No more crack pipe for you.

Christy wrote: Gatr22 wrote: You would think so, but the facts show differently. Here are the last 16 weeks for my team: Sorry, your phrasing suggested that starters were more likely to be hit due to large roster size, do you really think if you had a smaller roster size your starters would suffer less injuries? What defines a starter (given it has to be defined exactly for whatever code picks out starters to be injured)? To make proper judgments a study of a fair few managers would have to be done.

Personally, I think it's just coincidental and very bad luck.

I don't think the game is that advanced that it logs which players you start each week and then uses that data when calculating injuries. I can't see any other way that it would identify which of your players are starters.

Just my opinion

Phiba wrote: Christy wrote: Gatr22 wrote: You would think so, but the facts show differently. Here are the last 16 weeks for my team: Sorry, your phrasing suggested that starters were more likely to be hit due to large roster size, do you really think if you had a smaller roster size your starters would suffer less injuries? What defines a starter (given it has to be defined exactly for whatever code picks out starters to be injured)? To make proper judgments a study of a fair few managers would have to be done. Personally, I think it's just coincidental and very bad luck. I don't think the game is that advanced that it logs which players you start each week and then uses that data when calculating injuries. I can't see any other way that it would identify which of your players are starters. Just my opinion

This is a good point, but I doubt it actually looks at "starters" for each team, it likely would use "weeks at club" or some other criteria, that just happens to coincide with more likely to be a starter. It could be completely random and super bad luck, I just think there is some criteria being used to increase the chance of it being a starter. This is fine, since in real life, it would be more likely to be a starter getting injured too. My data from this season, taking a look at your data from season 16 and my memory from past season (knowing my huge roster size) leads me to believe something is being used that hits starters more often than meaningless rookies. Maybe it's an age factor. I agree it's certainly something simplistic if it's used. I would highly doubt they check the latest line ups first each week.

Gatr22 wrote: Phiba wrote: Christy wrote: Gatr22 wrote: You would think so, but the facts show differently. Here are the last 16 weeks for my team: Sorry, your phrasing suggested that starters were more likely to be hit due to large roster size, do you really think if you had a smaller roster size your starters would suffer less injuries? What defines a starter (given it has to be defined exactly for whatever code picks out starters to be injured)? To make proper judgments a study of a fair few managers would have to be done. Personally, I think it's just coincidental and very bad luck. I don't think the game is that advanced that it logs which players you start each week and then uses that data when calculating injuries. I can't see any other way that it would identify which of your players are starters. Just my opinion This is a good point, but I doubt it actually looks at "starters" for each team, it likely would use "weeks at club" or some other criteria, that just happens to coincide with more likely to be a starter. It could be completely random and super bad luck, I just think there is some criteria being used to increase the chance of it being a starter. This is fine, since in real life, it would be more likely to be a starter getting injured too. My data from this season, taking a look at your data from season 16 and my memory from past season (knowing my huge roster size) leads me to believe something is being used that hits starters more often than meaningless rookies. Maybe it's an age factor. I agree it's certainly something simplistic if it's used. I would highly doubt they check the latest line ups first each week.

Age could be a factor

Phiba wrote: Gatr22 wrote: Phiba wrote: Christy wrote: Gatr22 wrote: You would think so, but the facts show differently. Here are the last 16 weeks for my team: Sorry, your phrasing suggested that starters were more likely to be hit due to large roster size, do you really think if you had a smaller roster size your starters would suffer less injuries? What defines a starter (given it has to be defined exactly for whatever code picks out starters to be injured)? To make proper judgments a study of a fair few managers would have to be done. Personally, I think it's just coincidental and very bad luck. I don't think the game is that advanced that it logs which players you start each week and then uses that data when calculating injuries. I can't see any other way that it would identify which of your players are starters. Just my opinion This is a good point, but I doubt it actually looks at "starters" for each team, it likely would use "weeks at club" or some other criteria, that just happens to coincide with more likely to be a starter. It could be completely random and super bad luck, I just think there is some criteria being used to increase the chance of it being a starter. This is fine, since in real life, it would be more likely to be a starter getting injured too. My data from this season, taking a look at your data from season 16 and my memory from past season (knowing my huge roster size) leads me to believe something is being used that hits starters more often than meaningless rookies. Maybe it's an age factor. I agree it's certainly something simplistic if it's used. I would highly doubt they check the latest line ups first each week. Age could be a factor

Just looked at the ages of my injured players for S16 & S17. Nothing to suggest older players are more prone to injury. Haven't run the numbers for weeks at club, but due to the number of youths and backups injured from my data, I don't think there is any evidence that this is the case either.

Ages
Season 16
14.03.14 (Week 1) - Starter (TE). Out 17 days. 22
28.03.14 (Week 3) - Youth. Out 27 days. 18
18.04.14 (Week 6) - Starter (KR). Out 17 days. 20
09.05.14 (Week 9) - Starter (CB). Out 15 days. 24
16.05.14 (Week 10) - Starter (TE). Out 20 days. 22
30.05.14 (Week 12) - Backup (DL). Out 8 days. 19
13.06.14 (Week 14) - Youth. Out 20 days. 17
20.06.14 (Week 15) - Youth. Out 21 days. 20
27.06.14 (Week 16) - Starter (GNR). Out 19 days. 19
04.07.14 (Week 17) - Starter (CB). Out 28 days. 24
11.07.14 (Week 18) - Backup (QB). Out 25 days. 21

Average age = 18.7
I don't remember the average age of my squad for S16, but pretty sure it was quite a bit higher than this.

Season 17 Injuries
18.07.14 (Pre-season) - Backup (TE). Out 19 days. 19
05.09.14 (Week 7) - Backup (SF). Out 17 days. 22
26.09.14 (Week 10) - Youth. Out 17 days. 19
03.10.14 (Week 11) - Backup (LB). Out 22 days. 20
14.11.14 (Week 17) - Backup (QB). Out 14 days. 22

Average age = 20.4
Current average age of squad = 21.5

I think in all likelihood injuries are randomly determined, but it may be possible that some players are more injury prone than others.

S16 - 09.05.14 (Week 9) - Starter (CB). Out 15 days. 24
S16 - 04.07.14 (Week 17) - Starter (CB). Out 28 days. 24

These injuries are both to the same player.

S16 - 11.07.14 (Week 18) - Backup (QB). Out 25 days. 21
S17 - 14.11.14 (Week 17) - Backup (QB). Out 14 days. 22

As are these.

I really hope this is just a coincidence as the above backup QB will be my starter in a couple of seasons and I don't want him to keep getting injured