FrankieT wrote:Do we get this upset when a guy with 20 hits on his card is hitting .400 over 30 games?
Maybe not as extreme, but I just had Jim O'Rourke hitting near .400 in about 120 at bats at 100M cap...Was it statistically probable? Heck no--remote chance at the tail end of the distribution of possible batting average he could most likely have after 100+ ABs. But did I question it? HECK no!
I agree with Frankie's rejoinder. It is the logical fallacy of "availability bias"--we focus on the thing that seems to effect us most, ignoring the other. Nobody notices, much less complains, when a player
doesn't get hurt as much as he should. But if he gets hurt more, then.... So I tempt the injury gods regularly with my lineups, and I can't say that I have felt that my teams are unfairly punished for it. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't. Without aggregate data, it is really impossible to say for certain that that injuries happen more/less than they should.
By way of example, I sometimes use Cal Ripkens 4 injury card. It is a great card even with the 4 injury risk. One league he only lost 28 days to injury (6 total injuries) which is amazing. He hit .397 with 42 home runs with 587 PAs. Talk about "dodging raindrops...