More realistic injury file

[NomarHits400]

Originally Posted by injury log

I'm not trying to have it both ways - if I want to establish that something happens in real life, I only need one example of it happening to do so. There are certainly examples of players being injured in real life, and retiring very soon thereafter. I was responding to a few previous posts that said this never happens, when it very clearly does.

Understood. I was simply relating that if it never happens in the game, it would be closer to the truth, than if it always happens- as is the case now.



I agree entirely that this should be better modeled. I wrote quite a detailed post above outlining how I think OOTP could better model real life, so I won't reprise that here.

As Stu pointed out above, there are fairly severe limitations with OOTP's injury model, and there's a tradeoff: you can either have a fairly realistic number of CEIs which aren't always reported the way you'd expect, based on real life; or you can have too few CEIs, most of which are reported as in real life. That's simply down to personal preference, but fortunately it's an easy matter to either enable or disable 'instant' CEIs by modifying the injuries.txt file. My main point is that either way, your game will be realistic in some ways, and unrealistic in others.

I am sure that you are correct...And let me be clear: I am not meaning to belittle in any way the work you have done on this aspect of the game to make it better- it wasn't my intention to imply that whatever sweat equity you have invested in this was worthless. I understand you are only working within the confines of the game- and I am sure that Markus will eventually tweak this to more realistic levels. And while I would maintain that it needs some work, I can understand that to get it right is going to be a fairly difficult task. I am thankful that guys like you and Matter have taken t he time to make the game better.

[satchel]

Originally Posted by NomarHits400

No, it doesn't. Since when are "marginally effective" and "permanently ineffective" synonymous?...That's ridiculous.

"Marginally" must mean "on the margin between effective and ineffective" and you said that the player would "flounder...on benches" before leaving baseball—therefore the player fell on the "ineffective" side of the "margin." And, he did so "permanently" because he was never again effective, for the rest of his career.

[NomarHits400]

Originally Posted by satchel

"Marginally" must mean "on the margin between effective and ineffective" and you said that the player would "flounder...on benches" before leaving baseball—therefore the player fell on the "ineffective" side of the "margin." And, he did so "permanently" because he was never again effective, for the rest of his career.

What I said was may "flounder for several seasons". Yes, the implication was many of these guys WILL retire. There is, however, no way to know that up until that point- which I stated clearly. All of this is beside the point of the matter- which you did not disagree with; mainly that you would like to know the exact date and time a player is finished, so you can be rid of him. I would never play that way. We will never agree on this subject- but that doesn't change the premise of my argument that in real baseball you don't get a message right after a guy gets an injury informing you that he will no longer be as effective as his previous performance- and you can safely release him.....I find that ridiculous.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by NomarHits400

It does though. Again, it causes players to retire (in some cases)- because of the degradation to their skills- and not strictly (and immediately) because of the injury. In my mind, it makes the game act a little more realistically. Obviously, others disagree- that's fine. I don't even use the file in question- I have my own- but I know that it is possible to alter the injury model in the fashion described in this thread to at least moderate success. It certainly isn't perfect, but I prefer it over the default.

But it's still the same injury model, ie pick duration of injury then assign the appropriate injury itself. Nothing has changed except excluding instant CEI with the result, as has already been mentioned, less CEI than the real life this new file is trying to mimic.

As Stu said..

Original file:
- Realistic number of CEI injuries (as realistic as OOTP can get them)
- Not as realistic in how your arrive there (ie "instant" CEIs)

Edited file:
- Not a realistic number of CEI
- More realistic in how you arrive there (ie "setback" CEIs)

More realistic depends entirely on your viewpoint and which is more important to you. I don't think a lot of people understand the limitations of the injury system in OOTP and that problems exist that no injury file can fix.

Either way the current injury model is putting out results that are unrealistic in one fashion or another. You exchange one realism for another and it's up to you to decide which one you think is more realistic.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by OldFatGuy

And to add more food for thought, if it did model CEI's "more realistically" wouldn't that also require some other adjustments?

I mean, I'd always heard the "instant" CEI was a way to easily mimic RL without having to add in all the other financial options of insurance, etc. In other words, the game leaves out insurance and those choices/options as well as that additional revenue/expense stream, and by having CEI's being instant and a "free" release, this is a simple way of simulating all of that.

I guess I'm trying to say a lot of folks unhappy with the realism (or lack thereof) of the instant CEI's are then, I'm thinking, going to become also quite unhappy when their financials are totally out of control because they're having to pay millions over several years while the player "considers" retiring, meanwhile with no new revenues or offsets (like insurance), thus making it a double whammy. You've lost that stud AND you've lost millions in money to try and replace that stud.

