Injury Rating Creep

[thenewchuckd]

Originally Posted by Sweed

Have either of you confirmed that cold/flu do have an affect on injury ratings? I don't go into the detailed player editor very often but with your posts in mind I just opened it up to what is there.

Ah - since you made me doubt, I did a little sim for you. I tested with "cold", since this seems to me to be something that just should never impact injury rating.

I went into commish mode and gave 3 of my players the cold, 1 who is durable with 1 overall proneness (I think this is the lowest). He is the only guy of the three who recovered exactly the same (after the cold, he was still 1). So my best guess - there might be a % factor involved.

The other two guys went in both with exactly 90 overall. They both came out with 97 overall (another nod to perhaps a flat %).

90 up to 97 is not a small % !!! This is actually worse than I thought. And now it makes total sense how three minor injuries in one season just snowball. Even for something like a cold.

[thenewchuckd]

Originally Posted by Sweed

My best guess is flu/cold is only more likely to bring on more cold/flu. Bruised knees and other minor nagging injury? I don't know. But from what I have seen is players that

Nope. Overall injury is overall injury. It is true that cold bumped only two things: overall and "other". So two things are actually true: they're more likely to get injured & they're more likely to get the flu. However, they're also more likely to get an even more serious injury.

One injury might not make a "huge" deal (although an 8% increase in overall is nothing to sniff at). The issue is, you combine a cold, bruised knee and fractured hand in one season, it's a huge slippery slope.

Sure, it appears someone who is durable tends to stay durable. It's the guys in-between. It means, unless you're lucky, if you draft a "normal" 18 year old, he's highly likely to be fragile when he's 21. So at minimum, high schoolers should be always be born closer to "durable" and certainly not fragile; in order to have the same injury rating distribution as guys "born" as college players. Although for realism - a complete overhaul would be needed.

[thenewchuckd]

Originally Posted by Sweed

Interesting that all wrecked are on the 28 and older list. Wrecked is not an issue for the younger players in my league.

Also interesting that all iron men are also on the 28 and older list.

It is just a programming/variable classification. Their injury rating stayed the same, the game just won't classify them as iron man or wrecked until they're 28. Because, hey? Why not hide more things?

I *wish* there was more categories for a lot of things in the game. The devs might say, well hey those categories are the ones that matter. The trouble is that everything is a slippery slope.

For example, now we know that "iron man" guys will tend to stay "iron man" - minor injuries won't impact the rating (I'd have to test more on moderate and severe injuries - but guessing off-hand - initial injury rating likely always factors in).

Even guys who are on the fence of "low work ethic, intelligence, etc", may drop into those levels... Due to the game's fun way to tweak these things every now and then.

So, it all matters & the AI can see it all, which might also be a source of frustration.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by thenewchuckd

Ah - since you made me doubt, I did a little sim for you. I tested with "cold", since this seems to me to be something that just should never impact injury rating.

I went into commish mode and gave 3 of my players the cold, 1 who is durable with 1 overall proneness (I think this is the lowest). He is the only guy of the three who recovered exactly the same (after the cold, he was still 1). So my best guess - there might be a % factor involved.

The other two guys went in both with exactly 90 overall. They both came out with 97 overall (another nod to perhaps a flat %).

90 up to 97 is not a small % !!! This is actually worse than I thought. And now it makes total sense how three minor injuries in one season just snowball. Even for something like a cold.

Originally Posted by thenewchuckd

Nope. Overall injury is overall injury. It is true that cold bumped only two things: overall and "other". So two things are actually true: they're more likely to get injured & they're more likely to get the flu. However, they're also more likely to get an even more serious injury.

One injury might not make a "huge" deal (although an 8% increase in overall is nothing to sniff at). The issue is, you combine a cold, bruised knee and fractured hand in one season, it's a huge slippery slope.

Sure, it appears someone who is durable tends to stay durable. It's the guys in-between. It means, unless you're lucky, if you draft a "normal" 18 year old, he's highly likely to be fragile when he's 21. So at minimum, high schoolers should be always be born closer to "durable" and certainly not fragile; in order to have the same injury rating distribution as guys "born" as college players. Although for realism - a complete overhaul would be needed.

