Two suggestions for making health/injury more realistic

[justanewguy]

It came up in General Discussion, the idea of realistic, specific and consistent injuries, but there was some disagreement about the plausibility of that in the game. Which got me to thinking... I have a couple of suggestions that I think could make health and injury more real, and add to the difficulty of the game, without presenting too many problems (I wouldn't think)...

1) The option to hide Health ratings: This would be simple to program, and would be realistic in comparison to real life. It'd go hand-in-hand with hiding peaks as a way to prevent having some divine knowledge of a player. Would the Cubs have drafted and invested so much in Mark Prior (not to mention pushed him as hard) if they had seen his 60 health rating (just a guess) at draft time? You'd have to evaluate a player's health based on games played and injury history. Perhaps *some* of the low health players could even have injuries created before draft, for college or high school. It'd be just like real life, where scouts have to evaluate that.

2) Get rid of "Injured for x days": Totally unrealistic to know the exact day a guy will come back from a torn rotator cuff. I would like to see it replaced by estimates, and nearing the player's return, there could be setbacks, or the player could come back quicker than expected. Also, a player's post-injury ratings shouldn't be revealed until he's on his way back from injury. This could also play in well with 15 and 60 day DLs, if we ever see those. This second idea would make the act of replacing a player more interesting.

Thoughts? Criticisms?

[jcbarr]

I like this idea overall. Not to nitpick, Prior was thought to not be injury prone because of his "perfect" delivery and wind up. I do get what you are saying here. Teams don't draft kids that they think are going to have problems with injury, but then again who really knows that at all. Some people get hurt a lot when they are young, or they go through a stretch and then they work things out and everything is okay. Other players play for a long time and then all of the sudden have a really bad stretch where it seems they are always injured.

I too think the out for X days should be replaced. It should say expected to be out or something to that effect. It's nice to know an estimate but it shouldn't always be the exact day.

[iklinck]

Something more like "real-life" injury report times could be used: "Day to Day", "Out about a week", "2-4 weeks", "4-6 weeks", "2-3 months", "Out for the season", "Out for the season, and maybe next"...

It should be fairly easy to convert the numerical value in the database to the appropriate display text, maybe with some random error factor, possibly influenced by medical and/or scouting rating...

It could even be an option you could toggle (exact # of days vs. estimates).

Ian

[knicks0929]

Excellent suggestions.

[filihok]

I'm on board with all the suggested changes

[ohms_law]

1) The option to hide Health ratings: This would be simple to program, and would be realistic in comparison to real life. It'd go hand-in-hand with hiding peaks as a way to prevent having some divine knowledge of a player. Would the Cubs have drafted and invested so much in Mark Prior (not to mention pushed him as hard) if they had seen his 60 health rating (just a guess) at draft time? You'd have to evaluate a player's health based on games played and injury history. Perhaps *some* of the low health players could even have injuries created before draft, for college or high school. It'd be just like real life, where scouts have to evaluate that.
Unrealistic. Every single player in MLB are constantly given thorough physicals, and a player's "health" is a primary concern for scouts. As jcbarr mentioned, Prior was thought to be a potential workhorse when he was scouted for the draft.


2) Get rid of "Injured for x days": Totally unrealistic to know the exact day a guy will come back from a torn rotator cuff. I would like to see it replaced by estimates, and nearing the player's return, there could be setbacks, or the player could come back quicker than expected. Also, a player's post-injury ratings shouldn't be revealed until he's on his way back from injury. This could also play in well with 15 and 60 day DLs, if we ever see those. This second idea would make the act of replacing a player more interesting.

Something more like "real-life" injury report times could be used: "Day to Day", "Out about a week", "2-4 weeks", "4-6 weeks", "2-3 months", "Out for the season", "Out for the season, and maybe next"...
I completely agree with this.

[gosensgo101]

I feel the same way as Ohms. Cosmetically, maybe it would look better to put either the average amount of days, or the minimum amount of days. Then, the player would be reevaluated and you would know exactly when he would return.

[Arctic Blast]

Yep, more of a 'nebulous' return from injury schedule would make things a tad more...interesting. Perhaps it could be set, too, so that injuries that tend to lead to a more 'up in the air' status (really bad muscle pulls/partial tears, for example), would be a bit more clouded, as well.

