How overstated is it. If you play 50% more games than other players. And the odds are the same that you get an injury. I think you will have 50% more chance of getting an injury. no matter how small the %Injury per game.
Well, it is a bit more complicated than that, since injuries depend on getting fouled, and getting fouled likely depends on the amount of minutes played, not the amount of games. But assuming that NT players play between 48 and 80 minutes, the average increase in minutes played is indeed about .55, so I'll take that statement back
Either way, the more important point is that this figure is extremely misleading,since a .500 growth is extremely small if the base value is sufficiently low. I do believe that the risk of getting an injury is, indeed, sufficiently low.
I'm not saying that skills doesn't mean anything nor did i say that your inferior or something. I'm just saying that skill doesn't mean all, like most of the managers may think. I'm simply one of those managers who take into account other factors. Doesn't mean i'm a better manager, i simply try and valuate players more than just their skills.
Please note that this is not HT, where the individual qualities of the player don't matter and the GE uses team ratings to determine the match outcome. BB uses individual qualities to a large degree when determining what happens in a possession. Additionally, BB players have way more meaningful skills.
Therefore, it is quite useful to know whether a SG with a salary of X is a superior defender, a superior shooter, or maybe whether he lacks range or passing. As opposed to that, in HT you can generally infer the level of the primary and most meaningful skill by the salary of the player.
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."