Dale Murphy got a raw deal with an injury on his 1983 card

[BDWard]

Hello everyone. We all hate injuries, but have come to accept them as part of the game. I'm fortunate enough to have Dale Murphy's and his 1983 season on my '70s team. He recently suffered his second 3 game injury of the season. In checking his 1983 card, it shows that he played in 162 games that year. A check with Baseball-reference.com confirmed that he played in all of the Braves' 162 games in 1983. Why, then does he have an injury on his card for that season? I thought that injuries were eliminated for players who played in all of their team's games. There are many other players in the '70s card set who didn't miss a game who can't get injured (Check out, for example, Steve Garvey's '77-'79 cards and Eddie Murray's '78 & '79 cards, where he played in all 161 & all 159 of the Orioles' games in each respective season). Why, then, does Murphy have an injury on his 1983 card? If there is a rule, it should be applied across the board.

To further complicate matters, in 1983 Murphy had 687 OFFICIAL plate appearances (589 AB, 90 BB, 2 HBP, 6 SF). With Strato's cutoff for being subject to an injury for no more than the remainder of the game being 680 plate appearances, he should not have even a 3 game injury. However, for injury calculation purposes, Strato does not use MLB's OFFICIAL definition of plate appearances, but uses only AB + BB, which in Murphy's case is 589 + 90 = 679, just 1 short of the 680 threshold, even though Murphy officially had 687 PA, including 2 HBP which appear on his Strato card. Oddly, if Murphy had struck out just once instead of helping his team with a sac fly, he'd have the 680 Strato plate appearances and would not be able to get injured for more than the remainder of the game. In other words, Strato is penalizing him for helping his team!

So it appears that 1983 Murphy has been burned TWICE on the injury front. While I understand the quirky rule on the plate appearance issue, before you tell me to get a life, does anybody have any logical explanation (other than it is a mistake by Strato) as to why an injury possibility even appears on Murphy's 1983 card, when other players similarly situated who played in all of their team's games have no injury? Also, if "it is a mistake" is the only explanation, will it ever be remedied? The thoughts of the sage (and not so sage) online community on this issue would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your help. - Bernie W

[voovits]

I believe the only way you can be an iron man player (no injuries) is if you play every out of every inning of every game for your team. If Murphy was taken out mid game in any one of those 162 games (or if the team played 163 games due to a tie) and he missed even one inning, he is then eligible for injury.

Don't feel bad about the 3 game injury. I have Rod Carew on my 70s team in his 75 season, his AB+BB is 599. I have avoided the injury bug so far, but it's only a matter of time before he goes down for 15 games.

[BDWard]

Voovits, thank you for your reply. Though I have a great deal of respect for your knowledge, experience and willingness to tender great advice, I must respectfully disagree. Everything that I've ever read in the rules says games, not innings. Regarding injuries, the online rulebook states as follows:

[b:ec515383ad]What are my hitters' chances of getting injured?

Any position player who missed a GAME (emphasis added) during his selected real-life year has at least some chance of getting injured. However, hitters will have a higher chance of injury if they missed a larger number of games during their selected year.

Additionally, if an injury occurs to a position player in a game, the following chart restricts the maximum length of the injury.

AB+BB in real-life - - max injury duration
< 600 - - - - - - - - - - 15 games
600-679 - - - - - - - - - 3 games
680+ - - - - - - - - - - - remainder of game
[/b:ec515383ad]

There has NEVER been a reference to playing every inning of every game that I've seen in the rules and as a practical matter, we're talking about a company that can't even include OFFICIAL at bats in their injury calculation. Do you really think that they are looking at innings played for players who play in all their team's games? I searched online for more than an hour looking for sources for number of innings played and ended right where I started, with the defensive stats at Baseball-reference.com. However, no where did I find a comparison between a team's total innings and innings played by a particular player. I have a feeling that if I did, nearly every player without an injury on their card (maybe except for Cal Ripken) WOULD NOT have played in every inning of every game. That's simply setting the bar too high from not only a playing standpoint, but a research standpoint as well and ignores the realities of pinch hitters, pinch runners, defensive replacements, being given a "day off" but later pinch hitting in the same game, being pulled in a blowout, etc., etc. and a myriad of other possibilities that could result in a player playing in less than a full game.

