INJURY RISK !!!!

It definitely helps players on teams that played 162 games.
A player with 600 PA in 1975 would be more fragile than 586 PA in 1953.

Precisely.

And with all the things that could be improved, tweaking the injury system should not be high on the priority list IMO.
Why?
Because it is already accounted for in the pricing quite equitably.

We don't do replays or even unleashed sets--so just because a guy played 150 games doesn't mean he'll play 150 games...or 30 games for that matter (yeah I mean you Gates Brown!).

It would be like questioning SOM on why a player only has 7 doubles chances on their card because in real life they hit x doubles and 7 is not right.
But it is worse because injuries are already a coarse attempt at installing chance since we don't have usage limits.

Just my opinion, but this is the same type of clamoring that got us BP v3, which could have been fixed with a price adjustment instead of new code...yet here we are possibly again on the precipice of another superficial problem...or a colossal mistake.

Another peculiarity is Bill Dickey's 1937 card. He had 530 AB and 73 walks=603 PA. This puts him over the 600 PA target, making him a 3 game injury risk.

Even so, Dickey is listed as a 2 injury risk. How can be be both a 600 PA guy and a 2 injury risk. There seems to be a prejudice against catchers when it comes to injury risk.

See 2004 Barry Bonds, 1978 Thurman Munson, 1984 Lance Parrish & NeL Vic Harris