FOF 2004 injuries, revisited

[QuikSand]

There has been a good deal of discussion about injuries in the new version of FOF. Some dealing with the "reliastic" place to put the injury "slider" in the game, some dealing with whether the game sees too many players (especially QBs) playing all season, and some on other related topics.

I thought it might be timely to have a new thread to bring ourselves up to date on what we know, and think we know.

- Anyone happy or upset with their injury slider setting?

- Any new theories on how all this works?

- Anyone care to share details of their nether-region aquaculture?

[QuikSand]

I'll offer one "new" thought. (Which, indeed, may not be new at all- I just haven't seen it offered yet)


In the game, there is some sort of "injury prone" rating for players that is hidden from the gamer's view. (I believe this was confirmed in one of our many Q&A sessions with J Gindin) My working theory right nw is that, at least in FOF 2004, this rating is subject to change -- and that it is an injury (or perhaps only a serious injury) that causes it to change. A player who suffers a serious injury has (either always or sometimes) an adjustment made to this rating, making him more likely to get injured again in the future.

The result, in my initial judgment, seems to be that even though we might have a "realistic" number of injuries in a given mature FOF league (verifiable by looking at the number of players on the injury list at a given time), we might have an unrealistic skew of injuries within the player pool. My guess is that in FOF, we are seeing the injuries more densely consolidated among a certain pool of "injury prone" players than we see in real footbal.

I think there's a downward spiral involved - a player gets hurt, he becomes more injury-prone, gets hurt again, and so forth. What this might well lead to is an explanation for the dual phenomenon of leagues where we seem to have (1) plenty of injuries, but also (2) lots of QBs starting all 16 games. There are plenty of QB injuries - but they are centered on the same subset of players, leaving the relatively healthy players looking like iron men.


I don't have a lot of basis for this other than my own single career and a little bit of intuition... but that's a working thought for now.

[Peregrine]

I've wondered about this too. It's really surprising the number of 16 game starters I see on the QB stat listings at the end of the season. MY quarterbacks have been fine, they tend to miss a game or two, pretty much as I would expect for a real NFL quarterback.

One thing that really surprised me was how many QBs had started 16 games even though they had terrible numbers. I would have expected they would get the hook after a while, whether hurt or not.

[Peregrine]

Dola-

Regarding your theory QS, I've noticed that on my teams there are the injury prone guys who seem to always get hurt, and then there are guys who are rocks who never get hurt. I'm wondering if your coach's Avoid Injury rating mainly applies to the "regular guys" and the guys who are injury prone will get hurt almost regardless of the coach's rating.

For example, I have a coach right now with an Excellent AI rating. I have two DTs in my empty cupboard game who are both injury prone. Last season between the two of them they suffered 7 injuries of 3 games or more. The rest of the defensive line was perfect, no injuries, no lost games. Clearly the injury prone guys are going to get hurt regardless of the rest of the team, or the rating of the coach. I wonder if it's not a little too much, though. It could be a fluke year, but we've all seen injury prone guys who get hurt every few games, and you can set your watch by them. I wonder if it wouldn't be better as Quik mentioned, to have a more even distribution of injuries.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally posted by QuikSand
I don't have a lot of basis for this other than my own single career and a little bit of intuition... but that's a working thought for now.

Quik:

My basis is the same, with a 24-year-and-running career. I have seen the same guys on my team get hurt year after year, while others at the same position will go for years without ever being so much as probable. An extreme example of an injury-prone QB, was my "starter" for several years, Lionel Forbes. I put it in quotation marks because he had a seven-year run in which he was, by far, the best QB on my roster, but only played in 46 regular season games--less than seven per season! (Yeah, yeah. I don't want to hear it about why I kept him around. Stupidly, I was thinking, "well, maybe I'm just unlucky..." ) The interesting thing about this guy was that, until the final year of that run, he never suffered a significant ratings drop despite injury after injury. His QB ratings during that run? 87.9 (7 games), 87.7 (11 games), 96.1 (12 games), 107.2 (8 games), 74.0 (2 games), 88.5 (4 games, 60.4 (2 games).

At any rate, I've had several guys like him, while on the other end of the spectrum, I can point to a defensive end who didn't miss a single game in thirteen seasons, a FA RB who played every game for nine years, and several guys at typically injury-prone positions who rarely, if ever, miss a game.

I think you're on to something here.

