SOM... TIME TO REVIEW INJURIES !!!

The current injury rule with the magic number at 600 is outdated and unfair...

The 600 number is the result of AB + BB...

What about HBPs, Sac Flies and Sac bunts...

It's even more frustrating with HBP since many injuries occur on those...

Take for example Willie Keeler's 1897 Baltimore card:

He played 129 of 136 games that year...

564 AB + 35 BB= 599... 1 short of the 600 magic number... so subject to a 15 game injury despite missing 7 all season...

He has an injury on HBP at 1-2 against lefties, another HBP at 3-2 against lefties and 3-11 against righties...

But there's even worse...

With his Brooklyn's 1900 card... he played all 136 games that season...

563 AB + 30 BB= 593... 7 short of the 600 magic number... so subject to a 15 game injury despite playing all games that season...

This is only one example... I'm sure that many others are getting an unfair treatment...

It's time for a review SOM and for some change...

WHAT DO YOU THINK !!!

You are quite right of course. Problem is this has been brought to SOM's attention numerous times. It appears from their complete lack of response to these concerns that they couldn't care less about fixing it.

Maybe a poll with a resounding community response might get their attention but I doubt it. Unless somehow it could be demonstrated to them that their bottom line might be impacted.

Well, to play devil's advocate, those pre-1900s players, with their inflated batting numbers, would never in a million years hit, or field (no gloves!) as well as their modern contemporaries. Increased injury chance seems a small price to pay for the production.

'Course, I rarely use those guys, which probably explains why I have no issues with them being on the DL more.

You should also note that were this injury change to happen, it would result in a substantial repricing of salaries when these guys became 3 game only injury players and they would no longer be such great bargains.

I think the point is well taken re: the injuries and the magic threshold. But there has to be thresholds somewhere, so I guess there is never a perfect solution to that.

As chris s said...For me at least, in the scheme of things, it is not even a minor annoyance because it is already priced into every player's card. What bothers me more is the example Lab gave in a separate post re: the hold logic. That's a structural problem that randomly screws up results.
http://forum.365.strat-o-matic.com/community/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=649856&sid=3737b1d10e5d7c8faf506cfd60982c2d

To the other point, it is a good thing those inflated batting numbers went out with the modern players. Thankfully, they haven't used PEDs, better equipment, closer fences, pristine fields, smaller strike zones, a fat/old/bad fielder-guy hitter only rule, or enhanced rules against beanball.

Just playing devil's advocate.

I saw a player with over 600 PAs and was an injury 2. 1978 Thurman Munson 1.29M 652 PAs injury 2 played 154 games.

I saw a player with over 600 PAs and was an injury 2. 1978 Thurman Munson 1.29M 652 PAs injury 2 played 154 games.

Barry Bonds has a card like that as well.

Have posted on, commented on and railed on the injury system for quite a while. That magic 600 number just gnaws at me with so many guys having 595 - 599 AB's and 15 game injuries.

Why can't there just be a simple tiering type effect:

600+ = 3 games max
550+ = 6 games max
500+ = 9 games max
<500 = 15 games max

Or something along those lines?

While I dont disagree the jump from 3 to 15 seems alot and a tiered system might be better, its still gonna mean all those players increase in price. I guarantee you that there will be complaining about why the cheap card that was a great bargain before is no longer playable because it went up in cost so much.

There was a post somewhere in the boards here (I cant seem to find it right now) estimating the games lost for each type of injury level. My recollection was that a 1 with 3 game max is expected to lose about 5% of the season, a 1 with 15 game max is about 10%, and you add on ~5% for each additional level of injury. So while those 15 game injuries really hurt, on average a 1 with a 15 game max is only going to miss 15 to 20 games a year. I think we just remember the painful ones more than the seasons when those guys go through with 8 to 10 games lost.

I took a look at comparables to that 1897 Willie Keeler card in terms of run production. I limited it to RF-3, but didn't compare arm strength, running speed or base stealing. Since Keller is a small ball guy, I did this for Griffith 24 (I have a team in Griffith 24 right now so I have all that data fresh).

The players that I would rate right around him in terms of expected run production in that park (+/- 1 run against a typical left/right matchup in pitching without platooning)

Manny Ramirez, 9.41 mil, 3 game injury
Magglio Ordonez, 9.05 3 game injury
Jose Bautista, 8.58 mil, 3 game injury
Rocky Colavito, 8.12 mil, 15 game injury
Harvey Kuenn, 5.84 mil, 3 game injury

Now, admittedly, most of those guys are gonna give you a ton more bang when you go into any sort of hitters park on the road, but you are still going to pay 2.5 to nearly 4 million more for that road warrior strength. Harvey Kuenn is the only guy priced reasonably close and he comes with a 3 game injury (he had 609 at bats + walks so he barely crept over).

My point to this is not to argue, but just show that living with that Keeler injury rating gets you an incredible small ball bargain who can steal bases and has excellent base running speed. As a side bonus, I also learned that I really should try that Kuenn card sometime when I am playing small ball.