This discussion came up because I looked at the DL list for an entire league through all levels and saw something that indicates that the ratings may not be as meaningful as many think. That there isn't much difference between that 65 player and the 95 player. While injuries aren't totally random...they random factor could be large enough as to negate the effect of the ratings.

Some of the comments here indicate the same belief...If you're not alarmed with a health rating of 70 is there any real value to going higher?

As for the guy suggesting 0/0 training/medical. What does medical have to do with player injury chance?

Mike as for people that budget 0 medical and high health. What about their training budget? Knowing that someone has tried something doesn't mean it had their desired effect...or that the sample size is even enough to be meaningful.

Would it hurt the game if WIS told us the percentage effect on injury chance of the four factors? health, training, condition % and random? They don't have to tell the total injury chance just what percentage of that overall number is effected by the various categories...or at least give a rough estimate like they have with things like Durability and its relation to innings played.

While it's tempting to look at all levels to get a larger sample size of data, sometimes you have to discount minor league injuries.  Quite often, depending on your world, owners may not pay much attention to their minors, may not have enough healthy bodies to fill out their rosters, may not be letting simmy handle active/inactive, etc. 

You could have situations where injuries are self-inflicted by minor leaguers being heavily fatigied and continuing to play, which greatly increases the likelihood of their incurring injury.  This could skew any correlation that exists between health rating and training budgets by throwing a bunch of bad or misleading data into the mix.

20 training.

I mentioned medical because, if you're going 0, you have to be more selective WRT health.  And, by being more selective with player choice, you limit your options.  They feel it's worth the extra 20m saved by going with high health players.

As for minor leaguers, tec is dead on.  I seldom play a BL player below 99%.   I check minor league position players once a week.   They can drop from 100% to 88% in that time.  And I'm an owner who cares about his minors.   A 0(0) pitcher will get injured regardless of his health rating. 

WifS shouldn't tell us anything more about injuries/health because we know plenty.   Telling us every facet of the game makes the game almost pointless.

tec, that's not the case here...there were no position players that I could find on the list under 90 (were only at the AS break) and just a couple of Ps that were 0(0). We police the minors pretty well in MC and its rare that we have an owner that doesn't watch, if not manage, his entire system. So, yes...while that could be a factor, it's not in this case.

kschoen, I think what people are trying to tell you is that if you think you've found a competitive advantage put it to use, rather than polling the crowd to see if anyone else has found it first.

I think what people are telling him is that they don't agree.  And, if he insists on testing his theory, go right ahead. 

He just doesn't want to hear that.

I was trying to put it more nicely than that.

I say just don't budget for it and let us know how it goes.

To make it sound a bit more in line with what you might like to hear, low-health players can be a very good risk if you only need a short-term commitment from them (though for me personally I would still be hesitant to do this with a slashed Training budget).  Say a 1-2 year deal to a veteran FA.  On the other side of the coin, if you're giving a guy a 5-year megabucks deal, or planning your future teams based on your 18-year-old stud prospect, you are infitessimally better served by a higher health rating, as the low health ratings over the long haul represent more risk, and more likelihood that your plans go up in smoke.

Posted by soursurfer on 6/22/2011 9:10:00 AM (view original):
To make it sound a bit more in line with what you might like to hear, low-health players can be a very good risk if you only need a short-term commitment from them (though for me personally I would still be hesitant to do this with a slashed Training budget).  Say a 1-2 year deal to a veteran FA.  On the other side of the coin, if you're giving a guy a 5-year megabucks deal, or planning your future teams based on your 18-year-old stud prospect, you are infitessimally better served by a higher health rating, as the low health ratings over the long haul represent more risk, and more likelihood that your plans go up in smoke.

Actually, what I was hoping to hear was that someone else had done the same thing in their league and looked at the overall DL list. I'm not interested in finding faults with the game sim to exploit them. If it is an issue then perhaps someone at WIS would look at it and make a change. That is if they're even spending anytime on dev of the game anymore. I think it's been over a year since the last substantive change.

You can look at other league's DL.    No one else believes your theory so finding someone to do the leg work to prove themselves wrong is highly unlikely.

Plus, aren't you ignoring the examples in this thread of people checking out various sample sizes and attributing the imbalance to a lack of normalization?

A higher frequency of high-health players being utilized by teams at the ML levels means a higher occurence of high-health injuries, but not, necessarily, a higher percentage.  New York may have more incidents of crime than St. Louis, but New York has more people.  St. Louis actually has more crime per person, though (at least in a recent report).

He's been ignoring everything that disputes his belief.   That's just one part of it.

Posted by jtrinsey on 6/22/2011 11:38:00 PM (view original):
Perusing through my two ML teams:

I have a total of 22 players on both teams who possess a health rating of 80 or higher
Combined, they have played 191 total pro seasons
Combined, they have been placed on the 7 or 15-day DLs a total of 8 times and on the 60-day DL a total of 4 times.
So that would be at a rate of a 7 or 15-day DL trip once every 23.9 seasons and on the 60-day DL once every 47.8 seasons

I have a total of 10 players on both teams who possess a health rating of 60 or lower.
Combined, they have played 97 total pro seasons
Combined, they have been placed on the 7 or 15-day DLs a total of 13 times and on the 60-day DL a total of 11 times.
So that would be at a rate of a 7 or 15-day DL trip once every 7.5 seasons and on the 60-day DL once every 8.8 seasons.

This (admittedly small sample size) experiment leads me to believe two things:
(1) Players really don't get hurt a whole heck of a lot in this game, way less than I initially would have guessed.
(2) A player with 80+ health is between 3 and 5 times less likely to be placed on the DL for either a minor injury or a severe injury than a player with 60 or less health. So I'm thinking health is pretty significant.

For the record, I run 20 training/medical with both teams, although I was also counting when players were on other franchises too and I didn't feel like looking that up.

Using historical data may not be the correct thing to look at as that will encompass previous versions of the game. For instance, many of us have seen that player recovery is acting differently in the past couple of seasons than it was earlier. To get the biggest sample size I could I looked at my league's whole DL.