[OldGiants]

I've been watching injury prone players and notice that as soon as I trade them, they are no longer prone. At least 4 outstanding examples in the 15 or so seasons I've played. I want to go back and restart from a save to see if the player remains injured if he stays with me. This could be random, afterall.

The thing that irks me the most is that missing games does not appear to impact the "breakout" algorithmn. I've seen two 35 to 75 WR breakouts occcur at AI teams when the player spent most of his career on IR and only started less than 20 games in six years.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by Peregrine
I've noticed that on my teams there are the injury prone guys who seem to always get hurt, and then there are guys who are rocks who never get hurt.

I'm wondering if your coach's Avoid Injury rating mainly applies to the "regular guys" and the guys who are injury prone will get hurt almost regardless of the coach's rating.

Ditto on the first part. Exactly what I see.

I have tried out two different "Excellent" at A/I coaches, and have seen the same patterns. Might support your theory. It's also possible that the "injury prone" rating is just overstated to the point where nothing really matters... even a good coach. I have one defensive end, for instance, who clearly can't evenn make it though more than one or two games without getting hurt. No joke - I've had the plauer for three seasons, and I don't believe he has made it through any four-game stretch without hitting at least "questionable" on the injury list.

[Sidhe]

I have seen some of what you guys are seeing, but I think there are more levels to it also.

Certainly there are the injury prone guys who sit out many games, and keep doing it year after year. When I cut or trade these guys I keep up with them and can report that *sometimes* they get better on another team, but this is not the majority. Most of them continue their wounded ways.

There seems to be a subclass of injury-prone players who get tweaked and can still play. These guys will be questionable to probable all year long, but they play. I have had at least two of these guys who I *could swear* played better hurt!

Then there are the guys who never get hurt. They rarely find their way to my team! But I've had them.

But when players age, I think their injury rating adjusts toward being more injury-prone. I had an OLB start every game over 9 years suddenly get a year ender. He was constantly hurt after that. I traded him and he sat on another team's bench for a year then retired.

There appear to also be a class of injury-prone players who, like Skydogs QB, can take the injuries and keep their ratings. I had a SS rated in the 80s who was up and down like a piston engine, yet he kept his ratings over a 12 year career on my team. I had to keep him, and he rewarded me with two complete seasons (when he was hurt but played) but only won honors one year because of his constant injuries.

But most of my players who get a big injury come back a shadow of their former selves.

So, unless this is all completely random, it seems there is some variation with the injury settings.. it almost seems to me like there are two variables involved. One, the injury rating, and the other, the resistance to damage.

Am I making any sense?

[McD]

I agree with this analysis, and have noticed the same repetitive injury plague since FOF4. In my most recent career, I have a set of three linebackers who have all had the notable bump in serious injuries, and in the last three seasons I have only had all three healthy for a combined five games. I also have a head coach with an "Excellent" injury rating, and have significantly bumped the training room time during preseason camp. The only effects I've noticed are that I have fewer players getting the initial severe injury that starts the repetitive injury spiral, however there has been no effect on those players who already have suffered severe injuries in the past.

I would also offer up this observation on my repetitive injury players. Typically these players are not suffering the 2-3 week questionable/probable injuries, but rather they tend to suffer long term 8-10 week "OUT" injuries. Thus not only are they more injury prone, but they tend to suffer more serious injuries than other players. I don't know that I have sufficient saved games to back up the observation with stats, but I may attempt to track them in my ongoing career.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by Sidhe
So, unless this is all completely random, it seems there is some variation with the injury settings.. it almost seems to me like there are two variables involved. One, the injury rating, and the other, the resistance to damage.

My best guess is that the "permanent effects" of a serious injury (seeing the player ratings drop after he is restored to full health)is a random event, connected to the severity of the injury.

Since injury-prone players suffer more injuries, they have more likelihood of suffering something along these lines - but I woudl guess that there is no predisposition for certain players to weather serious injuries btter than others.

Nothing empirical there - just my hunch.

[QuikSand]

Originally posted by Sidhe
But when players age, I think their injury rating adjusts toward being more injury-prone. I had an OLB start every game over 9 years suddenly get a year ender. He was constantly hurt after that. I traded him and he sat on another team's bench for a year then retired.

