In general, would a 64 heath rating (projected) have you shy away from a prospect that is clearly the best talent available? My gut says no, but it's testing my risk management mindset...

No

Not at all.

I would not shy away from him. I have a really good player in one world who has a 43 health rating. He had a long-term in one minor-league season and one major-league season in his nine seasons since being drafted. A minor injury here or there where he misses a few days. So give your 64 a shot.

My experience... anyone who disagrees please do so:
Only a health rating below 40 means chronic, as in you know the guy will get injured often and have multiple 60s.
Between 40 and 60 slightly elevated chance of injury, with multiple short term DLs... but maybe Not. I’ve seen players in the 40s never get hurt.
Between 60 and 95 it’s actually about an equal probability. Players with even 90 health can get crushing injuries.
Only over 95 would I bet on a player being an Ironman.

Posted by damag on 5/17/2020 4:03:00 PM (view original):
My experience... anyone who disagrees please do so:
Only a health rating below 40 means chronic, as in you know the guy will get injured often and have multiple 60s.
Between 40 and 60 slightly elevated chance of injury, with multiple short term DLs... but maybe Not. I’ve seen players in the 40s never get hurt.
Between 60 and 95 it’s actually about an equal probability. Players with even 90 health can get crushing injuries.
Only over 95 would I bet on a player being an Ironman.

I think you're understating the curve a little...
< 40-- as you described, will hit the 15 most seasons. For a pitcher I won't even do this; too many 60-day stays, and if those occur at the wrong time of the season the ratings are lost forever. And I'll try to play a 2B-type with this health in the outfield; it seems to me that 2B's get more frequent devastating injuries than other position players.

40-60-- significantly increased probability of injury, not slight in my opinion. I won't take on a borderline pitcher with health ratings in this range.

60-100-- gradually graded probability of injury; disagree that it's equal. 70s have way more injuries than 90s. And I've seen enough injuries in 95+ HE players that I don't think they're really iron men.

I run 20/20 training and medical almost all the time (will drop to 16 medical if I really need $$ for a season). These scales are obviously not accurate if you run less.

I had a 99 get a devastating injury last season in another world, so it's probably making me a little gunshy. On a positive note he's on the 60 day DL again to start the season and I've seen players that do that continue to get recovery bumps. I'm going to leave him there as long as he does and hope he gets back to where he was before.

Thanks - I'll stick with the top talent.

This is slightly tangential to the original topic, but didn't someone figure out a formula that could predict with fairly high accuracy the number of PA someone can get without getting tired and/or hurt? The one that I'm thinking of incorporated both DUR & health ratings....