Glad to hear you are looking deeper. Like I said I'm certainly not an expert nor claiming there is not a problem. With regard to how much a rating increases (7/200 is a 3.5% increase, for a cold) we're still back at how do these injury designations from Wrecked to Iron Man affect games played, time missed, and stat output. Without that data one is down to guessing not only how to fix it, but also not knowing if a fix is needed. If they guess at a fix it affects every user.

I posted data earlier where I have filtered my league and noted how many of each rating I have. I have glanced down those players looking at how much time they are playing/have played and based on my cursory examination I'm not seeing an issue.

I'll give you a few more numbers from my league.

Lets start here..

It means, unless you're lucky, if you draft a "normal" 18 year old, he's highly likely to be fragile when he's 21.

My league.. this is MLB, Milb, Minors, FA, and Complex players
470 players are 21 year old
29 are fragile
.062

Not highly likely at all. At least in my game.

MLB, MiLB, FA, Complex
5922 players
587 fragile... .099
159 wrecked.. .027. youngest wrecked player is 26. there are 2 of those. So as I start my spring training something has changed in my game as all wrecked players on my last sort were 28 or older. Kind of messes up the "game is hiding things" theory.

All players 22 and older
3511 players
159 wrecked .027
Yes the same 159 as no players under 22 are wrecked
481 fragile .136

Only players that are 21 years old
470 players
29 fragile .062
Again, zero are wrecked


I'm seeing no likelihood of players being fragile at 21 unless 6.2% is considered likely.


Even if you or others think 6.2% is too much doesn't one still need to establish the effect of that on playing time and stat output? If injuries are reduced these players are playing more. What is the effect? Youngsters stuck in the minors or on the bench? What else?

21 and younger as a group
2411 players. Zero are wrecked.
106 fragile
of the 106 fragile..
20 are 16 yrs old
14 are 17 yrs old

Suggesting players are created fragile but not wrecked. IE all players did not start out as at least normal. Let's look at durable for these 16 and 17 yr olds
17 yrs durable 60
16 yrs durable 35
0 are Iron men

If there is a problem and a fix is needed it has to be based on more than there are too many players with wrecked or fragile labels.

[thenewchuckd]

This are injuries that happened (dynamically) in my current sim & their impact. Every injury has an impact, it seems based on current prone-ness.

overall
back
legs
arms

before after

Dan Baber 23
(crossed over into fragile with this injury - 11 point bump!)
sore elbow
125 136
39 39
72 72
192 200

Warren Brueggeman 21
rotator cuff strain
109 123
198 198
39 39
75 92

E Stuckley 24
Elbow Inflamation
87 98
44 44
76 76
95 107

Bobby Matos 24
Sore Knee
42 45
61 61
28 32
16 16

[thenewchuckd]

Originally Posted by Sweed

If there is a problem and a fix is needed it has to be based on more than there are too many players with wrecked or fragile labels.

As I said before, the label is meaningless, especially wrecked or iron man. I believe the rating corresponds to overall prone-ness. So you cross x overall prone-ness, you are fragile.

The caveat being that Iron Man and wrecked don't get labelled until a player is 27ish - you said 28 but I see them at 27 in my league. It is a simple - don't label this way until players are x age.

Higher injury prone-ness = more chance of injuries for a player. It is as simple as that. The label doesn't matter, it is down to the hidden prone-ness number.

[thenewchuckd]

Originally Posted by Sweed

(7/200 is a 3.5% increase, for a cold)

I meant increase from his current overall prone-ness. Before the cold, he was 90.After the cold he was 97. 7.8% increase (I rounded).

So a 7% increase from 1, comes back to 1 (the other dude I was talking about).

I'm not saying I've cracked the formula, small sample size.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by thenewchuckd

I meant increase from his current overall prone-ness. Before the cold, he was 90.After the cold he was 97. 7.8% increase (I rounded).

So a 7% increase from 1, comes back to 1 (the other dude I was talking about).

