Injuries and the 600 AB+BB rule

This occurred in an ATG league, but it would apply to all 365 SOM leagues.

In a league I'm currently competing in, I have Kurt Suzuki 2009 on my roster. Because Suzuki falls 2 short of the combination 600 AB + BB, he is subject to a 15 game injury, which unfortunately occurred with me.

In reality, Suzuki actually had 614 Plate Appearances that season, because he was HBP 8 times, and had 1 SH and 7 SF that season.

Instead of the criteria being 600 AB+BB, I would suggest that it should be 600 or more Plate Appearances for the threshold.

Comments?

He played in 147 games, so, any adjustment to his plate appearances would likely have him capable of playing over 154 games, which could be considered a worse crime than him not getting credited for a handful of extra plate appearances.

Any adjustment to the plate appearances formula should lead to a higher salary adjustment to reflect increased durability, so, it's not as if anyone should expect to find a bargain should Suzuki (or others) suddenly turn into ironmen because of a more favorable plate appearance calculation.

The only ones applauding a proposed adjustment in how plate appearances are calculated would be:
1)those who know who the players are who suddenly have turned into ironmen.
2)those who seek out those players in hopes their salaries haven't changed.

How about the 92 ab guy who gets a 1 rating? I think that is a much bigger deal. There are all kinds of players who would never put the stats they do over a whole season..but an owner can get 150 games out of them? Not that im pressing for any changes...but a change on a borderline injury ranking seems pretty minor compared to the part-time superstars who can be used basically full-time in the game.

What about Eddie Collins' 7.91M$ 1919 card who gets a 0 injury despite the fact he has 518 AB and 68 BB for a total of 586...

What about Eddie Collins' 7.91M$ 1919 card who gets a 0 injury despite the fact he has 518 AB and 68 BB for a total of 586...

The White Sox played 140 games. Collins played all of them. The zero injury is appropriate for a 1919 replay. No telling how many games or plate appearances he would have played had the standard of 162 games (beginning in 1961) been in place, not to mention jet travel and other variables.

I have long suggested a more tiered system. Why does a guy with 599 strat PA's run the risk of multiple 15 game injuries a season, while a guy with 600 strat PA's only run the risk of 3 games. One more PA per strat's definition magically makes you 5 times more durable??

It should be tiered:

680+ = Rest of game
600+ = 3 games
550+ = 6 games
500+ = 9 games
499 or less = 15 games

Or something along those lines. It always gnaws at me.

Remember though that pricing includes injury risk. So if a player went from a 15 game injury to a 3 game injury his price would rise dramatically. I suspect a pretty big subset of people here would be complaining about how the card was no longer a value because of that price.

I have long suggested a more tiered system. Why does a guy with 599 strat PA's run the risk of multiple 15 game injuries a season, while a guy with 600 strat PA's only run the risk of 3 games. One more PA per strat's definition magically makes you 5 times more durable??

It should be tiered:

680+ = Rest of game
600+ = 3 games
550+ = 6 games
500+ = 9 games
499 or less = 15 games

Or something along those lines. It always gnaws at me.

I agree with your sentiments and your reasoning.

I have never been fond of using PA at all for injury calculation purposes. Two players on same team could both play 155 games. One bats leadoff and the other bats 8th. The leadoff guy will likely end up with less injury risk than the 8 hole hitter merely because leadoff will get more plate appearances. It is a flawed algorithm.

And then there is the guy who was platooned who has no chance of reaching threshold for avoiding 15 game injury.

Might as well toss in the guy who frequently gets removed for a defensive replacement and ends up a few PA short as a result.

I have long suggested a more tiered system. Why does a guy with 599 strat PA's run the risk of multiple 15 game injuries a season, while a guy with 600 strat PA's only run the risk of 3 games. One more PA per strat's definition magically makes you 5 times more durable??

It should be tiered:

680+ = Rest of game
600+ = 3 games
550+ = 6 games
500+ = 9 games
499 or less = 15 games

Or something along those lines. It always gnaws at me.

While I agree in general, I'd argue for more granularity, as in 0,1,3,5,7,12.15.20 ?
Maybe be harder to program.