I am a little baffled in regards to the following situation:

I have two players, player A with a durability rating of 69, starting at 1B for me.  Player B with a durability of 71, starting at various positions (3B, RF, some SS and CF).  These two players start as much as possible as long as they are 100%.  I generally do not like to play players at less than 100% and try to rest them whenever they dip below 100%.

The thing is, player B, with a slightly higher DUR rating, has his fatigue level dip below 100% somewhat often while player A has never once gone below 100% (I do also sit player A every now and then for matchup issues).  I feel like I have to babysit player B while player A acts like Lou Gehrig.  Granted, player A came over to my team via a trade during the season, but he was a starter for the other team too, at 3B I believe.

In real life, I know that player B plays much more demanding defensive positions than player A.  I didn't think HBD factors that in, does it?

To date, player A has 253 at bats while player B has had 258 at bats.  Can someone help me figure out what is going on?

player A is Slick Snow http://whatifsports.com/HBD/Pages/Popups/PlayerProfile.aspx?pid=3497369

player B is Jesus Cordero http://whatifsports.com/HBD/Pages/Popups/PlayerProfile.aspx?pid=3753087

This might be the best example of the more demanding position that I've seen.   But, quite honestly, you're 82 games into the season.  One guy has played in 78 games and the other has played in 75.  You seem to be overexaggerating what you're seeing a bit.  2 points in durability will make a difference.   An occassional day of rest at 100% seems to help delay fatigue. 

Smallish sample size, but.....I have noticed a slight difference in rate of fatigue for different positions.  At least I think I have...but have not gone to the trouble to experiment and really find out.  I have a inkling that it isn't based solely on AB's or PA's, but also has something to do with which position games are played in.

Interesting, but I will let it up to someone else to gather the hard data.

Innings in the field factors into it.    I don't think it's that big of a deal as I've sort of figured that 600 PA at DH is about 580 at 1B.    So maybe 3% saved at DH from 1B?

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/23/2011 10:34:00 AM (view original):
This might be the best example of the more demanding position that I've seen.   But, quite honestly, you're 82 games into the season.  One guy has played in 78 games and the other has played in 75.  You seem to be overexaggerating what you're seeing a bit.  2 points in durability will make a difference.   An occassional day of rest at 100% seems to help delay fatigue. 

Player b is used a lot more frequently as a ph or def replacement when he does not start, so games played is a little misleading

OK, 71 DUR has 285 PA and 531 innings in the field.  At tougher positions.
69 DUR has 289 PA and 561 innings.   Most at 1B. 


71 has played 5 games at 99%.   This isn't a huge disparity in PA/IP.   Or fatigue.