I'm not saying I've cracked the formula, small sample size.

Yeah I got what you were saying, I was just showing as a percentage increase of the 200 scale. My post was not meant as a "gotcha".

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by thenewchuckd

This are injuries that happened (dynamically) in my current sim & their impact. Every injury has an impact, it seems based on current prone-ness.

overall
back
legs
arms

before after

Dan Baber 23
(crossed over into fragile with this injury - 11 point bump!)
sore elbow
125 136
39 39
72 72
192 200

Warren Brueggeman 21
rotator cuff strain
109 123
198 198
39 39
75 92

E Stuckley 24
Elbow Inflamation
87 98
44 44
76 76
95 107

Bobby Matos 24
Sore Knee
42 45
61 61
28 32
16 16

Originally Posted by thenewchuckd

As I said before, the label is meaningless, especially wrecked or iron man. I believe the rating corresponds to overall prone-ness. So you cross x overall prone-ness, you are fragile.

The caveat being that Iron Man and wrecked don't get labelled until a player is 27ish - you said 28 but I see them at 27 in my league. It is a simple - don't label this way until players are x age.

Higher injury prone-ness = more chance of injuries for a player. It is as simple as that. The label doesn't matter, it is down to the hidden prone-ness number.

Again how does fragile/wrecked, determined by those ratings, affect the players actual career in games played and output? I still haven't seen any player stat history that suggests injuries as currently done has broken anything. I am certainly open to it and I would think at a minimum it is the only way anyone will convince Matt or Markus to make a change.

I posted earlier that I think part of the problem is how the proneness is named. Wrecked makes people think they can't play and fragile they can't be trusted to play enough. Of course the actual rating under the hood is the determiner, but the "bad" labels seem to be misinterpreted by the user, having them think those players are now useless. And we're back to games played and stat output, at least IMHO, is the only way to measure the effect.

I'm to the point of thinking if the game had been coded to require a higher number on the 200 scale to trigger wrecked and fragile we wouldn't be having the conversation. IE if 150/200 triggers wrecked but they had coded it to 190/200 users would see a lot less wrecked players. Same for fragile , if currently it's 125/200 but had been done as 175/200 and there would be a lot less fragile too.

[liberty-ca]

Originally Posted by Sweed

I posted earlier that I think part of the problem is how the proneness is named. Wrecked makes people think they can't play and fragile they can't be trusted to play enough. Of course the actual rating under the hood is the determiner, but the "bad" labels seem to be misinterpreted by the user, having them think those players are now useless. And we're back to games played and stat output, at least IMHO, is the only way to measure the effect.

Here. This is how I was approaching this matter when I first picked up the game six years ago. It took me 2-3 years to change my ways of how I assess pros and cons when, for example, I shop for free agents - since then I look at number of games those fragile and wrecked guys played in a season.

[Sweed]

Before I go here is a quick look at stats of wrecked and fragile players in my league. The sample is small and limited to the stats of my last season completed. Meaning if a injured guy didn't play at all last year and retired he doesn't show up in the sort. It's the best I'm going to do late at night with a golf match in the morning.

Edit: All stats come from a league that uses "modern day realistic" for both long term and short term injuries.

I'm not going to write out all of the data as there will be screen shots at the bottom. The stats include all levels even though filtered to MLB players. This was so I could see the stats for the entire season and not have players have 100 PA at MLB but 300 more at AAA, same thing for pitchers. So the short version..

Fragile batters from my last season.
164 total
156 had at least 100 PA
with 86 of those having at least 400 PA

Wrecked batters
78 total
73 had at least 100 PA
with 33 of those having at least 400 PA
1 had less than 50 PA

Starting Pitchers. These are only current MLB SP though the screen has minors and FA included.

SP that are wrecked
12 total
10 of those threw at least 100 innings.
The 2 that didn't throw 100 went 77.1 and 56.2

Screens are both of wrecked batters and pitchers and you'll see at the top that both minors and FA options are checked. Scope is "all levels', split is last year. Should give a decent look at what I am seeing. Didn't have time to get fragile done too. I do see I messed up the batter screen shot as it's scope is MLB only while the stats above are from a "all levels" scope I used before taking the screen. For clarity it's still the same 78 wrecked batters, and as you can see they got plenty of MLB AB's.

