Yes... but only to show how good the players actually are at their age... as anyone can be injured regardless of age, I could have just done PPG, but it is not as easy to show quickly how good the players are.
I always think age and injury prevalence is overstated. At least up until the mid 30's.
There were figures a few years ago that showed 21-25 year olds miss ~12% of games, 26-30 year olds missed ~14.2% of all games due to injury... 31-35 ~16.6%.
That is only a difference of 11.6 to 13.6 games missed per year from late 20's to early 30's. 36 and over figures were not pretty though, and the increase in the 31-35 bracket was driven mainly by the 33-35 year olds.
But 2 games a year difference between 26-30 and 31-35 on average over the whole timeframe and almost no difference across the ages of 26-32 mean PPG factored seems the best way to do it.
The difference between a 26 year old and 35 year old is also ~11.48 games missed a year to ~14.76 according to this chart. Not exactly a great deal on average. ~3 games extra a year.
He is the graph for it... but I cannot find the figures, so just calculated straight off the graph.
As can be seen, the 26 to 32 area on the table is very stable. In my original figures only 12/65 best seasons were at age 33 or over.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-jjA6NuKertI/UdM7SiPuXnI/AAAAAAAAAew/wc2R57RXFwA/s863/MGL+age+chart+2.JPG