Injury rating - Bynum vs Oden

[astarr]

Oden played in 61 games last year. Missed the year before due to a surgery. He has a 25 durability rating.

Bynum played in 50 last year, 35 the year before, 82 the year before that and 46 in 05-06. Bynum has a 70 durability rating.

So funny how every one blows Oden up for his durability issues and no one cares about the fragility of Bynum.

Don't see how anyone who is objective can't see that Bynum is just as injury prone if not more than Oden.

I can tell you one thing, when I finally get a good roster set, Oden's durability is going up.

[Pandam00nium]

Both of the injuries cause to Bynum, in the last two years, were from his own players falling on his leg. But let's just completely ignore that so your argument seems more legit.

[astarr]

Oden's first injury was partially caused by Bynum pulling down on his shoulders and the traffic of Derek Fisher under his feet. His second injury was a chipped bone in his knee due to knocking knees with Corey Magette.

Guess for you it makes all the difference if the player making contact is wearing the same jersey. Regardless of the why, Bynum is injury prone.

[Pandam00nium]

Oden's first injury was before the 2007-2008 season even started. He missed all of his rookie year without taking a single step on the court. Who are you going to blame that on?

[EvanRG]

Are we losing things to argue over? Haha. Just raise and lower the ratings if you feel they are incorrect.

[astarr]

Actually and truthfully, since no one has been clear as to what happened, I don't know who or what to blame it on.

You must be some myopic Laker fanboy or Oden ***** to take this so personal. My point is simply that the injury rating comparison between Oden and Bynum is unfair. Maybe there is a formula they base it on, I don't know.

The fact is with Oden's microscopic knee surgery is that it was a very minor one that they felt would be good to go ahead and get out of the way early in his career. I don't think that Oden's durability should be solely based on that one surgery. He played in about 70% of the games last year, I don't think he warrants a 25 for durability, when Bynum is a 70. If Bynum was a 30 or 40, I wouldn't mind as much, but to put him at a 70 and Oden at a 25 is hysterical.

Obviously you like to argue, so hope you are having a good time.

[astarr]

Quote: Originally Posted by EvanRG

Are we losing things to argue over? Haha. Just raise and lower the ratings if you feel they are incorrect.

Actually, I wasn't trying to argue. I guess I am partially wondering if it is like this throughout the roster and exactly how to approach durability issues. Obviously according to this person, if it is an injury involving your own player than it should be discounted. I think durability should be based on how many games you play, not whether you got injured by a player on your own team.

I am like anyone else, I check the ratings of my favorite team since I know them better than the other ones. Personally, I feel like Oden's injury problems are overstated. When it comes to him, nobody cares about the why. He was the first overall pick, over-hyped, and so he is unfairly criticized at times when it comes to how injury-prone he is, while other players get free passes.

[DakkoN]

Go look at Gilbert Arenas' durability rating. It will blow your mind.