Injury rating in historical leagues

[Orcin]

When recalc is used, why are players with limited real-life playing time assigned a higher injury rating? Many of these players were likely playing in the minors instead of missing time with an injury. Injury ratings should be assigned based on career statistics, including minor league stats. If this can't be done, then all players should start their careers with a clean slate and a normal injury rating.

[Orcin]

Example: Detroit pitcher Ted Gray was in the minors in 1947.




Gray has no injury problems of note, but he is assigned a poor injury rating for the 1947 season because he spent no time in the majors. Here's the outcome.




Of course Gray could have suffered this injury anyway, but why make it more likely by assigning an erroneous injury rating when the data exists to make the correct assignment? He should be rated as "normal" so that he could pitch a full season in the minors, or majors depending upon the ratings assigned and the AI inclination.

[Spritze]

There is no injury rating field in the historical database.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by Spritze

There is no injury rating field in the historical database.

The game calculates the injury rating though. It is not random. So it must use data to do the calculation.

[Spritze]

afaik it is random on day 1 and proceeds from there

[Orcin]

If the game assigns injury ratings to players randomly, that's even worse. Either way, it should be addressed.

[Spritze]

The vast majority start with no rating (=fragile). fragile does not only mean fragile, it also means no rating yet. confusing but there it is.

[Orcin]

You must play a different game from me - maybe you are referring to your custom database. I am referring to the default database in the game as installed. I have looked in the editor with many different historical leagues. These players all have a rating, and I have never seen a player with zero rating or blank rating. The "fragile" players that I am discussing typically have 160 for overall and two categories with something below 100 in the other category (edit: the field that I am talking about is called "injury proneness"). Start a historical league with the default database and see for yourself. Then we can talk.

[Spritze]

I see what you see but we have differing opinions on the meaning.

Meaningless to start with since you gotta start somewhere and gains meaning/changes over time is mine.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by Spritze

I see what you see but we have differing opinions on the meaning.

Meaningless to start with since you gotta start somewhere and gains meaning/changes over time is mine.

From the OOTP 18 manual: "Players in OOTP have a hidden injury proneness rating that affects how likely they are to get injured." So, it is NOT "meaningless to start with" because a player with a higher injury proneness IS more likely to suffer an injury.

Again from the manual: "Players who experience injuries to certain areas of the body may become more prone to future injuries in that area." So a player may become injury-prone due to an incorrect injury proneness rating that was assigned initially. Where you start IS important.

Should the 1927 Babe Ruth start with a 50 rating in power and see where it goes? You gotta start somewhere, and you start by basing his power rating on the available data. Babe Ruth should import with one of the highest power ratings in the game, because that's what the stats say. Now, should 1927 Lou Gehrig import with an injury rating of 100 and see where it goes? No. Lou Gehrig should import as durable. He should have one the lowest injury proneness ratings in the game, because that's what the stats say.

The initially-assigned injury proneness rating does have meaning. The data exists to assign an accurate rating. Again I ask, why not do it?

[Spritze]

This issue was raised during beta and answered in detail there.

Bottom line is don't worry about it unless you just want to.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by Spritze

This issue was raised during beta and answered in detail there.

I am not on the beta team, so I have no idea of the discussion.

[Orcin]

Can anyone else on the beta team comment on why this issue should be ignored? Maybe there are just so few people that play historical leagues to make addressing it not worth the effort?