I would see this as unrelated to age, but simply a predictable outcome of the injury-prone rating. His hidden "avoid injuries" rating is a nice, high 90, let's say -- so he gets through several years without incident. Eventually, though, he gets unlucky and has a serious injury - but now has his "avoid injuries" rating has dropped to 40, and he's brittle. Could have happened in year two, here it happened in year ten. Same explanation, though.

[Eaglesfan27]

Very interesting discussion. In 2009, in my universe McNabb had his first injury that was longer then a week (it was 10 weeks with a broken leg if I remember correctly.) Now, he appears much more injury prone and hasn't played more then 10 games in a season for the last 3 years. I thought it was due to age, but your theory of his injury lowering his injury prone rating and making him more brittle rings true.

[Peregrine]

Quiksand, another factor in all this is that if players who are not injury prone are not getting hurt often, it may extend their careers. Over time, and with large numbers of players, this could result in strange effects.

Why I bring this up is that in a recent season, I noticed that 12 (!) of the teams in my FOF league had starting QBs with 10 or more years in the league. I checked the real NFL stats for this year, I could find only 5 starters with that much experience, 6 if you count Testaverde who was only starting to sub out an injury.

Given the number of high potential QBs I see in every draft, I don't think this is caused by a lack of replacements, but maybe QBs are just not getting hurt enough, so their careers last longer.

Can anyone check on this in their leagues and see if it was just a fluke?

[albionmoonlight]

Another thing with QBs starting 16 games (not about injuries, though, so sorry for any threadjack):

In the NFL, a team that loses 4-5 games in a row will probably make a change at QB. The media will demand it, and the coach will want to do anything to try and deflect blame from himself and keep his job. If you have a situation where Kordell is "rated" as 40, and Kent is "rated" at 37, most teams will switch to Kent if Kordell keeps losing--even if the coaches believe that Kordell is a slightly better overall QB. I suspect, however, that in FOF, the 40 guy can lose 16 games in a row without the AI replacing him with the 37 guy.

[Axxon]

Also, lets not forget that ratings aren't all that scientific really. Let me introduce you to LG Stephen Johnson who was rated as an exceptional guard and played every game in my franchise's first year.

His numbers.

16/16 gp/gs
16-41 39.0 KRB
8 sacks 1.5%

He signed a big contract of course based solely on ratings.

ACL injury next season and he only plays 7 games with similar numbers.

He signs a doable deal after he comes back with HORRID ratings ( now 25/40 54 end 36 ) so I renegotiated him and resign myself to keep him due to the high signing bonus.

Next season he starts again and performs like this.

16/16 gp/gs
14-36 38.8 KRB
13 sacks 2.3%

So his pass blocking suffered but he's still solid as a run blocker.

That season I drafted two guards to try and replace him so he missed the early season due to this experiment and he got pissed. I finally put him back in the lineup and he never left.

9/9 gp/gs
17-41 41.2 KRB
2 sacks 0.5%

His best season in every way. He's only a 6 year veteran and has a 100% loyalty. If he has a good season I'll definitely resign him even with the low stats.

Yes, this is only anecdotal evidence but I've seen it quite a bit on my team this career ( scout VG in OLine btw ) and he's obviously my most notable ( to me for roleplaying ) example. I have wondered if the shown hit isn't more done to play on the mind of the human player as in, should I have really started him this year or just let him drift away?

I am coming to consider the ratings as mere guidelines and player skillset definers but not overly as crucial ( with current players of course not potential rookies ) as watching the guy play. I hope that I don't become jaded on this as it's the coolest part of the game for me right now.

[Honolulu Blue]

I agree with much of the discussion here - there are definitely injury prone players out there (Exhibit A: The Devastator), and there are players who are seemingly made of iron.

My observations:

1) Players who get hurt a lot tend to keep getting hurt throughout their careers.

2) QBs and perhaps RBs are more durable than normal.

3) Players tend to get hurt more often as they get older.

4) As QS noted, the ratings hit taken by a player that is injured long-term is random.

5) Injury-prone players need to be handled carefully. They shouldn't start when injured - even when they're due back in full health the next week - because the risk of reinjury is too high. Sometimes, when the player is a force to be reckoned with, I'll risk it, but the results are usually bad.

[Sidhe]

You are right about holding out the injury-prone guys. I'm usually ruthless with my hurt players (since they aren't real people and I'm a stat hog.. I want them all enshrined!) but I've learned my lesson with the gingerboys.

