Predictable injuries?

I would also think that in a high percentage of instances (at least on those teams I have had) the 15 gamers exceed the plate appearances listed.....

And my guess would be close to 90%. exceed..where is Bill Janssen when you need him to run a program

here is a league where you could only have players on your roster with less then 599 plate appearances...all my starters exceeded that number...

http://onlinegames.strat-o-matic.com/team/1113750

I too have noticed time and time again over the last 10 years that injuries to the same player occur in bunches across multiple teams concurrently. One brief example, I used to draft Schmidt a great deal ('81 card). Then for whatever reason, he couldn't stay healthy and was losing 20-50 games per season on multiple teams at the same time. So I stopped using him for quite a while. Now I can use him again, and he rarely gets injured. There is a lot more to the injury thing than Strat is willing to share with the community. But the least they could do is fix the cards so that guys who, for example, played in 157 games (when the schedule was 154) don't still have injury chances on their card. Loads of inconsistencies with how injuries are represented on the cards. Also the system (680) tends to penalize sluggers, they bat lower in the lineup and see less AB's then the guys at the top of the order. Finally, they should use plate appearances not the current formula of AB's plus walks to determine how long one goes down for.

agree with this;

when I used to play a lot (20 or so) of teams with similar players- guys like the 8 mil Lajoie would go down with long injuries on 4 or more teams at once (lets say I had him on 10 teams), same with a Josh Gibson for example.
I found it maddening that they would all go down for injuries of more than 10 games simultaneously rather than some going down for just a couple.

If you are going to use players with 15 game injury risks you almost have to plan for that sort of thing.
In ATG I tend to stay away from injury risk. Just too many options that are just 3 game risks or even bullet proof.

Not the point of the thread. Besides, certain theme leagues may force you to use 15 game guys. I do agree with Treyomo though that certain guys are worth the risk, even in regular leagues.

Anyway the point was the predictability of guys getting injured who have already been injured multiple times or not getting injured at all. Now it seems through reading this thread that another pattern has emerged with the same guys getting injured in multiple leagues. I agree with Druid that there is more going on with injuries than meets the eye.

I currently have that 94' Griffey card in the semis of Barnstormers and I can almost guarantee that when he returns from the DL he will go down again being there are still 60 games left and he has been injured 5 different times already which shouldn't be the case on a 2 roll.

I too have noticed time and time again over the last 10 years that injuries to the same player occur in bunches across multiple teams concurrently. One brief example, I used to draft Schmidt a great deal ('81 card). Then for whatever reason, he couldn't stay healthy and was losing 20-50 games per season on multiple teams at the same time. So I stopped using him for quite a while. Now I can use him again, and he rarely gets injured. There is a lot more to the injury thing than Strat is willing to share with the community. But the least they could do is fix the cards so that guys who, for example, played in 157 games (when the schedule was 154) don't still have injury chances on their card. Loads of inconsistencies with how injuries are represented on the cards. Also the system (680) tends to penalize sluggers, they bat lower in the lineup and see less AB's then the guys at the top of the order. Finally, they should use plate appearances not the current formula of AB's plus walks to determine how long one goes down for.

bump

yep...
good bump there

Probably just me, but I find it distasteful to purposefully dig up Bruce's commentary when he isn't here. As if no one has changed their mind on anything in the last 10 years.
Well, wait--that may be true for some.
Maybe when there is incidental context, but to bump it purposefully for that reason is a bit much and in this particular case is to rehash someone's anecdote from 10 years ago--to what end?

Make one's own argument. Or leave it. But this? Pfffft

Probably just me, but I find it distasteful to purposefully dig up Bruce's commentary when he isn't here. As if no one has changed their mind on anything in the last 10 years.
Well, wait--that may be true for some.
Maybe when there is incidental context, but to bump it purposefully for that reason is a bit much and in this particular case is to rehash someone's anecdote from 10 years ago--to what end?

Make one's own argument. Or leave it. But this? Pfffft

This type of condescending post is why I have refrained from posting during my time here. Many posters just love to attack anything they don't agree with or doesn't fit their small mind set.

I thought with the injury discussion going on currently, it would be ok to see how long this particluar discussion has been going on along with insights from someone who really understands the game. Geesh, you are a piece of work Frankie. Going back to no posting unless I seek prior approval from your self rightousness.

Well roll your eyes like a child all you want. This wasn't condescending at all--you were called out for bad form. Condescending is something I could have been, but restrained myself. Not self righteous at all--I am perfectly comfortable being a singular voice--I said that right in the first clause of the post for pete's sake.

I am the "piece of work." Yet the man you invoked to argue on your behalf is unfortunately dead, and quite frankly if you can't think of another way to express something intelligently without digging up a 10 year old anecdotal post from someone who recently died then not sure i have anything else for you.

Maybe you should take that digging energy and look at the threads honoring the man.
Bump that why don't you.

Now THAT was condescending and deserved.