Sat Jun 12, 2021 7:49 am
The lack of thinking that went into those injury ratings is just amazing to me. Major league teams can deal with 60 games injuries because they have veteran depth at AAA to call up if need be to cover for injuries, they have a much greater abililty to trade and at least early in the year can sign guys. That is not true in Strat. And Strat is an optimization game. You get a 60 game injury to a major expensive guy and your choice is to either take a hit to the competitive strength of your team by having him sit for 60 games...or cutting him and taking a competitive hit to the strength of your team. All based on 1 die roll. You have vastly increased the role of luck in the game. Of course injuries after game 40 when the cut penalty goes to 10% become more difficult to deal with and after game 80 when it jumps to 20% become just about impossible.
Youre also--in a retrospective simulation--are giving a wide variance to how many games a 1 who can be injured more than 3 games will sit during a year. He should miss maybe 15 games...but 120 is not totally rare. Thats just ridiculous. It's not reasonable to have such a variance in games played and you are introducing too much luck into the game.
So what the reasonable manager winds up doing is simply avoiding guys who can get injured more than 3 games, right,? So your injury scheme winds up excluding a lot of the cards from being used.
Yes, major leagues have significant injuries. But they have tools to deal with those injuries. Strat owners dont have such tools, they introduce too much luck into results, too much variance in games played for a retrospective simulation, and wind up making a lot of cards unplayable. Other than that though...wait, what benefit are these injury rules trying to accomplish, other than a massive migraine trying to deal with them?
I never played in such a league because to me it looked ridiculous on its face. I cannot believe it's still an option.