Injuries- Too much?

[conception]

I know a variety of opinions exist on what settings are best for injuries, and I wanted to get some input by those who have experimented some. I have a team in a fictional league operating on "average" injury settings. I've begun to notice the high number of injuries that occur on this setting, and wondering if it may be too much. While I love some injuries in there to mix things up and provide a challenge, its beginning to hinder my enjoyment some because I rarely see top-level players last for long stretches in the league, even those who don't seem to be injury prone. It's seeming to me like it will be almost impossible for guys to reach realistic statistical milestones under current settings.

To put things in perspective, here is a summary of injuries that my team has experienced just in this year, admittedly a bad year for injuries:
Starting SS injured in June for 7 months
Backup SS also injured for Several Weeks
Starting 3B injured for a month
1B/Dh injured for several weeks
DH/1b injured for several weeks as well
LF Injured for 3 months, After being injured for two weeks
RF injured for 11 months, potential-zapping injury
Backup RF injured for a month, then two weeks
SP out 3 months
SP out 1 month
SP out two weeks
CL out two weeks

I'm positive several other guys had DL stints as well, and of course many dtd injuries. This list doesn't include guys who have been injured at the top levels of the minors that could be called up. I was just wondering how many people here play with injuries on low, and how it affects their game experience. I still want the injury prone guys to be just that- injury prone- and was wondering how other settings worked for this.

I was also wondering if you guys thought this injury list was realistic, like in real life. Keep in mind, very few of the players on my list are "injury prone" as I usually deal those guys that miss an inordinate amount of time.

[Raidergoo]

Originally Posted by conception

I know a variety of opinions exist on what settings are best for injuries, and I wanted to get some input by those who have experimented some.

If you want realistic, turn on the hardest setting.

MLB Baseball Injuries - CBSSports.com

Check this page out in May. Compare your league's Under the Knife page to the data at CBS.

Last season, the Reds used 26 position players and 25 pitchers. Ever go through 51 players in a season?

[conception]

Originally Posted by Raidergoo

If you want realistic, turn on the hardest setting.

MLB Baseball Injuries - CBSSports.com

Check this page out in May. Compare your league's Under the Knife page to the data at CBS.

Last season, the Reds used 26 position players and 25 pitchers. Ever go through 51 players in a season?

I understand what you are saying, but I did not include in my list that I began the seasons with 6 already on the 60 day DL from the previous season. None of these were centerpieces of my team however. I have certainly used at least 40 players this year, but a game like OOTP does not require the type of roster moves that real life does because teams do not have to do such moves as calling up a third catcher for a double header, extra pitchers in those situations as well. In comparison to these lists, the average setting is comparable because many of the guys included on these lists are fringe players at best, and if I included those my list would nearly double. It is worth noting that my team has only 3-4 members above thirty, and most are in the peak of their careers.

[gmo]

This particular case may be an extreme example the other way, but I have to agree that at least through the history of the game I have seen it definitely is light in the injuries. It may be interesting to see more reports from other teams in your league. However, reports like this of seemingly inexplicably high rates of injuries seem rare.

There can be a thin line between too few injuries and then so many it frustrates. But there is more to injuries than number/frequency - there is also at least duration and performance cost. That makes injuries seem a very tough problem for simulating. Some ratings being just off affects numbers slightly over the long haul influencing a PA at a time. But injuries can span such a period that small deviations can have longer term effects.

[Nukester]

I usually keep my injuries on low from the deadball era through around the 50's and its worked out fine for me. I still get a ton of injuries across the league, but back then guys would play through alot of these injuries, whereas nowadays they mostly wouldnt.

[1998 Yankees]

Originally Posted by Nukester

I usually keep my injuries on low from the deadball era through around the 50's and its worked out fine for me. I still get a ton of injuries across the league, but back then guys would play through alot of these injuries, whereas nowadays they mostly wouldnt.

This is an interesting observation. It probably explains why I enjoy the game with injuries set to low; there's more than enough at that setting for my tastes. Also, I guess I do tend to admire the game more from the perspective of when it peaked in the mid-20th century IMO, hence my preference for more complete games, less platooning, etc.

[ctorg]

I find that if I set injuries low, I get too many guys with long and successful careers. I've already found that OOTP produces too many top level players. I ran those HOF test numbers on a couple of long-running leagues of mine and found that OOTP had far, far more HOF-level players than real life. It was like several times the number. And that was with injuries set to normal. So if you're going to set injuries low, you might want to set it so that players age faster.

[1998 Yankees]

Originally Posted by ctorg

So if you're going to set injuries low, you might want to set it so that players age faster.

Good point; I'm only 20 seasons in with my current league and this OOTP version, so I may begin seeing some HoF "inflation" that you speak of with injuries set to low. Faster aging might then be the answer, if I'm not inclined to more DL transactions every year. Thanks for the tip.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by ctorg

I find that if I set injuries low, I get too many guys with long and successful careers. I've already found that OOTP produces too many top level players. I ran those HOF test numbers on a couple of long-running leagues of mine and found that OOTP had far, far more HOF-level players than real life. It was like several times the number. And that was with injuries set to normal. So if you're going to set injuries low, you might want to set it so that players age faster.

