I recently had a player on my Northland squad get injured in an exhibition game. He is my 2nd best post player, and has the highest durability rating on my team (99). I have two issues that I think need to be addressed regarding injuries:

1. In my opinion, this represents a major flaw in the injury logic. I understand that there is some blind luck involved with injuries, but what is the point of having a durability stat if it is totally pointless? In my opinion an injury should only occur if coaches are playing guys with low stamina and low durability at a fairly high clip. Since the severity of losing a top-tier player to an injury is so high, I think it would only be fair to make the predictability of injuries easier (by using common sense).

2. Injuries should not happen in exhibition games. The benefit to playing exhibition games is marginal at best, and this marginal benefit is very much outweighed by the risk involved in participating. I'm not a programmer so I don't know how much of a pain would be involved in making this change, but until something is done I will no longer have exhibition games.

Thoughts?

injuries are infrequent already. If you don't feel the benefits of exhibitions outweigh the chance of injury, by all means don't play exhibitions...

1. While I agree that durability should have more of an impact, I disagree strongly with your "an injury should only occur if" statement. Well-rested players get injured too; there should not be any guarantees of health. One way to have durability mean more (and indeed perhaps the way it actually works now, I haven't looked at it closely) is to have the risk of injury be the same across the board, but the *impact* of that injury be impacted by durability. So, that twisted ankle that stops play might cost the 20 durability a half dozen games, while your 99 durability player would be more likely to be able to come back into the same game.

2. I completely disagree. The benefit to playing exhibition games isn't huge, but it's some. It can often be 1-3 points for most of a young team. The risk of injury - while significant when it hits - is very rare, since (exhibition or real) games very rarely include any injury.

How low did the player's health go down to? If it bounced right back up to the high 90's or 100% after the game in which he get injured, this is pretty much a non-issue, and things are working as they should. If he dropped into the 60's or 70's and only climbed back up slowly,  then I'd agree that the 99 durability might not carry as much weight as it should.

Posted by professor17 on 2/11/2012 2:03:00 PM (view original):
How low did the player's health go down to? If it bounced right back up to the high 90's or 100% after the game in which he get injured, this is pretty much a non-issue, and things are working as they should. If he dropped into the 60's or 70's and only climbed back up slowly,  then I'd agree that the 99 durability might not carry as much weight as it should.

50

I notice that he he's played on both of your regular season games so his injury wasn't too severe.

Unless it's been changed by one of the updates, durabiliy never referred to 'liklihood of injury' but, rather, how quickly the player recovers.

Posted by dacj501 on 2/11/2012 1:56:00 PM (view original):
injuries are infrequent already. If you don't feel the benefits of exhibitions outweigh the chance of injury, by all means don't play exhibitions...

In the same game that my 99 guy got injured, my PG who has like 20 DUR got injured but only had to sit out a couple minutes and came back. I also had 2 guys get injured last year, one which was minor and another which derailed a starter for half a season. My point is that although they are infrequent, the impact can be fairly substantial and for such a huge risk of detriment there needs to be at least some predictability.

But to your point, I won't be playing exhibitions anymore, as the guys that have a decent W/E will improve at the same or nearly the same clip as if we had played.

Posted by alblack56 on 2/11/2012 2:31:00 PM (view original):
I notice that he he's played on both of your regular season games so his injury wasn't too severe.

Unless it's been changed by one of the updates, durabiliy never referred to 'liklihood of injury' but, rather, how quickly the player recovers.

Not true, I can't play him.

But my argument for that would also be that durability should affect the likelihood of injury, the severity of injury once it has occurred, and the rate at which the player recovers from said injury.

Posted by bdpoor on 2/11/2012 2:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by alblack56 on 2/11/2012 2:31:00 PM (view original):
I notice that he he's played on both of your regular season games so his injury wasn't too severe.

Unless it's been changed by one of the updates, durabiliy never referred to 'liklihood of injury' but, rather, how quickly the player recovers.

Not true, I can't play him.

But my argument for that would also be that durability should affect the likelihood of injury, the severity of injury once it has occurred, and the rate at which the player recovers from said injury.

My bad..I saw Dames with a DUR of 99 and saw they he played. I didn't see Massey's 99.

I get frustrated too when players get hurt in exhibitions.  Therefore, I give the great bulk of exhibition minutes to my new recruits and backups.  Still some risk, but less.

last 2 seasons in a row i had key players get 50% injuries in the last two games of the reg season. talk about aggravating....

alas they are so infrequent that its too hard to stay upset for more than about 3 mins

I had a player, my starting center, get injured in the CT and miss the NT. The next season, it happened again...same player, CT.