Has anyone else found the health rating almost useless?  I have seen players with atrocious health ratings hurt more often than not, but I also seem to see players with health ratings in the upper 90s get injured as often, and with equally severe injuries, as those with ratings in the 70s and 80s.  Am I missing something?

What was the suggestion?

While the number of total injuries may be in line with real life MLB, I think the distributuion is not accurate.  4 1/2 seasons ago I traded away a SP with a health rating of 58 and he has not missed a start yet for his new team.  At the same time I have a 99 health rated SP who went down with a 45 day injury during spring trianing of this current season.

Here is the suggestion:  re-distribute the injuries such that lower health rating players get injured more often and higher health rating players get injured less often.  They were able to adjust/skew the loyality rating of coaches recently.  They could do the same thing (but in reverse) for the health rating.

On a related note:  Does a higher training budget help prevent injuries better than a lower training budget?   I have heard that the training budget helps prevent injuries while the medical budget helps shorten the length of injuries when they happen.  Is this correct? 

The lower health rating players DO get injured more often.   It's just that no one complains when their 19 health guy goes down.  It was expected.  But let a 90 guy go down and the program is broken.    MLB iron men get hurt.    I'll use Derek Jeter as an example.  155-160 games a season.  But, in 2003, he missed 40+.  How did he get hurt, you ask?   Diving into third and the CATCHER nailed him with a shinguard.   Fluke. 

And the total number of injuries are WAY BELOW MLB real life. 

My suggestion was to make the 90+ guys get injured, but usually small stuff.  I tend to think of a 99 health guy in the realm of Ripken.  Someone in on one of our worlds suggested a great idea about some dink injuries causing a reduction in player stamina rather than a reduction of ratings.  So, a 90+ health still gets hurt, but he gets more 3-7 days stuff that affect his stamina (plays through the pain), whereas the 45 health guy takes a bigger chunk off his stamina (can't play through the pain).     

How many Ripkens have there been in MLB?   Does your suggestion include the creation/reduction of 90+ health guys?   Because, if you ask me, no team should have more than 1-2 guys who can play 155+ or take the mound 36 times a year.

Yeah, I would be fine with less 90+ health guys so long as the health ratings more accurately reflect the rating.

I think the health rating works fine.  Keep a couple things in mind:
 
1) Very few 25 health players ever make it to the ML due to numerous injuries while they're in the minors.
2) Injuries are a (relatively) rare occurance in this game.  So anything short of several seasons of data would be a SSS.

I looked at one of my worlds one season and found that the average health rating in the ML was 79, while the average health rating (before injury) of players that went on the ML DL during the season was 72.  Admittedly a SSS, but I believe an expanded look at data would give similar results.

Posted by mainou on 8/18/2010 10:23:00 AM (view original):
Yeah, I would be fine with less 90+ health guys so long as the health ratings more accurately reflect the rating.

That's actually the most reasonable response from a "too many injuries!!!" owner that I've seen.

Of course, I think the unintended effect would be owners complaining that far too many legit BL players have low health ratings, and because of that, too many injuries, but that's for another day. 

Of course, now that I look at your teams, I see where the complaint originates.   Your teams are loaded with high health guys.    I think you'd view it a bit differently if you only have 1 90+, 3 80+ and 5 70+ health players.

And the total number of injuries are WAY BELOW MLB real life. 

That would be the key point.

Look at your league's DL list. Look at MLB's DL list. I bet your league, minors included, are less than MLB.

Therefore, ANY complaint about injuries happening too often is probably going to fall on deaf ears.

One thing to remember as well; not every injury will hit the DL. I've got a pitcher that's 40ish health, and he has 3-4 injuries a year. Usually only one makes the DL, if that.

Posted by mainou on 8/17/2010 10:33:00 PM (view original):
My suggestion was to make the 90+ guys get injured, but usually small stuff.  I tend to think of a 99 health guy in the realm of Ripken.  Someone in on one of our worlds suggested a great idea about some dink injuries causing a reduction in player stamina rather than a reduction of ratings.  So, a 90+ health still gets hurt, but he gets more 3-7 days stuff that affect his stamina (plays through the pain), whereas the 45 health guy takes a bigger chunk off his stamina (can't play through the pain).     

I have to disagree with you on this.

Ripken was 100 health AND 100 durability.  Superduper rare.

no, Ripken was 200 health and durability. at least. In fact, i am not sure he was even human.

Cal Roidken.