Rotoworld Links and Injuries

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:19 pm

I'm planning on rolling out a new page that will sort the injuries on Rotoworld's injury page by IBC team. In order to do this, I need everyone to submit links for their players to their Rotoworld pages. If you don't know how to do this, follow this guide: viewtopic.php?p=2530#2530

Also, please make sure your links start with http://www.rotoworld.com

This should make keeping track of IBC injuries a lot easier, but it's going to require some assistance from you guys.

Thanks in advance.

DBacks · Post by **DBacks** » Tue Apr 08, 2008 3:41 pm

How soon do you need this Shawn? I probably wont have enough free time for it until Friday at the earliest.

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Tue Apr 08, 2008 4:32 pm

Basically just going to be something for you guys to take advantage of. Probably will never be THE "official" injury source, but something that will definitely help those who want to use it.

Reds · Post by **Reds** » Tue Apr 08, 2008 10:51 pm

Nationals all done but 6 & 7 players.

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Tue Apr 08, 2008 11:01 pm

That's fine, it's really only important for players who are in the sim this year.

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:32 am

All Tigers with a Rotoworld profile are updated.

Pirates · Post by **Pirates** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:34 am

Brewers as well

Orioles · Post by **Orioles** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 12:48 am

ditto for marlins

BlueJays · Post by **BlueJays** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:19 am

Reds done

Brewers · Post by **Brewers** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:02 am

ChiSox all set

Nationals · Post by **Nationals** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 10:22 am

Twins in.

Twins · Post by **Twins** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 10:55 am

Orioles done.

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 11:45 am

Half the Rockies are done....the half that are actually injured.

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 11:47 am

Just a little sneak peak. This uses injuries as of about half an hour ago: view_injuries.php
Obviously a work in progress, but expect a stylized and sorted version of that.

Pirates · Post by **Pirates** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 11:49 am

nice work shawn

Athletics · Post by **Athletics** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 1:57 pm

Is there anyway to show if theyre actually on the DL, not just a return date? Great work though Shawn.

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 2:06 pm

All those players are actually on the DL. I removed all the players that are listed as "Out" on Rotoworld.

Athletics · Post by **Athletics** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 2:23 pm

cool.

Angels are done.

BlueJays · Post by **BlueJays** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 3:52 pm

So, this is fairley real time then? If this appears to work as good as it looks on the surface all year long, I say we revisit the "real time" DL issue isntead of the foolish 2 weeks issue.

Tigers · Post by **Tigers** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:03 pm

Reds wrote:So, this is fairley real time then? If this appears to work as good as it looks on the surface all year long, I say we revisit the "real time" DL issue isntead of the foolish 2 weeks issue.

The problem with the "real time" issue remains.......teams in the MLB hold players out and then put them on the DL retroactive to a date, often 5-6 days prior and then only have to keep them on the DL for two weeks from the retroactive date. In the IBC, if we went that way, said player would only miss 8-9 days of DL time instead of the actual 2 weeks.

That has always been the problem with going to a "real time" DL. In addition, if we are still only going to be doing two roster updates twice a week, a player in theory could end up missing only 6 days of IBC game time, when misssing the full 14 days of MLB time. That seems a bit messed up still to me.

If nobody cares that players miss less than a full 2 weeks of DL time in the IBC every time they have to miss a full 2 weeks of DL time in the MLB, then I guess its not an issue.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:10 pm

Reds wrote:So, this is fairley real time then? If this appears to work as good as it looks on the surface all year long, I say we revisit the "real time" DL issue isntead of the foolish 2 weeks issue.

If you're talking about the beginning of the season, I agree there for the first week or two of the season.

But if you are referring to the whole year then I disagree. A player that retroactively hits the DL still misses 15 days due to injury, whether they are on the DL or not.

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:13 pm

1. I'm pretty confident that Nate is referring to the beginning of the season injury handling, where players who go on the DL March 20th and come off April 5th (Estrada for example) still have to miss 2 weeks in IBC. I agree that something needs to be done regarding that.

2. As for retroactivity, I thought the real time argument was simply that the player must miss as much time in IBC as they do in MLB. So minimum 15 days, it was just a debate of when the injury should be applied in IBC? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Tigers · Post by **Tigers** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:21 pm

Pirates wrote:
Reds wrote:So, this is fairley real time then? If this appears to work as good as it looks on the surface all year long, I say we revisit the "real time" DL issue isntead of the foolish 2 weeks issue.
If you're talking about the beginning of the season, I agree there for the first week or two of the season.

But if you are referring to the whole year then I disagree. A player that retroactively hits the DL still misses 15 days due to injury, whether they are on the DL or not.[/quote]

In the MLB the player would miss the full two weeks, however in the IBC they wouldn't if we were using a "real time" DL rule.

Tigers · Post by **Tigers** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:28 pm

Dodgers wrote:1. I'm pretty confident that Nate is referring to the beginning of the season injury handling, where players who go on the DL March 20th and come off April 5th (Estrada for example) still have to miss 2 weeks in IBC. I agree that something needs to be done regarding that.

2. As for retroactivity, I thought the real time argument was simply that the player must miss as much time in IBC as they do in MLB. So minimum 15 days, it was just a debate of when the injury should be applied in IBC? Correct me if I'm wrong.

My understanding on #2, the arguement for real time DL in the IBC has always been, the player goes on the DL in the IBC when the player is officially put on the DL in the MLB and then he comes off the DL in the IBC the same day (or next) he comes off the DL in the MLB.

Maybe the "real time" arguement has changed a bit, so maybe I'm interpreting the arguement wrong now, but that's how I used to understand it.

BlueJays · Post by **BlueJays** » Wed Apr 09, 2008 5:31 pm

I was talkin about the beginning of the season... Its a non issue for this year, I was hoping to revisit something going into 2009.. shoulda clarified that.

In regards to applying this to the whole year.... I'm not opposed to that personally.

B.K. I understand that they still miss that full 15 days but only say 9 in the IBC.. but thats not my issue with it.. I tihnk the tradeoff.. DL'd for 9, or 10.. is simply much easier to keep track of "real time" than to make sure someone has sat out a full two weeks.

Especially now that we have 2 databases. Do guys need to be DL'd just on Sundays? Or Thursdays now if its the closest day? That could make things even more confusing. I'm simply saying it might be easier just to forget the full 15 days, if it makes DL tracking easier and more efficient to track and/or enforce. If it does, and we don't have to worry about penalty, and guys on the DL making it into sims, we don't have to police as much.. wouldn't that be a better thing?