Interesting point and possible solution. However I find that injuries to pitchers seem to be very low. I often go through whole seasons with 13-14 pitchers used on an 11 pitcher staff. Starting pitchers seem to be supermen as they rarely miss any starts.

The algorithm seems to be all or nothing. If you do get an injury it is 4 weeks or 4-12 months. I'd like to see many more 5-10 day pitcher injuries (1 or 2 starts) to push pitcher usage up to 18-20 per team.

[ctorg]

I'd actually like to see the whole injury system done differently, with gradual healing and the potential for coming back too soon and reinjuring and all that nice stuff. But I doubt that's high on the priority list.

[conception]

Originally Posted by ctorg

I'd actually like to see the whole injury system done differently, with gradual healing and the potential for coming back too soon and reinjuring and all that nice stuff. But I doubt that's high on the priority list.

That's a great idea, I've heard it discussed before. I really wish there were more short injuries, not just the DTD variety. I don't mind the amount of injuries, but the duration stinks. I would also like to see nagging injuries, if possible, sort of like DTD but instead it is tacked onto the end of a normal injury.

[injury log]

Long discussion here about injuries and realism, with real life data and some interesting (or not) tangents:

http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...-injuries.html

[Nukester]

As that link to the other injury thread says, Im sure the real life game of baseball has more injuries than there are if set in game to low, but I find the low setting to still be fun for me. I felt myself getting annoyed at the amount when set to normal. Not just for my team, but the league as a whole. I dont have a problem with the number of HoF players because I have my settings for HoF higher than the default setting

[StyxNCa]

Originally Posted by Raidergoo

If you want realistic, turn on the hardest setting.

MLB Baseball Injuries - CBSSports.com

Check this page out in May. Compare your league's Under the Knife page to the data at CBS.

Last season, the Reds used 26 position players and 25 pitchers. Ever go through 51 players in a season?

For modern day, when players sit out 3 weeks for stubbed toe with the exception of Cal Ripken, the settings are realistic on normal. For the early years, which my league is set, when players would play through 2 broken legs, I use the low setting.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

For modern day, when players sit out 3 weeks for stubbed toe with the exception of Cal Ripken, the settings are realistic on normal. For the early years, which my league is set, when players would play through 2 broken legs, I use the low setting.

To be fair I think that modern players are told to sit out because of the high ticket contracts. I believe that the insurance teams carry for injuries may exclude injuries that are caused by playing hurt. You'll often hear a player say in code that the medical staff suggested he give it 3-5-10 days to heal. Seems more like an order than a suggestion.

Counterpoint. AJ Burnette. Lowest pain threshold in sports.

[wlight1]

Originally Posted by RchW

The algorithm seems to be all or nothing. If you do get an injury it is 4 weeks or 4-12 months. I'd like to see many more 5-10 day pitcher injuries (1 or 2 starts) to push pitcher usage up to 18-20 per team.

Man, this happens to me all the time (I play with out-of-the-box injury settings). My players are constantly getting "1-2 week" injuries, SPs included. I hate it because I don't want to put them on the DL but working around them on the active roster is a pain.

[conception]

Originally Posted by wlight1

Man, this happens to me all the time (I play with out-of-the-box injury settings). My players are constantly getting "1-2 week" injuries, SPs included. I hate it because I don't want to put them on the DL but working around them on the active roster is a pain.

I actually think more relievers should get hurt. My SP injuries are right where i want them, but relievers don't pitch a huge amount of innings and therefore the game doesn't injure them as often. I usually go through a lot of relievers, but thats only because I stockpile them (not hard to do in the draft) and have a short leash.

[turdfurgeson]

Originally Posted by ctorg

I find that if I set injuries low, I get too many guys with long and successful careers. I've already found that OOTP produces too many top level players. I ran those HOF test numbers on a couple of long-running leagues of mine and found that OOTP had far, far more HOF-level players than real life. It was like several times the number. And that was with injuries set to normal. So if you're going to set injuries low, you might want to set it so that players age faster.

Were your HOF requirements set to the default? I think that this really inflated my HOF. I had many pitchers inducted because they were under the default 3.5 era with more than 200 wins. Many pitchers had losing records.
Same went with the position players. If the default (dreaded V word) vorp is used many players that played many seasons became eligible despite mediocre careers.

Or am I missing something in HOF test numbers?

[tysok]

Originally Posted by turdfurgeson

Were your HOF requirements set to the default? I think that this really inflated my HOF. I had many pitchers inducted because they were under the default 3.5 era with more than 200 wins. Many pitchers had losing records.
Same went with the position players. If the default (dreaded V word) vorp is used many players that played many seasons became eligible despite mediocre careers.

Or am I missing something in HOF test numbers?

HOF test numbers would (I would guess) be black ink, grey ink, HOF Monitor, and HOF Standards... can find the info on them at baseball reference. I don't notice an inordinate amount players that should be in the HOF according to these tests though, except pitchers are far more likely to hit the marks than hitters are.

But it would have nothing to do with what the settings are for the game automatically inducting players.

[kagnew35]

Just started a 1970 test lg and had john valentine and reggie smith go down to CEI, in ST??????? Was set to normal.