Injury Roll Rating Logic?

[Al Hogg]

Can't recall ever seeing a message thread on the logic of injury roll ratings. Post a link to the thread if it has been discussed before.

Here seems like a glaring example of lack of logic:

Marlon Byrd played 119 games for the Cubs last season due to a broken cheekbone and gets a "3" injury roll. (Including the 39 games missed due to the hit-by-pitch, he skipped a single game three times later in the season. I don't recall if those three games were injury related.)

Alfonso Soriano played 137 games in the same Cubs outfield and gets a "4" injury roll. (He missed 14 games in early June, and missed a single game 11 times. Again, I don't recall if any of those single game misses were specifically injury related.)

Questions:

Do games off here and there count against a player more than a long, sustained injury? If so, why?

Does Strat-o-Matic take into account seasons other than the one they are trying to replicate? (Although, looking up the numbers, that shouldn't make a difference in this case: Byrd has played 648 games over the last 5 seasons and Soriano has played 645 - and Soriano tended to play more games per season prior to 2007.)

[superflymacdaddyjuice]

I am certain you are just dealing with one year at a time. The frequency of the injuries is the cause of the difference.

[ClowntimeIsOver]

Al:

There are two types of posters here: people like you who think for themselves, and apologists. The apologists will find a rationalization for everything (note: I am NOT commenting on the other poster, above).

You're right, Al: there is absolutely no excuse, mathematically, for the discrepancy you cited. A 3-injury rating leads to about 270 game-innings missed per year; a 4-injury leads to about 342 game-innings missed per year. (Both number are for every-day starters; they are reduced for platoon players and bench guys. The proportion remains about the same for an equal number of games played -- though higher-injury platoon or bench guys get somewhat more of a benefit, due to the fact that injuries during the last 15 games of the season will, on average, be shorter, because the injury can't last beyond game 162 except for post-season teams, and even then it's reduced.)

[chasenally]

I only look at PA. If a player has more than 685 or 680 ? he is out for the remainder of the game at most. If he has less than 600 PA than he can go down for up to 15 games everytime the dice lands on his injury roll. It could be 1-7 or 3-12 15 times in the year but that is what happens when you play Craps. Strat doesn't take into account that you went home to see your first baby born, just that you missed games.

I am not feeling sorry here just hedge my bets and look at the odds before I roll that 7 and make everyone at the table pissed at me when the stickman grabs all our chips and says next roller.

This is Vegas baby and mathmatics only come into play when you sit at home and figure out how to beat the House. Those big signs and lights are not paided by state income tax.

[superflymacdaddyjuice]

[quote:5646210951="wachovia07"]Al:

There are two types of posters here: people like you who think for themselves, and apologists. The apologists will find a rationalization for everything (note: I am NOT commenting on the other poster, above).

You're right, Al: there is absolutely no excuse, mathematically, for the discrepancy you cited. A 3-injury rating leads to about 270 game-innings missed per year; a 4-injury leads to about 342 game-innings missed per year. (Both number are for every-day starters; they are reduced for platoon players and bench guys. The proportion remains about the same for an equal number of games played -- though higher-injury platoon or bench guys get somewhat more of a benefit, due to the fact that injuries during the last 15 games of the season will, on average, be shorter, because the injury can't last beyond game 162 except for post-season teams, and even then it's reduced.)[/quote:5646210951]

I cleary not a math expert but won't the four injury roll produce more individual injury events than the three roll regardess of the actual duration? The number of injury events and the total time missed due to injury while related are seperate right? Cleary Soriano had more injury events ( 12 ) while byrd only had four. Some people are real ********, but I am not commenting poster I quoted.

[superflymacdaddyjuice]

I was simply applying a little logic to the data in the example provided. Maybe it is a mistake. Maybe they dont know what they are doing. Maybe there is a logical explanation.

[Al Hogg]

Apologies if I started an argument (and apologies if that apology makes me an apologist). That was certainly not the intention.

I recall a few years ago, Barry Bonds (aka "SF Leftfielder") had a "2" injury roll, but also more than 600 plate appearances so he could at most miss three games at a time. That seemed like the right rating for somebody who missed quite a few games in real-life, but pretty much only for one game at a time.

For those who don't have 600 plate appearances, the greater the injury roll, the more frequent injuries will (over the long run) happen, and the more games (over the long run) will be missed.

My sense is that Soriano did end up with a higher injury roll than Byrd because he missed a period of at least one game more frequently. The net effect, though, is that Soriano will, on average, miss more Strat-o-Matic games than Byrd does across a season.

Given that Byrd missed considerably more time than did Soriano in 2011, it does seem like a faulty way to code the players if the effort (at least to some extent) is to produce a game that replicates what happened during the 2011 MLB season.

[ClowntimeIsOver]

when I wrote that I wasn't commenting on superdaddy, I meant it.

so wtf?: "Some people are real ********, but I am not commenting poster I quoted. "

It doesn't matter how many injuries somebody got during the real season; it matters how much time they missed. It makes no sense for a guy with more PAs to have a higher injury rating than someone with substantially fewer PAs.

Sorry if I offended any real ******** by saying this obvious thing. Because some people are real ********, y'know -- like those who point out the obvious.

[LMBombers]

[quote:2f1c74b74a="wachovia07"] It makes no sense for a guy with more PAs to have a higher injury rating than someone with substantially fewer PAs.
[/quote:2f1c74b74a]

I don't agree with this statement unless you are speaking of only regular starting players. You could have a bench guy who gets 175 PA all year but was never injured and he will have a 1 injury rating vs Soriano or Byrd who missed games to injury but had over 400 PA.

[superflymacdaddyjuice]

[quote:11efe42961="wachovia07"]when I wrote that I wasn't commenting on superdaddy, I meant it.

so wtf?: "Some people are real ********, but I am not commenting poster I quoted. "

It doesn't matter how many injuries somebody got during the real season; it matters how much time they missed. It makes no sense for a guy with more PAs to have a higher injury rating than someone with substantially fewer PAs.

Sorry if I offended any real ******** by saying this obvious thing. Because some people are real ********, y'know -- like those who point out the obvious.[/quote:11efe42961]

While I probably deserve that to a degree. It sure looked liked you were referring directly to me regardless of your disclaimer. Surely you can see that. We will have to agree to disagree on what is "obvious".