatically compared to real life.
For example, in my current game, which began in 1978 and just finished the 1980 season, Jack Clark was injured 8 times in 3 seasons.
He had 2 day-to-day injuries and 6 injuries that lasted weeks at a time, including 3 that lasted 5 weeks or more.
3 of his long-term injuries happened during a 90-day period toward the end of 1980. That seems a bit extreme.
Yet the editor claims he has an injury proneness of just 70 on a 200 scale. How is a player with 70 injury proneness suffering 8 injuries in 3 seasons with 6 of them knocking him out for long durations? Does OOTP pay any attention to the lengths and numbers of injuries per player to make sure that there is a proper distribution compared to real life tendencies?
Another player, Fred Lynn, has been injured 8 times in 3 seasons, including 5 injuries in 1980 alone. He has suffered from major injuries that include a partially torn labrum (6-7 weeks); a separated shoulder (2-3 weeks); and now a torn labrum that has sidelined him for 10 months.
Yet his overall injury proneness is 96 out of 200 and his arm injury proneness is the same 96 out of 200. So how is a player with average injury proneness suffering through all of this? And why do I see many players having the same problems despite having average or below average injury proneness?
Bobby Grich, a player with 69 injury proneness, has also been injured 8 times in 3 seasons. His injuries, however, have tended to be shorter, so half were day-to-day and the other half were longer term.
Interestingly, while his leg injury proneness is only 33 out of 200, 5 of his 8 injuries have been to his legs.
Obviously we're looking at limited sample sizes here, but I'm trying to understand why OOTP injuries occur, what effect the injury ratings have on them, and why some players seem to be suffering more injuries than others. Their injury proneness doesn't seem to provide an explanation in many cases.
Looking at various historical player profiles, I don't see a clear correlation between injury proneness and real life stats anyway. It looks like proneness is assigned randomly but that the distribution of injury events is also highly random.
It's looking like starter vs. bench status and possibly other factors are coming into play much more than injury proneness itself, which I think should be the biggest factor. Yes, being on the field should increase injury chances, but should it be a huge multiplier that renders injury proneness almost meaningless?
I'm seeing plenty of bench players with injury proneness over 100, but they aren't getting injured very often, and they don't seem to sustain some of the repeated, long-term injuries that I see from starters. Some of that should be expected from lower usage, but it looks suspiciously like usage is trumping proneness by a long shot.
Maybe I'm going down the wrong rabbit hole here, but constantly dealing with these rashes of injuries and seeing historical player deviate dramatically from their real life usage is frustrating and ruins a lot of the fun in OOTP. Yes, I could turn injuries to low or very low, but then that can skew the stats the other way.
To me, it seems like something is out of balance, and the way to fix it is not to push it out of balance in the other direction.
|