Injury Proneness

[PSUColonel]

Is this setting a dynamic or static rating? In other words, does the rating determine injury frequency, or is it a result of injury frequency? If it's a static rating, I really would prefer not to use it, as it's not realistic then. If it's in reaction to past injuries, that is a different story, and much more realistic.

[Marinersfan51]

I believe the injury proneness ratings within the player editor determine injury frequency but evolve over time with players tending to become more injury prone with age (but not always). The injury proneness displayed on the player profile page is a reflection of the overall proneness rating. So when that changes, it is because the overall proneness rating in the editor has changed.

[koohead]

Definitely evolves over time.

[Lukas Berger]

Yes, it evolves over time.

[PSUColonel]

I realize it evolves over time, but I think what I am asking is does the rating change as a result of injuries or do injuries occur according to changes (if any) with the rating? In other words, what is the cause and effect?

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

I realize it evolves over time, but I think what I am asking is does the rating change as a result of injuries or do injuries occur according to changes (if any) with the rating? In other words, what is the cause and effect?

I'm pretty sure it's both. An injury or injuries can cause the rating to change. But other factors (age, playing time) can also cause the rating to change and lead to more injuries.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by BIG17EASY

I'm pretty sure it's both. An injury or injuries can cause the rating to change. But other factors (age, playing time) can also cause the rating to change and lead to more injuries.

Ok…if that’s the case, I find that decently realistic. I am assuming the rating is never wrong however…which means you always know a players injury proneness. Turning off this display would force the GM to look at injury history and make the assessment for oneself.

[breigns]

Only issue I find with turning off the rating is when it comes to drafting, its a total crapshoot unless you use feeders.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by breigns

Only issue I find with turning off the rating is when it comes to drafting, its a total crapshoot unless you use feeders.

Yes, I suppose that you won't have any history, but at that level, you won't be seeing wrecked players anyway...and I also think it's realistic to not really know much about a player at this phase. You may end up drafting some "fragile" players here or there, but that's probably very realistic anyway.

[koohead]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

Yes, I suppose that you won't have any history, but at that level, you won't be seeing wrecked players anyway...and I also think it's realistic to not really know much about a player at this phase. You may end up drafting some "fragile" players here or there, but that's probably very realistic anyway.

Pretty common to see injury history drop a top talent from the top of the draft to late 1st or even later....but agree that you won't see Wrecked.
Definitely adds a level of challenge if you turn that off...I purposely filter out Wrecked players during FA.

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

Yes, I suppose that you won't have any history, but at that level, you won't be seeing wrecked players anyway...and I also think it's realistic to not really know much about a player at this phase. You may end up drafting some "fragile" players here or there, but that's probably very realistic anyway.

I disagree with that. We saw a high-profile situation like this in last year's draft when the Mets didn't sign Kumar Rocker because they saw things they didn't like in his medicals. OOTP doesn't mirror that situation exactly because you don't get better injury info after you draft a guy in OOTP, but having an accurate injury rating on players in the draft pool essentially gives you the same info the Mets got on Rocker last year.

[uruguru]

Originally Posted by BIG17EASY

I disagree with that. We saw a high-profile situation like this in last year's draft when the Mets didn't sign Kumar Rocker because they saw things they didn't like in his medicals. OOTP doesn't mirror that situation exactly because you don't get better injury info after you draft a guy in OOTP, but having an accurate injury rating on players in the draft pool essentially gives you the same info the Mets got on Rocker last year.

But we have no way of knowing if Rocker is "injury prone" as defined by OOTP. He might play 5 seasons without missing a start and never go on the DL. His injury prone rating for those seasons would then probably rate as "Durable".

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by uruguru

But we have no way of knowing if Rocker is "injury prone" as defined by OOTP. He might play 5 seasons without missing a start and never go on the DL. His injury prone rating for those seasons would then probably rate as "Durable".

Right…this is what I meant by dynamic vs static in my original post.

[locuspc]

You can be rated as "fragile" and still not suffer any new injuries, it's just a matter of probability. Just like you can be rated as a top closer and still blow saves...

[uruguru]

Originally Posted by locuspc

You can be rated as "fragile" and still not suffer any new injuries, it's just a matter of probability. Just like you can be rated as a top closer and still blow saves...

The important thing is to make it real

[BIG17EASY]

Originally Posted by uruguru

But we have no way of knowing if Rocker is "injury prone" as defined by OOTP. He might play 5 seasons without missing a start and never go on the DL. His injury prone rating for those seasons would then probably rate as "Durable".

Players in the draft pool have an injury rating, so there's information to go by. If you use feeder leagues, then the draft pool players will have an injury history. It's not perfect, but it's better than no info, which is what the person I was replying to was suggesting was realistic. It's not realistic at all to give us no injury info on draft players. If anything, we should get more than we get if we don't use feeder leagues.

[OutS|der]

An idea around this is adding the ability to scout players prior to the draft and find out things like injury history and stuff.

[Claybor]

I know the threads a bit old but this one came closest to answering my question so I figured I would ask here.

I know injury proneness rating can degrade over time, but is there any evidence that it can improve? I have played a lot and never seen it, but i was curious as to whether anyone else had.

[Palaaemon]

Originally Posted by Claybor

I know the threads a bit old but this one came closest to answering my question so I figured I would ask here.

I know injury proneness rating can degrade over time, but is there any evidence that it can improve? I have played a lot and never seen it, but i was curious as to whether anyone else had.

I don't believe so. I have never seen any improvements to the injury proneness rating or the underlying ratings that make up that rating. I have only seen these numbers go down as any injury happens.

This has been my observations in all my leagues since I started playing OOTP.

Have a great night!

[Charlie Hough]

Originally Posted by Palaaemon

I don't believe so. I have never seen any improvements to the injury proneness rating or the underlying ratings that make up that rating. I have only seen these numbers go down as any injury happens.

This has been my observations in all my leagues since I started playing OOTP.

I turn off the injury proneness visibility in my games, but I think you're right, and this is not how it should work in all cases. It's possible for athletes to become more durable, even after injuries, through strength and conditioning training, physical rehabilitation, surgery to fix long-term or lingering physical issues, improving their habits, stretching, etc.

As a general rule, major injuries or repeated injuries should worsen the injury proneness rating, but OOTP should sometimes have players improve their injury proneness. Having it all one-sided is definitely not realistic.