SUB% and injuries

[Brian-Broncos]

I remember a while back some coaches wanting a more realistic amount of injuries. SUB% seems like an easy fix: league would just require lower OUT%: 94 in the first half; 93 in the second half. Or maybe even 93 and 92. Even better: specific OUT and IN percentages: 94/98 in the 1st half; 93/97 in the 2nd half.

Injuries
I've been playing around with SUB%, trying to get more realistic stats and for my guys not rotating in-and-out every snap, like often happens by the 4th.

With 93 or 94 OUT% week 1, I ended up with a couple of pretty bad injuries. The profile I customized week 4 also had a 93 or 94 OUT% that I forgot about - I ended up with three minor injuries. It could be coincidence, plus it was raining, but this very small sample suggests we can increase injuries by lowering OUT%.

Max energy level
I suggested lower percentages between first and second halves because max energy rating (ER) lowers for each player as the game progresses: down to 99 about mid-1st half and 98 mid-2nd. With our typical 95-98 SUB% range, players down to 98 ER need to be fully rested in order to get back in the game. This is not realistic at all. Of course, by 4th quarter or so, players aren't fully rested before subbing in because too many other players are hitting OUT%. With our narrow range (95-98), often by late game, some skill position players end up rotating in-and-out every play as they are all at the OUT%. After sitting one play, the player that sat is no longer the most tired so they go back in. Also not realistic.

You can view ER and energy levels by switching to human coach at times during a game to view the substitution screen. It also helps to show jersey numbers or positions.

I'm not proposing a rule change; Posting for informational/discussion purposes.

[Justin-Chicago]

I thought all are required to use 95 OUT for all positions except QB(75), K, P?

[Mitch-Dolphins]

I thought all are required to use 95 OUT for all positions except QB(75), K, P?

My understanding is all teams had to have an OUT% at no more than 95%. It can be lower, just not higher.

[Donovon-Steelers]

In April, I felt annoyed that our RBs rarely break off long runs because 20+ seasons ago in the PNFL this did occur; my feeling was that we needed to make some adjustments to fix this lack of realism (but that's another issue entirely) -- the point is I submitted testing to the power-that-be because it came up with some unexpected findings regarding injury related to EN/DI ratings (not substitution rate).

EN reduction didn't increase injury rates, but DI did (for MINOR injuries) which was strange. I was too lazy to go back repeat all these results, but I found it curious that EN didn't provide an incremental negative injury bump as expected.

Brian, your substitution analysis makes sense - the longer someone is on the field without rest, the more susceptible they should be to injury. Maybe if someone has spare time to tally all the injuries of last season compared to this season (after 4 weeks) we can ascertain if our reduction of sub % has caused a league-wide increase (which actually wouldn't be a bad thing IMO for realism).

Screenshot 2026-09-21 133211.png (187.24 KiB) Viewed 793 times

[Steve-San Diego]

Interesting analysis. Should out% be lower than 95% then to be more realistic? Would 94/98 in the 1st half; 93/97 in the 2nd half be just right?

It would be important to make sure we achieve realistic substitutions without causing an epidemic of injuries. If you can nail it down with further testing, certainly worth proposing for next season.

I do wonder though how much EN is a factor too. I would assume that an 87 EN CB take longer for his ER to hit the 95% out than an 84 EN CB. Any proposal would need to factor this in somehow.

[Mitch-Dolphins]

There were teams using 95% OUT prior to the new mandate. I was it were closer to 90%

[Justin-Chicago]

Since everyone has had ample opportunity to review the proposal and provide comments, I am closing this thread. Thank you for the thoughtful discussion.

Beginning next season, the “OUT” substitution percentage will be set at 95% for all players on both offense and defense, with no limit on the “IN” substitution percentage. For example, a player must have a 95% OUT and may have anywhere from 96% to 100% IN. The QB, P, and K positions are exempt and will remain under the current rule.

So let it be written, so let it be done.

This is what was discussed and agreed to for this season. Out at 95, not less.

Has this not been enforced the first few weeks?

[Dean-Atlanta]

The language on the profiles rules page says this:

B. Offensive COACHING PROFILES requirements:

• Substitution %: In each Offensive profile, the QB substitution % must be set to 75/80.

Beginning with the 2049 season :
All non‑QB, non‑Kicker players must have an OUT% of 95 or lower.
IN% may be set anywhere from 96–100%.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=6641

[Charlie-49ers]

Since everyone has had ample opportunity to review the proposal and provide comments, I am closing this thread. Thank you for the thoughtful discussion.

Beginning next season, the “OUT” substitution percentage will be set at 95% for all players on both offense and defense, with no limit on the “IN” substitution percentage. For example, a player must have a 95% OUT and may have anywhere from 96% to 100% IN. The QB, P, and K positions are exempt and will remain under the current rule.

So let it be written, so let it be done.

This is what was discussed and agreed to for this season. Out at 95, not less.

Has this not been enforced the first few weeks?

As a point of clarification (my bad), 95% was the maximum OUT, which did not negate having something less.

BTW, max 95% is the initial test and we can elect to go something lower for next season. I actually like the idea of 94% in the first half and 93% in the second half as a tinkering possibility. And yes, although they are a pain in the butt, we significantly trail the NFL in weekly injuries. The more injuries result in more mismatches on the filed which many/most people have complained about forever that there is not enough. If the max Out% is moving us in the right direction (in baby-steps) then we should continue to tweak this issue. Backups become more important, and they should.

[Matt-Jacksonville]

I'm ok with maybe dropping 1% each season till we hit the sweet spot. However, I'm not in favor or requiring different % for each half. I think that adds extra complexity for little return.