You know, it would be nice if the honchos at TSN or Strato would be more willing to shed a little light on our questions once in a while. I can't imagine that they would be foolish or arrogant enough not to read the forums. Assuming that the honchos read this stuff, it's even more foolish or arrogant not to address the issues raised.

I still think Strato made a rare mistake in giving Murphy an injury in 1983, as he played in every GAME that season. I'm still hoping to hear from others on this topic. Thanks in advance for your help. - Bernie W

[voovits]

Though I have no proof, I was led to believe what I said to be true by some source that I can not remember anymore.
If I ever recall the source I'll post it.

By the way, supposedly SOM goes though every boxscore of every game for every season in order to gather the necessary information to accurately assess the players ratings. It's not just guesswork based on the final stats. On that note, if it is true that they go through every single boxscore, then it is feasible that missing an inning could result in an injury result on the card.
I never did say I agreed with it, I just stated what I thought was the case.
SOM needs to use common sense when determining things like that.

As far as the injuries are concerned though, I don't have a problem with it being the way it is. The rules of the game clearly state that they are what they are. I hardly think I'll be able to create anything nearly as good as they do, nor will I be able to find a better product (in my opinion) if I'm not happy with a rule.
It also evens out to a degree. None of the players are receiving the benefit of getting HBP/SAC/etc: added to their plate appearance totals.
From the beginning of strat, they never put those stats on the player cards. It would be too complicated to suddenly incorporate those stats to the player cards, and even if they did, to have different injury rules throughout different seasons would not be feasible for the online game.

Also, how do you know they didn't scale down the injury requirements based on the fact that not all plate appearances are counted? It's a little far fetched, but maybe they originally were going to have it as 610PA for a 3 game injury and 690PA for the remainder of the game, but considering not all plate appearances are counted, they knocked it down by 10?

Regardless of what the rules are or should be, I try to enjoy the game for what it is. In my opinion, it's far from perfect, but it's the best product out there. I love playing it and I plan on continuing to play it in the foreseeable future.

[LMBombers]

You do not need to play in every inning of every game to qualify for being an Ironman (no injuries on card). Sometimes a team will play more than 162 games in a season. Sometimes there is a tie-breaker game played to determine who goes to the playoffs. This 163rd game counts as a regular season game. I believe there are other ways to play more than 162 games as well. Maybe the stats count in a game that gets rained out and has to be replayed at a later date? I'm not positive but SD, PHI, MON, LAD, KC & TEX all played 163 games in 1983. KC and TEX were far from a playoff spot so if you looked into how they played that extra game we will know.

All that being said it doesn't look like Atlanta played in 163 games so Murphy should be bullet proof. There are a few errors like this. Another one is Larry Bowa who's 1979 card should not have the ability to hit a HR like it does since he had ZERO that year.

[Panzer ace]

The real issue with the 'ironman' no-injury is that Strat didnt have this kind of setting until around 1985. (not positive on the year) Prior to that EVERY player had an injury on their card. Garvey had the 'ironman' streak for several years in the late 70's and early 80's. He had an injury on every card when the sets came out. Under Strat rules at the time, even Garvey could go down for 15 games. It wasnt until Ripken's streak that Strat started to listen to customers who complained about injuries to players who had not missed a game or who played in almost every game. The plate appearance injury limit didnt come about until later. I think when the on-line game was developed, Strat tried to 'update' the cards by going back and fixing the issue and removing the injury from some players cards. They just didnt do that great of a job.

[thetallguy747]

The functional purpose of SOM's injury rule is not to limit the number of games a player plays but rather the number of AB's he accumulates, presumably to keep his number of AB's more in line with how many he had that particular season.

They use 680 total AB's (official AB's plus walks, etc.) as the cutoff point for iron man status. In the case of Murphy's 1983 card, he fell one short of the 680 cutoff 589 official AB's plus 90 walks). This is what makes him eligible for the three game max injury.

So while it seems like a raw deal to suffer an injury to a guy who played in 162 games, it's more understandable if you keep in mind that the rule is designed to bring their SOM AB's more in line with how many they had during the season in quesiton.

Hope this helps.

Kevin A