With what I see in my league I don't see the need for me to dig any further. Of course I'd still be happy to look at any data others may post that could end up changing my mind.
I still think if you want Markus and Matt to look into this some type of data is going to be needed. But then I'm not them so that is only my opinion.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by liberty-ca

Here. This is how I was approaching this matter when I first picked up the game six years ago. It took me 2-3 years to change my ways of how I assess pros and cons when, for example, I shop for free agents - since then I look at number of games those fragile and wrecked guys played in a season.

There have been quite a few players I haven't extended because of the wrecked label only to have them go on to have some pretty good years for the teams that signed them.

I'll admit thought they do still scare me.

[liberty-ca]

I hear you This is 100% relatable! And it's the reason why I check injury history after look at number of games played - it feels to me that combined, those two things help me more often than not to make a right choice. **** still happens sometimes, yeah, but I feel better informed. I don't know, maybe it's all in the head...

[thenewchuckd]

Originally Posted by liberty-ca

I shop for free agents - since then I look at number of games those fragile and wrecked guys played in a season.

So to me, it is VERY clear that wrecked and fragile guys get injured more than durable, normal and iron man guys. How much more is up for debate, perhaps. As is whether you think this is manageable.

I will just say - you're taking a risk - throwing money or trading for wrecked guys. Fragile guys might be more manageable, although you have to realize the slippery slope.

I suppose it may also depend on the injury setting of your league.

What are the risks?
-For prospects, getting injured more often and with more severity, could just derail them from even making the majors
-For any injury: getting hit with a major injury that makes the player regress
-Every injury (with it seems the exception of very durable/iron man players), has an impact on the player's overall injury rating. No matter how minor the injury. Therefore increasing their chances of future injuries, including major injuries
-Missing a significant portion of the season and having an impact on your team's record

You're focusing on the last one, I'm just pointing out that injury risk goes beyond time on the field.

I would never draft a fragile prospect & the slippery slope with minor injuries to me is to the point of game breaking. To clarify: I'm talking about minor injuries turning a near durable high schooler (let's say 50-60 overall injury rating) to fragile by the time he hits the majors, just based on some unlucky minor injuries over this period.

[liberty-ca]

Everything you just said sounds absolutely fair to me - I only shared a personal choice on how I look at fragile and wrecked players on postseason free agent list. I would also almost never draft a fragile youngster, unless he looks exuberantly tempting (high floor / high ceiling).

I am willing to take the risk with developed older star (or near star level) players in their early thirties, because I am looking at picking them up for 1-3 seasons only. If I like stats and dynamic of those stats in the last 2-3 seasons, I would take risk signing or extending a guy like this, why not.

But I felt it worth mentioning, that to me for the first years of playing OOTP "fragile" or "wrecked" designations were strict "don't even think about him" signs. Now I look at it differently, I look beyond that. I am willing to assess the risk and I will either take it, or leave it.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by thenewchuckd

So to me, it is VERY clear that wrecked and fragile guys get injured more than durable, normal and iron man guys. How much more is up for debate, perhaps. As is whether you think this is manageable.

I will just say - you're taking a risk - throwing money or trading for wrecked guys. Fragile guys might be more manageable, although you have to realize the slippery slope.

I suppose it may also depend on the injury setting of your league.

What are the risks?
-For prospects, getting injured more often and with more severity, could just derail them from even making the majors
-For any injury: getting hit with a major injury that makes the player regress
-Every injury (with it seems the exception of very durable/iron man players), has an impact on the player's overall injury rating. No matter how minor the injury. Therefore increasing their chances of future injuries, including major injuries
-Missing a significant portion of the season and having an impact on your team's record

You're focusing on the last one, I'm just pointing out that injury risk goes beyond time on the field.