It seems like the system does a decent enough job of simulating all of that in a very simple, straightforward way. But, like the game says, "It's your game; play it your way!"

This is a great point that I hope doesn't get lost in the discussion. If Markus takes on this injury model for v XI it certainly needs to take a hard look at how financials will be handled.

If we have to buy insurance on a case by case basis some will complain it's to much micromanaging. The next guy will complain it's unrealistic if insurance is assumed to be in place for all contracts and we don't have to buy it.

It's only my opinion but I'll stay with the default model as it gets me to realistic numbers and financial solutions albeit in a simplistic way.

[DUBBOH11]

The only question I have is does this file reduce the number long injures like 6 or 7 months and longer. Other than pitchers, I don't think there should be so many really long injuries. I saw the stats earlier in this thread, but i have nothing to compare these to. If someone knows the answer to which file gives less longer injuries and more shorter injuries please let me know.

[Malleus Dei]

Are you guys still arguing about this?

[injury log]

Originally Posted by Malleus Dei

Are you guys still arguing about this?

I think the discussion has moved on to: what would make OOTP's CEI model more realistic? Which is a useful discussion to have, since it might lead to improvements in future versions of the game.

[Malleus Dei]

Time for a new thread then, eh?

[PotatoPeeler]

So is Matter still working on this?

[sofla97]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/07/sp...exprod=myyahoo

interesting article by The New York Times on injuries in baseball.

[Flying Dutchmen]

Originally Posted by sofla97

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/07/sp...exprod=myyahoo

interesting article by The New York Times on injuries in baseball.

The chart alone is extremely useful for everyone who has been wondering whether the baseline years used to calculate the modern injury level baseline was atypical or not. It'd be great if the information behind it was more available.

[Le Grande Orange]

From the New York Times article:

Other theories include the belief that major leaguers, whose salaries are higher than ever, are less inclined to play with pain for fear of jeopardizing their lucrative careers...

This argument isn't new. Quoting from the book Baseball and Billions, published in 1992:

Economist Kenneth Lehn argues that long-term, guaranteed contracts have increased player disability rates. The average number of players on the disabled list was 89 between 1974 and 1976; that figure rose to 131 between 1977 and 1980. Part of this increase was due to a rise in the number of players, from 600 to 650 with baseball's expansion in 1977, but when that increase is adjusted for, the disability rate still increased 36.5 percent. The new contract structure lowered the cost to the players of being disabled, so they "consumed" more of it. Players have also become more careful about protecting their valuable physical assets and are less willing to play when partially disabled.

The footnote associated with the above passage adds the following:

Lehn also disaggregates the data and concludes that neither artificial turf nor additional innings pitched in the AL resulting from the designated hitter explained the increased disability.

The source for the passage is credited this way:

Lehn, Kenneth. "Property Rights, Risk Sharing, and Player Disability in Major League Baseball." In Sportometrics, ed. Brian Goff and Robert Tollison. College Station: Texas A & M University Press, 1990.

[discodude5]

Or, to summarize, the more you get paid the less you work.

[Curtis]

About the Mo Vaughn thing – the last time he was put on the DL, it was said ON THAT DAY that he would never play again. He waited another season and a half to retire because he was under contract, and he would continue to get paid until either he retired or his contract expired, whichever happened first. He never did another minute of rehab.

At that time we were told that insurance covered 80% of contracts for 'lost' players. I don't know whether that was universal, or could vary case by case. I also don't know whether it covers only injuries generally assumed to be career ending, or if they kick in anytime someone goes on the DL (or the 60 day DL). I'd appreciate it if someone who knows would report on this.

[Dr. Wu]

Originally Posted by Curtis

About the Mo Vaughn thing – the last time he was put on the DL, it was said ON THAT DAY that he would never play again. He waited another season and a half to retire because he was under contract, and he would continue to get paid until either he retired or his contract expired, whichever happened first. He never did another minute of rehab.

At that time we were told that insurance covered 80% of contracts for 'lost' players. I don't know whether that was universal, or could vary case by case. I also don't know whether it covers only injuries generally assumed to be career ending, or if they kick in anytime someone goes on the DL (or the 60 day DL). I'd appreciate it if someone who knows would report on this.

I don't know what contract insurance was like when Mo Vaughn stopped playing, but following a few incidents like that one (particularly, IIRC, the Albert Belle fiasco in Baltimore) contract insurance became extremely expensive, and my understanding is that it's rarely purchased anymore.

[Libid21]

Has he fixed the file yet?

[PhillieFever]

Originally Posted by Libid21

Has he fixed the file yet?

Dosen't need fixing as far as I know.

[Libid21]

So do most of you guys agree that this is an improvement?

[PhillieFever]

bump