[Franklinnoble]

I never start injured players, unless I'm in the playoffs, and I consider their presence critical to the outcome of the game.

I do think there's something to this "hidden injury-prone rating" theory that Kickstand has... I've often suspected the same thing.

[digamma]

Originally posted by Sidhe
You are right about holding out the injury-prone guys. I'm usually ruthless with my hurt players (since they aren't real people and I'm a stat hog.. I want them all enshrined!) but I've learned my lesson with the gingerboys.

Anecdotally, I think I've found this to be the opposite. My injury prone guys can almost always play through the injury when they are injured, but as soon as they are full strength again, they are hit with a new injury.

[Sidhe]

Well I've had the "probable" guys who I know to be injury-prone go down with long term injuries. But that's anecdotal too.

But I can say that the class of guys I mentioned before, who carry an injury most of the year but play with it, don't appear to get another injury on top of what they have.

It's a mystery wrapped in an enigma inside a C++ encoder..

[petrochile]

Has anyone seen a correlation to injuries with turf condition? When I was setting up a spreadsheet with Stadium Attributes for the FOFL I remembered this attribute, and started to wonder if this affected the injuries to my team. Any thoughts on this?

[Troll]

Originally posted by Peregrine


Why I bring this up is that in a recent season, I noticed that 12 (!) of the teams in my FOF league had starting QBs with 10 or more years in the league. I checked the real NFL stats for this year, I could find only 5 starters with that much experience, 6 if you count Testaverde who was only starting to sub out an injury.

Given the number of high potential QBs I see in every draft, I don't think this is caused by a lack of replacements, but maybe QBs are just not getting hurt enough, so their careers last longer.

Can anyone check on this in their leagues and see if it was just a fluke?

In my league Jeff Garcia hasnt suffered an injury and is still starting in the league in 2012 with 14 years experience at the tender young NFL age of 42. He has started all 16 games in every season except 2007 he started 13 games and last season 2011 he started 12 games. This season he is 9 for 9. I just chalked it up to his team is still competitive and he has a high desire to play for winner and he wanted to stay around for a championship that he has yet to win.

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally posted by petrochile
Has anyone seen a correlation to injuries with turf condition? When I was setting up a spreadsheet with Stadium Attributes for the FOFL I remembered this attribute, and started to wonder if this affected the injuries to my team. Any thoughts on this?

I find this a really interesting thought as well. Early in my Eagles Career the team had a new Veteran Stadium with excellent turf condition and I saw few players getting injured (although the injured players got hurt repeatedly - I believe they were highly injury prone.) Now, in 2012 the turf condition has significantly degraded and I'm getting many more injuries. Perhaps, I just have a lot of injury prone players, however most of them are free agents who played all of their games in the previous year. I would love to see a study of the turf factor, but it would be hard to isolate from all of the other variables.

[judicial clerk]

Some players are definitely injury prone. I have Joe Montana as my starting QB. He has ratings like, well Joe Montana, but, due to injury, he has not started more than 6 regular season games for me in any of his 8 seasons. There is an upside to this, however. He is not outrageously expensive to re-sign and he has been available in the playoffs. (resulting in two superbowls). Unfortunately, in week fifteen of my last season, he go Joe Theisman'ed (compound fracture of the leg, out 46 weeks).

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

An extreme example of an injury-prone QB, was my "starter" for several years, Lionel Forbes. I put it in quotation marks because he had a seven-year run in which he was, by far, the best QB on my roster, but only played in 46 regular season games--less than seven per season! (Yeah, yeah. I don't want to hear it about why I kept him around. Stupidly, I was thinking, "well, maybe I'm just unlucky..." ) The interesting thing about this guy was that, until the final year of that run, he never suffered a significant ratings drop despite injury after injury. His QB ratings during that run? 87.9 (7 games), 87.7 (11 games), 96.1 (12 games), 107.2 (8 games), 74.0 (2 games), 88.5 (4 games, 60.4 (2 games).

At any rate, I've had several guys like him, while on the other end of the spectrum, I can point to a defensive end who didn't miss a single game in thirteen seasons, a FA RB who played every game for nine years, and several guys at typically injury-prone positions who rarely, if ever, miss a game.

Now that the injury distribution has been changed, I'm not seeing these sorts of extremes on either end. What about others of you?

[Ben E Lou]

Bump?

[sachmo71]

geeks