[BINGLEBOP]

I do agree with something regarding the health rating. I don't know if hiding it completely would do it, but that would be a nice alternative. I feel bad sometimes for passing on a draftee with a 90+ peak because he has a health rating of under 60. It sucks when you "know" that the player is most likely going to have an injury-prone career and probably not reach his peak just because of that number.

[ohms_law]

It sucks when you "know" that the player is most likely going to have an injury-prone career and probably not reach his peak just because of that number.
That's what happens in real life.

[filihok]

Until the AI is ready to come off the DL, we need as many ways to handicap ourselves as possible.

[JeepGuy63]

I do agree with something regarding the health rating. I don't know if hiding it completely would do it, but that would be a nice alternative. I feel bad sometimes for passing on a draftee with a 90+ peak because he has a health rating of under 60. It sucks when you "know" that the player is most likely going to have an injury-prone career and probably not reach his peak just because of that number.
I don't even look or if I do, it doesn't register with my brain.

Doesn't a team's medical staff play a part in that as well? Does a player with a low injury rating on a team with a very good medical staff last longer than if he had been on a team with a horrible medical staff?

[filihok]

You don't look at health rating???!!!

I look at health rating before anything else. If you're below 70, I won't consider you. If you're below 75, You better be **** good and **** cheap.

[JeepGuy63]

You don't look at health rating???!!!

I look at health rating before anything else. If you're below 70, I won't consider you. If you're below 75, You better be **** good and **** cheap.
Okay ... I might peek. If I see a 10, I'll probably pass on you. Otherwise, I go by what my scouts tell me. Is he a sure thing but will only last a year or two? If the price is right, I'll pick you up. I don't expect everyone to last 15 years in the majors and perform at the highest level the entire time. Even the healthiest guys get hurt ... if you get injured alot in a year, I won't sign you for alot of cash or for a long time.

[justanewguy]

Unrealistic. Every single player in MLB are constantly given thorough physicals, and a player's "health" is a primary concern for scouts. As jcbarr mentioned, Prior was thought to be a potential workhorse when he was scouted for the draft.

The current system seems far more unrealistic to me. The problem with what we have now is, health is quantified the same way as contact, power, speed, etc. Anyone with a stopwatch can look at a player and give you a number comparing his speed to the rest of the players in the league. But a medical and scouting staff can give you the same type of number with the same effect concerning a player's health? Really, how do they know the difference between a 72 and a 77? Aren't physicals more of a pass/fail thing in real life, where they might pick up, at best, specific information about a player's knee or shoulder or whatever? And are teams giving physicals to high school and college prospects? Considering the volume of these players, I very much doubt it. Some, yes, (pre-7 figure contract, I'm sure). Most, no. Yet we see these precise health ratings during the draft.

Mark Prior might actually prove the point that a numeric health rating is bogus. So, let's say the Cubs determined that Prior's health was a 90. They counted on him to be a workhorse, it's true. Now, either their scouting is a +/- 30 and they got the bad end of that margin, or Prior was one of those very, very rare 90 health players who would, in Mogul, suffer not only one severe injury, but several. In fact, in all my years of Mogul I can't say I've seen an 85+ health player have anything near what Prior had. Repeated severe injuries at an early age.

There should be a Prior effect in Mogul, where you could be entirely fooled by a player's health. But that doesn't happen, because we see these numbers, and the way injuries are generated are too strictly tied to these numbers. Again, I feel the hidden health rating should be an option, and perhaps you could gain some sort of information from the scouting report for his health.

Like Binglebop says, it sucks when you "know" a player is gonna suffer injury after injury. And though there is some indicator to that in real life, it's not like it is in Mogul. A player with 60 or below health is practically guaranteed a serious injury over the course of 2 seasons. Regardless of how much money you dump into medical.

I also have a bit of a gripe with a player's inability to become healthier without regard to his peak. Andres Galarraga, anyone? Okay, that's a bit of a strange example, but I do feel that if a player manages to avoid the (non)luck of the injury draw, his health should be able to improve a little bit.