I would never draft a fragile prospect & the slippery slope with minor injuries to me is to the point of game breaking. To clarify: I'm talking about minor injuries turning a near durable high schooler (let's say 50-60 overall injury rating) to fragile by the time he hits the majors, just based on some unlucky minor injuries over this period.

But isn't that how real life works? Teams always take into account a players injury history. Your certainly entitled to think this is game breaking, my opinion would be it's adding a layer of real life decision making for the user. The way may not be perfect but we're dealing with compute code and, like all games, design decisions have to be made.

The only data posted so far, dealing with the number of players with wrecked/fragile and playing time, I have seen is mine. With the data from my league a player that is 21 yrs old has a 6.2% chance of getting the "fragile" tag. Not a 6.2% chance of missing significant time, but a 6.2% of getting the rating. From my post above..

Fragile batters from my last season.
164 total
156 had at least 100 PA
with 86 of those having at least 400 PA

Over half of those fragile batters got 400+ PA. I didn't do, so have no idea, what the PA would have been if I filtered at 200 or 300 PA. The only other thing I can say for sure is 95% had 100+ PA. What I can't say about the players is why they got the number of PA they did. Some of those in the 100's may have been bench players. IOW we shouldn't assume they only got 100 because they missed time. The ones that got 400+ were obviously playing, but were the ones that just made it to 400 platooning or would they have 600 if not injured? I simply don't know.

Maybe I'm missing something and we're talking past each other, but in a computer game like OOTP what other affects are there besides missing playing time? Development, maybe? For me that ties into playing time, if one wants to take it as separate I wouldn't argue against that POV.

Since you mention the injury setting I did post mine earlier but will post again for clarity for anyone coming into the thread.

I use "modern day realistic" for both long term and short term injuries.

[rwd59]

Originally Posted by Sweed

Before I go here is a quick look at stats of wrecked and fragile players in my league. The sample is small and limited to the stats of my last season completed. Meaning if a injured guy didn't play at all last year and retired he doesn't show up in the sort. It's the best I'm going to do late at night with a golf match in the morning.

Edit: All stats come from a league that uses "modern day realistic" for both long term and short term injuries.

I'm not going to write out all of the data as there will be screen shots at the bottom. The stats include all levels even though filtered to MLB players. This was so I could see the stats for the entire season and not have players have 100 PA at MLB but 300 more at AAA, same thing for pitchers. So the short version..

Fragile batters from my last season.
164 total
156 had at least 100 PA
with 86 of those having at least 400 PA

Wrecked batters
78 total
73 had at least 100 PA
with 33 of those having at least 400 PA
1 had less than 50 PA

Starting Pitchers. These are only current MLB SP though the screen has minors and FA included.

SP that are wrecked
12 total
10 of those threw at least 100 innings.
The 2 that didn't throw 100 went 77.1 and 56.2

Screens are both of wrecked batters and pitchers and you'll see at the top that both minors and FA options are checked. Scope is "all levels', split is last year. Should give a decent look at what I am seeing. Didn't have time to get fragile done too. I do see I messed up the batter screen shot as it's scope is MLB only while the stats above are from a "all levels" scope I used before taking the screen. For clarity it's still the same 78 wrecked batters, and as you can see they got plenty of MLB AB's.

With what I see in my league I don't see the need for me to dig any further. Of course I'd still be happy to look at any data others may post that could end up changing my mind.
I still think if you want Markus and Matt to look into this some type of data is going to be needed. But then I'm not them so that is only my opinion.

No numbers to back this up but in my time playing the game it seems to me fragile and wrecked pitchers are more likely to miss significant time than batters. I am more likely to keep or sign a fragile or wrecked hitter than a pitcher.

[fredbeene]

all anecdotal until OOTPB allow you actually aggregate Games, Games Missed due to Injury, Games Missed due to Military service (or simiilar) games missed due to manager decision
How many times is player injured, min max and average lengths.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by fredbeene

all anecdotal until OOTPB allow you actually aggregate Games, Games Missed due to Injury, Games Missed due to Military service (or simiilar) games missed due to manager decision
How many times is player injured, min max and average lengths.

In your world, not mine.