Inj rating & Gs missed per season SOLVED AT LAST!

[RICHARDMILTER]

I agree with L.A. Bear. I am most appreciative for this research/study and your findings.

[ClowntimeIsOver]

Thanks very much, lab and rm. It's nice to see these comments, instead of snark. There's an updated and corrected thread here:

http://forums.sportingnews.com/viewtopic.php?t=619032

When I get around to it, I'll post it on the strategy board, where its shelf-life will be longer!

[Irahays]

snark


Pronunciation: (snärk), [key]
—n.
a mysterious, imaginary animal.

Read more: snark: meaning and definitions — Infoplease.com http://dictionary.infoplease.com/snark#ixzz0zA0n8vC8






Just kidding, no snark from me!

[Detroit-Tigers]

[quote:f94ddd27e1="Irahays"]snark

Pronunciation: (snärk), [key]
—n.
a mysterious, imaginary animal.

Read more: snark: meaning and definitions — Infoplease.com http://dictionary.infoplease.com/snark#ixzz0zA0n8vC8

Just kidding, no snark from me![/quote:f94ddd27e1]


snark·y
   /ˈsnɑrki/ Show Spelled[snahr-kee] Show IPA
–adjective, snark·i·er, snark·i·est. Chiefly British Slang .
testy or irritable; short.
Use snarky in a Sentence
See images of snarky
Search snarky on the Web
Origin:
1910–15; dial. snark to nag, find fault with (appar. identical with snark, snork to snort, snore, prob. < D, LG snorken to snore) + -y1


Excellent post- TY

[ClowntimeIsOver]

http://authors.simonandschuster.com/David-Denby/9644/books

[Kilroy]

SO by Ozzie going down for 15 games after playing 18 games while being a 1 injury, he won't go down again? Since he is already over the 10 games predicted? Right. I have to go with Splinter too. It's more likely that the player will go down 10 times missing between the rest of that game and 15. :roll:

[ClowntimeIsOver]

"SO by Ozzie going down for 15 games after playing 18 games while being a 1 injury, he won't go down again?"

It is difficult not being just a little bit snarky in reply.

"Average" means that in many seasons, Ozzie will miss an average of so many games per season. If YOUR Ozzie got a 15-game injury, he is just as likely to get another 15-game injury in his next at bat as he is at any other time. So the answer to your question is "No." As noted, the results I give account for every kind of season averaged together -- seasons when a guy never gets injured, and seasons when he gets injured every single time he comes to the plate. Averaged together, all these seasons will equal a certain number of missed games per season. The average number of missed games per season, however, does not affect what happens to your Ozzie on the next roll after he returns from his injury. Your Ozzie could possibly miss as many as 151 games if put in the line-up every day, and end the season with exactly 11 PAs. Or he could play every inning of every game every time you ever have him on every team you ever draft. "Average" takes this into account. And "average" is what player values, ideally, are based on (player values being the whole point).

(I hope people respond to the updated thread, which is more accurate than this thread and is here:)

http://forums.sportingnews.com/viewtopic.php?t=619032

[BobBoone]

In the board game the number of games missed after an injury occured was determined by a chart. Online, it does not seem that that chart is being used. Do you guys know if this is the case?

That is to say, that a 15 game injury would occur with a roll of 20. thus 5% of the time. 15% of the time(if memory serves), the player would remain in the game, thus not being injured at all. Is this still true, and if so, does it effect your calculations?

Jon.

[ClowntimeIsOver]

My formula is based on the following, for under-600s:

1 = no injury
2 = no injury
3 = Remainder of game
4 = Remainder of game
5 = REM + 1 game
6 = REM + 1
7 = REM + 1
8 = REM + 1
9 = REM + 2
10 = REM + 2
11 = REM +2
12 = REM + 3
13 = REM + 3
14 = REM + 4*
15 = REM + 5*
16 = REM + 6*
17 = REM + 7*
18 = REM + 8*
19 = REM + 10*
20 = REM + 15*

For over-600s, substitute "3" wherever there's an asterisk

If online SOM uses something different, to my knowledge no one has ever said so on any of these boards.

(I hope people respond to the updated thread, which is more accurate than this thread and is here:)

http://forums.sportingnews.com/viewtopic.php?t=619032