[blue8haze]

the health ratings usually don't matter to me. i think maybe making the health ratings less concrete would be better. i don't mind a number but like its been said in this thread some guys start off healthy and then become injury prone. look at griffey jr, he started off being a healthy player who missed few games to one who was regularly out for the majority of the season. the health rating should be able to vary year by year insted of just getting worse. some players learn to condition themselves better throughout their career and consequently miss fewer games.

what i would find interesting is adding a little health report to each player to see what nagging injuries they have. players will play through a hangnail in real life unlike in the game. a report like this would be better then the tired or sore denotation which seems just cosmetic to me.

[justanewguy]

i think maybe making the health ratings less concrete would be better.

Absolutely. It's too systematic right now, whereas in real life health is a mystery and more random than it is quantifiable.


look at griffey jr, he started off being a healthy player who missed few games to one who was regularly out for the majority of the season.

PERFECT example. He went from a 90 health to a 60 health and now he's up to probably a 75. He's been solid as a rock for the past few seasons, where in the game, after he started his regular stints on the DL, he would be screwed for the rest of his career. Many players have done this as well.


the health rating should be able to vary year by year insted of just getting worse. some players learn to condition themselves better throughout their career and consequently miss fewer games.

Exactly, and this is part of why I hate the number, because it just drops, and drops, and drops...


what i would find interesting is adding a little health report to each player to see what nagging injuries they have. players will play through a hangnail in real life unlike in the game. a report like this would be better then the tired or sore denotation which seems just cosmetic to me.

Very good idea with the health report. I think a health report and a vague health "rating" would be ideal and the most realistic. Maybe list a player as "very healthy" or "dealing with a sore ____" or whatever. The tiredness isn't cosmetic, although a "tired" star player and professional athlete should be able to play a crucial game against a division opponent in September without fear of breaking his neck and missing 275 days.

[BINGLEBOP]

the health rating should be able to vary year by year insted of just getting worse. some players learn to condition themselves better throughout their career and consequently miss fewer games.


Exactly, and this is part of why I hate the number, because it just drops, and drops, and drops...

Both excellent points that I agree with 100%.

I want to know what exactly the health rating measures specifically, especially for a player right out of high school that you have no past record on, unlike a player that has been around the league that you have a somewhat detailed injury report on them (in the transactions tab listing the type of injuries and length of time they were out). A player can regain their abilities after a major injury (like pitchers regaining throwing velocity after Tommy John elbow surgery), so why not have them able to "regain" their ability to stay healthy?

If you draft a player with a 60 health rating out of high school and he stays completely injury free for three or four (or more) seasons, why wouldn't that increase, especially since he's so young and likely hasn't reached his peak yet (which is around 27 or 28 on average)? If a player is going to forever be labeled "injury prone" in Mogul terms because of that little health number and no amount of injury-free seasons could change it, that would be like saying that your 90 rated starting pitcher is forever horrible because he went 6-15 with a 5.50 ERA in his rookie season.

I just don't like the impact health ratings have on a lot of decisions when it comes to the draft, signing a player, or making a trade. Granted, we don't all go by them as evidenced by some posts on here, but I'm sure the majority of us do, and it seems unrealistic that it often is more "important" than their overall rating, usually by a significant margin. If there is an extremely talented player in real life coming out of the draft (in Mogul: a player with a high peak rating), at worst he might fall a few rounds in the draft. Other times, a team will draft him in hope that his injury prone days are behind him, and in many cases it turns out right, because it might have just been a freak injury and not a precursor of a career that will be filled with injuries. It's rare for that to happen in Mogul with a player that has a 55-60 health rating coming out of the draft. In an entirely human-controlled league, it would be likely that the majority (if not all) of the teams would pass on this player.

I'm not sure what the answer is to it, but it should be more fluid, and especially be able to increase at a higher rate as their career goes forward (at least up until their peak) if they remain injury-free. All of their other talent ratings can change (up or down), so why not health?

[BINGLEBOP]

A follow-up question for those that place significant value on the health rating when drafting/signing/trading for a player (like myself).

Let's say you're considering two similar players (age, position, etc.) in the June draft and your scouting is +/- 1 so the ratings are (for the most part) accurate... if one of them was a 92 peak player with a 55 health rating, and the other was an 85 peak player with a 90 health rating, who would you choose based on that information alone if it's all you had? For those would would draft the player with an 85 peak, would you draft a player with a 80 peak? 77? 75? What is the lowest peak rating you would draft somebody that had an extremely high health rating, compared to a player with a high peak that had an extremely low health rating?

