What injury rate to use for 1901?

robc · 05-21-2010, 09:44 AM

What injury rate do you think is realistic for 1901? I have no idea if players were injured less back then. I have it set on normal now.

Thanks

knockahoma · 05-21-2010, 10:46 AM

Yo Rob.

I have no idea what the injury rate was in 1901. But ignorance is a thing to be embraced, not feared. If you look at the team rosters for 01, that may give ya an idea.

The injury rate was bugging me in OOTP. I didn't want to set the rate at low unless that's how baseball was. Simultaneously, I just didn't remember seeing such carnage on the DL lists back when I was growing up.

A poster a while back reminded me that back in the 70s (the era I play most) the disabled list was 21 days, not 15. And, teams could have only 3 players at a time on that list. Now, were players back in the day tougher, or just more expendable with such small salaries? Take yer pick. Whatever the cause, you didn't see 7, or 8 players on DL, as I see sometimes with injuries set to normal.

I set my 70s league to low and seems most teams have a few players on the list at a time. Once in a while, a team might have four. But, don't forget to set your DL to 21 days; I believe that affects AI decisions on whether to put people on the list in the first place.

Orange had a thread somewhere detailing the DL rules in early baseball. Maybe he can point you to that.

robc · 05-21-2010, 11:49 AM

Thanks. I set my DL to the max of 30-days in 1901 because that is the max and the DL didn't even exist. So, that is the best I can do.

Maybe I'll take a look at the rosters like you suggest and see how many games position players typically played. If they don't play nearly all the games they either get rested a lot or get injured a lot I guess.

DCG12 · 05-21-2010, 12:24 PM

I think the key is how many players import to start the league if this is the first season you are playing in this league. Set the injuries too high and you might not have enough players on the reserve roster to fill a position. After a few years and a few drafts you can always raise the injury level if you need too.

knockahoma · 05-21-2010, 01:35 PM

Quote:

I think the key is how many players import to start the league if this is the first season you are playing in this league. Set the injuries too high and you might not have enough players on the reserve roster to fill a position

Playing in God-Mode, I saw how often injured players forced the AI to do some pretty stupid stuff with defense positions. Firstly, I think the AI needs to add an extra middle-infielder to most historical 24 man rosters (or 25 if you wanna go with today's size). But when the game imports only 31 players for some 1974 team, you know times were different. There weren't 6 or 7 players on the IR. This is especially obvious when you look at the Reserve List breakdown. You might have only one extra true middle infielder, with 5 or 6 pitchers.

Out of curiousity,I might do a study for 1974 and see who was injured and who was called up due to an incumbent's poor performance.

Le Grande Orange · 05-21-2010, 03:18 PM

The chart below may be of interest. It's a graph of the average number of players who appeared on a major league team's roster during the regular season. It also shows the average number of pitchers who appeared.

Granted, much of the variation in the number of players used is related more to such things as active roster limits, changes in player acquisition rules, and the the like rather than injuries. But it may nevertheless prove useful to review.

Incidentally, the fewest number of players to be used by a major league team during a season (with the NA being classified as a major league for this purpose): 10, in 1872, 1876, and 1878. The most players used: 59, in 2002 and 2008.
.

micropterus58 · 05-21-2010, 04:03 PM

robc, Looking at the stats for 1901 it seems if you were a starter you played 130 out of the 140 games. It amazing to see how many players only missed a few games. Some pitching staffs only used 5 or 6 pitchers. You should probably set the injury rate to low or very low unless the player's injury ratings are already low.

Le Grand Orange, et al, Interesting graph. I understand the two dips in 1994 and 1981 due to strikes. Both seasons had less than 112 games played. The increase for 1946 may be due to players returning from WWII replacing the fill-ins from the previous five years. I can't figure out the spike in 1911. Anybody have an idea or theory?

robc · 05-21-2010, 04:04 PM

I looked at some 1901 rosters and there were a variety of number of games played. Don't know if the reason was injuries or other. I will keep it on normal ofr now and see how it goes. I have had 2 injuries in April, a 3 week and a 4 week.

ejbucs · 05-21-2010, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robc

I looked at some 1901 rosters and there were a variety of number of games played. Don't know if the reason was injuries or other. I will keep it on normal ofr now and see how it goes. I have had 2 injuries in April, a 3 week and a 4 week.

Fictional or Historical?

