"Innocuous" trainer visit a portent of doom?

[Art Deco]

I'm plugging along in my Rays save and just had a game in 2023 where Tyler Glasnow was mowing down Red Sox right and left (12Ks in 7 innings) and in the 5th, I got a message on the play-by-play that the trainer came out to examine his elbow, but he could stay in the game.

Does anyone know if this would have any significance with respect to making it more likely he gets hurt in the near future? Glasnow has an injury history and has missed weeks/months here and there in the four seasons I've been managing so is it just an artifact of him being more injury-prone or is it a precursor to an injury? I tend to think (hope) it's the former where the injury coin came up heads instead of tails, but I wonder if anyone's had an experience like this where an innocent trainer visit became something worse in the days/weeks to come.

[CBeisbol]

Almost certainly, no one has looked into this in enough detail to answer you

I, and I'm sure you have as well, have had the trainer come visit players and they are totally fine, and other times they are injured later in the season. The former, much more often.

Someone would have to study hundreds of visits to answer you. It is almost certain that no one has

[redranger]

Yep. I’d really be curious to know this too. Especially in regards to pitchers. I know when I see this, typically with position players it is a 50/50 on whether the player remains in game or is pulled. When I’ve seen this with a pitcher in my game and memory I don’t ever recall seeing the pitcher able to remain in game

It’s awesome that it does appear to happen

I would be very curious on a study of this to see if possibly in the coding for a set period of time (maybe days, weeks, or months) this might drop the player injury attribute a notch

Would be very cool to think it might be that complex, but maybe in reality it is just a dice roll that basis its decision on the player injury attribute with no future significance


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BIG17EASY]

If we knew exactly what a trainer visit would mean moving forward, that would take away the realism and decision-making that helps make this game so good. If this happens in real life, managers and general managers don't know if the pitcher is about to go down with an injury or if they'll be fine, so neither should we.

[BBGiovanni]

Originally Posted by BIG17EASY

If we knew exactly what a trainer visit would mean moving forward, that would take away the realism and decision-making that helps make this game so good. If this happens in real life, managers and general managers don't know if the pitcher is about to go down with an injury or if they'll be fine, so neither should we.

That's the thing. If it means nothing, like some of the text descriptions of fielding plays, that's fine. I have always thought it's just a marker for when the game needs to check to see if player x has been injured on a play, then it's a yes/no type thing. At the risk of jinxing myself, I'll note that (1) I play with injuries on very low and (2) I still see these statements fairly often and don't recall a player then being yanked because of injury. I definitely don't recall someone coming up injured the next day/postgame. So, at least at "very low" injuries I don't think it does anything.



If, on the other hand, it then flags the player to check again at greater likelihood/frequency, then as you point out there is a substantive decision to be made/risk to be assumed. Nobody needs (or wants, I assume) numbers attached to the percentages to game them, but it's entirely fair to expect to know if the text marker means something or doesn't.

[Syd Thrift]

I'm sure that injury prone players get more trainer trips than non-injury prone guys and they probably have more false positives as well, so I can see why you'd associate them with a lot of dread...