Basically, would you draft an average-to-solid player who might play the majority of his career injury-free over a star player who might spend a significant portion of it injured? I don't know how low I would go, but I would pass on the 92 peak player in the above example... only because of that little number that never changes.

[ohms_law]

Me, I'd never draft a player with a 55 health... but with 55 health, I'm almost positive that it's not possible to be rated a 95 either. I've never really kept track, but I'd say 65 health is probably the lowest that I'd go for anyone.

[justanewguy]

I'd take the 85 peak/90 health guy any day. Unless the 92 peak/55 health guy was an RP, in which case health is not as important as it is with an everyday player or SP.

Like ohms said, I'm not sure a 55 health guy could get a rating that high, but that's not the point.

I will not draft anyone (again, except for RPs) with a sub-70 health rating. In free agency or with trades, I will not sign/trade for anyone with a sub-75. The exceptions I make here are RPs (again), DHs, or guys that I *know* will *only* be used off the bench. But if I were comparing two guys and one had 85 health and the other had 95, at that point I'd probably not pay much attention to that health number when making a decision.

When it comes to building a team, I'd say I place almost as much value on health as I do on the vitals as a whole, and probably more value than on any other individual rating.

This is why I wish health could be murkier. There's just no way you can pin down a 17 year old high school player that's getting drafted in the late rounds and know *exactly* how healthy he is. It takes away from the realism of picking/choosing players.

[filihok]

Health is the first thing I look at. Below 75, forget it. Not interested.

This is why I really wish we could sort by more than one rating, stat, factor at a time.

[ohms_law]

I just use Excel. I can do a lot more in Excel then will ever be available in Mogul, and really, why reinvent the wheel?

[filihok]

I just use Excel. I can do a lot more in Excel then will ever be available in Mogul, and really, why reinvent the wheel?

True...but...the cut paste is an extra step...and my excel files for each game I have are already getting pretty unwieldy

[ohms_law]

Yea, it's an extra step, but there's no possible way for Mogul to compete with Excel (or OpenOffice, or even those couple of freebie spredsheet programs that are on SourceForge and similar places). It just seems to be a bit of a waste of time to try, to me. We've got the quick and dirty (and really, very good) sortable stats in the game, and for when we need to take the time to do extra analysis there's an extremely easy way to get the data out of the game and into something intended for analysis (Excel, etc...).

[BINGLEBOP]

This is why I wish health could be murkier. There's just no way you can pin down a 17 year old high school player that's getting drafted in the late rounds and know *exactly* how healthy he is. It takes away from the realism of picking/choosing players.

Great point. I think the health rating should be more like the overall/peak ratings when you draft a player. Depending on several factors, that 48/95 player you draft might end up being a 50/77 player even within two years.


Me, I'd never draft a player with a 55 health... but with 55 health, I'm almost positive that it's not possible to be rated a 95 either. I've never really kept track, but I'd say 65 health is probably the lowest that I'd go for anyone.

I'm not sure they would be rated a 95 either, especially since outside of commissioner mode the highest rating I usually see is 96. Just out of curiousity, I looked for the highest rated players (with health ratings 90 or above) and changed their health ratings down to a 55, just out of curiousity to see what their overall rating changed to. With all of them, it didn't change anymore than 3 points, with the lowest rated one being a 91, down from a 94. That was just with 6 players I tried though, but still the health rating doesn't impact their overall rating very much, at least until that first major injury hits and puts them out of action for a long time. If they had that 55-60 health rating when they were drafted, it's likely that they would never have made it to be the 90+ rated players that they currently are in the first place.

[ohms_law]

I'm not sure they would be rated a 95 either, especially since outside of commissioner mode the highest rating I usually see is 96. Just out of curiousity, I looked for the highest rated players (with health ratings 90 or above) and changed their health ratings down to a 55, just out of curiousity to see what their overall rating changed to. With all of them, it didn't change anymore than 3 points, with the lowest rated one being a 91, down from a 94. That was just with 6 players I tried though, but still the health rating doesn't impact their overall rating very much, at least until that first major injury hits and puts them out of action for a long time. If they had that 55-60 health rating when they were drafted, it's likely that they would never have made it to be the 90+ rated players that they currently are in the first place.
You changed the health rating directly, correct?
The reason that their rating drops significantly after they actually receive an injury is because the injury effect changes their predicted games played. If you change health through predicted stats (by lowering the players predicted games played and all of the other stats accordingly) then you'll see a similar effect a swhat occurs after they receive an injury.

