Actually, the longegivity factor seems to be the most flawed about this, which makes sense because it is such a subjective measure in a stats based algorithm.
Lillee debuted in Jan 71 and played his last test in Jan 84, so 13 year international career, but is only given 8.05 years here. I know WSC took off 2 years and his career threatening back injury took out 20 months between Mar 73 and Nov 74, but why should that injury be held against him? He bowled express pace and therefore suffered injuries like most express pace bowlers. He was not a fast-medium like McGrath, Andersen or Walsh who can have long careers because they bowl slower.
Thommo and Gillespie are other bowlers who suffered in the ratings because of fielding accidents that took them out of the game, nothing to do with their skills as bowlers.
Also, in earlier years bowlers would play 8 or so shield games with the tests, and an Ashes tour would be more than 20 games...now there are only 2 tour games in an Ashes series and the first test Ashes bowlers don't even play the first tour game due to resting (I'm sure 2nd tour game will be the same). Why should they be considered to have more longevivity because they play in cotton wool?
Above are genuine queries.
Regarding the injury:
I presume the list is built to calculate the value added by a player to his international side over their career - not their skill level, speed, ferocity, psychological tenacity etc.
The injury that Lillee suffered probably should not put him out of contention for recieving a golden Rolex on his retirement day but from a team POV, it is more incredibly more valuable that a player did not get injured and performed at a high level for those two years instead.
The more appropriate question to ask is not why Lillee is rated lower but rather why should McGrath be not rated higher for avoiding injury and being at least as effective when on the field? Bowling fast is a means to an end and not an extenuating factor. If you’re able to bowl slower, get the same results and play more matches due to not being injured, that is a massive plus for a bowler.
Also, regarding fielding injuries, whether or not they are related to the skill level of the bowler is immaterial. The list (I presume) is not interested at all in computing that. If you’re injured on the field, and you’re out for a year, you are not adding value to your side for that year which somebody else is doing.
The same logic applies to modern cricketers playing less F.C. games. All the list is considering is value added to your international side, not why players of the past were is a worse position to do so - whether that is due to lower FC matches, higher quality medicine, better travel, more *** etc. is a not within the purview if the list.
You are framing this as a moral question of whether or not a player deserves a better rating due to xyz factors. The list is completely agnostic as to the individual extenuating factors behind performances of cricketers. It only contextualises the performances to the extent of standardising for the quality of batting/bowling and the nature of the pitches. The fact that batsman A and batsman B are opening in Perth in 92 against Australia are all relevant factors. Whether batsman B is battling cancer at the same time is not a relevant factor in the system.
If you think it should be, that’s fine. Then, it’s just that you and Cribbage worship completely different gods.