If Historical, I would set it lower, since you generally don't have enough players in your minors to fill in for your injured players.

knockahoma · 05-21-2010, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Le Grand Orange, et al, Interesting graph. I understand the two dips in 1994 and 1981 due to strikes. Both seasons had less than 112 games played. The increase for 1946 may be due to players returning from WWII replacing the fill-ins from the previous five years. I can't figure out the spike in 1911. Anybody have an idea or theory?

Maybe the advent of the Federal League? I think that league rammed up against MLB around 1912 or 1913. If a number of every-day players were plucked from MLB clubs, maybe the spike arises from teams trying out a number of new players.

robc · 05-21-2010, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ejbucs

Fictional or Historical?

If Historical, I would set it lower, since you generally don't have enough players in your minors to fill in for your injured players.

Fictional, so I have enough manpower.

05-21-2010, 09:44 AM	#1
robc Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,095	What injury rate to use for 1901? What injury rate do you think is realistic for 1901? I have no idea if players were injured less back then. I have it set on normal now. Thanks

05-21-2010, 10:46 AM	#2
knockahoma All Star Reserve Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 792	Yo Rob. I have no idea what the injury rate was in 1901. But ignorance is a thing to be embraced, not feared. If you look at the team rosters for 01, that may give ya an idea. The injury rate was bugging me in OOTP. I didn't want to set the rate at low unless that's how baseball was. Simultaneously, I just didn't remember seeing such carnage on the DL lists back when I was growing up. A poster a while back reminded me that back in the 70s (the era I play most) the disabled list was 21 days, not 15. And, teams could have only 3 players at a time on that list. Now, were players back in the day tougher, or just more expendable with such small salaries? Take yer pick. Whatever the cause, you didn't see 7, or 8 players on DL, as I see sometimes with injuries set to normal. I set my 70s league to low and seems most teams have a few players on the list at a time. Once in a while, a team might have four. But, don't forget to set your DL to 21 days; I believe that affects AI decisions on whether to put people on the list in the first place. Orange had a thread somewhere detailing the DL rules in early baseball. Maybe he can point you to that. Last edited by knockahoma; 05-21-2010 at 10:49 AM.

05-21-2010, 03:18 PM	#6
Le Grande Orange Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Up There Posts: 15,644	The chart below may be of interest. It's a graph of the average number of players who appeared on a major league team's roster during the regular season. It also shows the average number of pitchers who appeared. Granted, much of the variation in the number of players used is related more to such things as active roster limits, changes in player acquisition rules, and the the like rather than injuries. But it may nevertheless prove useful to review. Incidentally, the fewest number of players to be used by a major league team during a season (with the NA being classified as a major league for this purpose): 10, in 1872, 1876, and 1878. The most players used: 59, in 2002 and 2008. . Attached Images Last edited by Le Grande Orange; 05-21-2010 at 03:20 PM.

05-21-2010, 11:49 AM	#3
robc Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,095	Thanks. I set my DL to the max of 30-days in 1901 because that is the max and the DL didn't even exist. So, that is the best I can do. Maybe I'll take a look at the rosters like you suggest and see how many games position players typically played. If they don't play nearly all the games they either get rested a lot or get injured a lot I guess.

05-21-2010, 12:24 PM	#4
DCG12 All Star Starter Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Traveling through another dimension-not one of only sight and sound,but of mind. A journey into a wondrous land whose boundries are those of imagination. Posts: 1,161	I think the key is how many players import to start the league if this is the first season you are playing in this league. Set the injuries too high and you might not have enough players on the reserve roster to fill a position. After a few years and a few drafts you can always raise the injury level if you need too.

05-21-2010, 04:03 PM	#7
micropterus58 All Star Starter Join Date: May 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 1,241	robc, Looking at the stats for 1901 it seems if you were a starter you played 130 out of the 140 games. It amazing to see how many players only missed a few games. Some pitching staffs only used 5 or 6 pitchers. You should probably set the injury rate to low or very low unless the player's injury ratings are already low. Le Grand Orange, et al, Interesting graph. I understand the two dips in 1994 and 1981 due to strikes. Both seasons had less than 112 games played. The increase for 1946 may be due to players returning from WWII replacing the fill-ins from the previous five years. I can't figure out the spike in 1911. Anybody have an idea or theory?

05-21-2010, 04:04 PM	#8
robc Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 2,095	I looked at some 1901 rosters and there were a variety of number of games played. Don't know if the reason was injuries or other. I will keep it on normal ofr now and see how it goes. I have had 2 injuries in April, a 3 week and a 4 week.