[BINGLEBOP]

I don't know what you mean by changing it directly, but I just went into commissioner mode, edited the players, and lowered their health ratings, exited, and went out of commissioner mode to see what their current rating turned out to be.

I didn't think about players in terms of editing their statistics (games played/pitched). Does that have an impact? I've taken players with very few predicted games/at-bats before (career minor-leaguers or backups) and gave them full-time roles and they performed well (staying injury free along the way), but this was only with players with high health ratings again, which is what my team is composed of, but that's a good point ohms. I am going to give that a try and see how it changes the ratings.

[ohms_law]

but I just went into commissioner mode, edited the players, and lowered their health ratings
That's exactly what I meant. You're changing the players Health directly, not their overall predicted stats (which, if you lower their predicted games, does change their health).


Does that have an impact?
Yup

[ewank]

I would really like to see the disable list made such that it has a minimum 15 day or 60 day list. You can "cheat" the system by putting a player with a five day injury in the minors and bring up a new player. If a player is injured and is "sent down" he should be down for the minimum.:D

[ohms_law]

...why? I mean, what function would that serve other than to annoy the heck out of players (nevermind for now totally screwing with the AI).

[ghettostar]

...why? I mean, what function would that serve other than to annoy the heck out of players (nevermind for now totally screwing with the AI).


It would serve by being more realistic ohms. Shouldnt the ambition of clay, yourself and all gamemakers and those that have a hand in the processs be to make the most complete and perfect game possible? I certainly hope that is what mogul is striving for. We are not saying all these additions need to be implemented immediately or even in the near future. We are asking that they be taken into consideration and implemented if feasible in due time. I am not advocating a game that is so complex and 'heavy' that we need the latest state of the art PC to run it, just to continue to move forward as mogul has been and eventually with all of this great input from players and a game designer that is as dedicated as clay is we will have the industries most detailed and precise simulation on the market.

[HoustonGM]

...why? I mean, what function would that serve other than to annoy the heck out of players (nevermind for now totally screwing with the AI).
I agree with him. I, personally, only send players to the DL if they're going to be out for roughly two weeks. The AI, however, will send players to the "minors" for ANY injury of ANY length, so EVERY team always has a full, active roster. I don't think that should be the case. For minor injuries, teams should play players off the bench. For longer injuries, teams should make a decision about whether or not to DL a player for at least 15 days, or play a man down.

The current system leads to unrealistic playing time distributions, as minor league players are called up for 1 day injuries. OBVIOUSLY, the AI would need to be changed to evaluate injuries, but I think that's a viable suggestion and something that I'd really like to see.

I suppose there's no game balance issues or anything that it'd deal with, but just as I'd like to see more realistic roster rules, the DL goes with it. The real DL rules would actually be much simpler and easier to implement than full, or even partially, real rules, and could serve as a step towards that.

[ohms_law]

That's the thing though. I can see asking for 40 man roster rules (which is the basis for the 15 and 60 day DL), I just don't understand why anyone would want or need a 15 day, 60 day, or any number of days DL rules without 40 man rosters.

[HoustonGM]

I'd personally like to see them both. As I said, I wouldn't mind seeing the DL rules first, without the 40 man roster rules, and part of it is because it would be easier and simpler to implement.

[justanewguy]

I would be in favor of 15 and 60 day lists. The realism would be good, and it'd also make things more challenging, which is always good. What would make it better though, is if players could play through minor injuries, at x% of their ability while healthy. Otherwise I've got a reliever out for 5 days with a stubbed toe and I either have to lose him for 15 days or have him resting his toe on the bench while I wear down the rest of my bullpen, which is already worn down because I'm unable to have a 12th pitcher.

[iklinck]

If you add the DL rules, though, we need the flexible rosters, too. If I have a reliever out for 5 days, I want to be able to send down my little-used backup infielder and call up another reliever...

Ian