SkyDog OOTP2K7 Fictional League Settings, v1.0

[SkyDog]

Originally Posted by spleen1015

Ben, have you seen any evidence of what I have bolded above in any of your test leagues?

I'll have to look more carefully tonight, but my initial answer is "I don't think so." I know that stats have stayed pretty stable from year one to year 100, and from what I can tell, a guy with 80 power is just about as rare in year 100 as in year 1. I guess I can compare overall talent in 2001 to 2100 pretty easily. I'll try that.

A ***HUUUUUGE*** issue with this version, though, is the ability to customize. I wonder if people reporting the above have too many or too few draftees, or too many or too few feeder leagues. I *know* that feeder leagues can cause issues with too much talent, so that's why I'm only using minors. I haven't played around with draftees and rounds compared to league size and number of minors levels, so my guess is that either:

1. I just got lucky in picking the "right" number of rounds and draftees for my league structure.

or...

2. The issue is only there for those who use feeder leagues

[thbroman]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

A ***HUUUUUGE*** issue with this version, though, is the ability to customize. I wonder if people reporting the above have too many or too few draftees, or too many or too few feeder leagues. I *know* that feeder leagues can cause issues with too much talent, so that's why I'm only using minors. I haven't played around with draftees and rounds compared to league size and number of minors levels, so my guess is that either:

Do you have any references here? I've been trying to design a set of minor leagues and feeder leagues to duplicate a baseball universae before free agency and I would like to see what experiences others may have had with this.

[SkyDog]

Originally Posted by thbroman

Do you have any references here? I've been trying to design a set of minor leagues and feeder leagues to duplicate a baseball universae before free agency and I would like to see what experiences others may have had with this.

It has been mentioned in several places. I know that the long thread at FOFC talks about it, and there are several threads here talking about it. A search here on "NCAA" would probably yield some results. I know that someone mentioned that doing the entire NCAA yields wayyyyyyyyy too many good players.

[SkyDog]

OK. I did your legwork for you.

<table class="tborder" id="threadslist" align="center" border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="1" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td class="alt1" id="td_threadstatusicon_143822"> </td> <td class="alt2"> </td> <td class="alt1" id="td_threadtitle_143822" title="I haven't seen much discussion on this, but what do people feel the best balance is. Clearly there must be a relationship between the number of draft rounds you use, the minor league roster limits(providing you're not using ghost players) and the number of feeder leagues you're using. The way I..."> balance between feeders/roster limits/draft rounds
PSUColonel
</td> <td class="alt2" title="Replies: 30, Views: 670">

Yesterday 05:33 PM
by NomarHits400

</td> <td class="alt1" align="center">30</td> <td class="alt2" align="center">670</td> <td class="alt1">OOTPB 2007: General Discussions</td> </tr><tr> <td class="alt1" id="td_threadstatusicon_143627"> </td> <td class="alt2"> </td> <td class="alt1" id="td_threadtitle_143627" title="I am asking that this be TT for a possible feature add in a patch or for 2008 I am running into the problem of having too much talent in my leagues because of the # of feeder teams. It would be nice if there was a reccomended # of feeder teams in the universe setup options that would give us the..."> Recomended # of feeder teams
Fallschirmjager
</td> <td class="alt2" title="Replies: 27, Views: 599">

03-28-2007 05:26 PM
by zekester91

</td> <td class="alt1" align="center">27</td> <td class="alt2" align="center">599</td> <td class="alt1">OOTPB 2007: General Discussions</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table id="post2127606" class="tborder" align="center" border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td class="thead" style="border-style: solid none solid solid; border-color: rgb(59, 75, 127) -moz-use-text-color rgb(59, 75, 127) rgb(59, 75, 127); border-width: 1px 0px 1px 1px; font-weight: normal;"> 03-28-2007, 01:51 PM <!-- / status icon and date --> </td> <td class="thead" style="border-style: solid solid solid none; border-color: rgb(59, 75, 127) rgb(59, 75, 127) rgb(59, 75, 127) -moz-use-text-color; border-width: 1px 1px 1px 0px; font-weight: normal;" align="right"> #3 </td> </tr> <tr valign="top"> <td class="alt2" style="border-style: none solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color rgb(59, 75, 127); border-width: 0px 1px;" width="175"> NomarHits400 <script type="text/javascript"> vbmenu_register("postmenu_2127606", true); </script>
Minors (Double A)



Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Dayton, Ohio
Posts: 102


</td> <td class="alt1" id="td_post_2127606" style="border-right: 1px solid rgb(59, 75, 127);"> <!-- message --> Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> Originally Posted by PSUColonel
I haven't seen much discussion on this, but what do people feel the best balance is. Clearly there must be a relationship between the number of draft rounds you use, the minor league roster limits(providing you're not using ghost players) and the number of feeder leagues you're using. The way I see it, there's got to be a perfect balance between all of these in order to ensure the league maintain a competetive number of players (not too many, not too few). It would also dictate what the talent distribution of the league might look like.
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
I have been playing around with htis quite a bit the last several days. I would like to set up an MLB type league with the top 128 NCAA programs as well as the top 500 high schools as my feeder leagues. This is obviously plenty of talent to feed into a 30 team MLB with full minors.

In fact, what I am finding out (as others have already)- is that this type of set-up isn't really practical becasue there seems to be no way to proportion the number of 5 star players on these teams- and the MLB league is quickly overrun in several years with an abundance of talent from the draft. Every feeder league team has several 5 star players- which isn't exactly realistic to either college or high school. Every 3rd or 4th Div I school in college might have a 5 star prospect- and 1 out of every 50 or so in high school- but with 5 or so per team, the talent is disproportional....Is there any way to address this that anyone can think of? Can Markus or RonCo or someone who has a better feel for how the draft is designed comment on a way to make this work...I am a little bummed out that we now have the flexibility to utilize HS and college feeder leagues but are aparently limited to a "magic number" of teams to make the draft operate properly.....Perhaps a variable where we can set the % of draft worthy prospects for our desired feeder system would work- but I don't see how it can be done currently....Help!!!!!!
<!-- / message --> </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="alt2" style="border-style: none solid solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color rgb(59, 75, 127) rgb(59, 75, 127); border-width: 0px 1px 1px;"> </td> <td class="alt1" style="border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color rgb(59, 75, 127) rgb(59, 75, 127) -moz-use-text-color; border-width: 0px 1px 1px 0px;" align="right"> <!-- controls --> </td></tr></tbody></table>

[thbroman]

SkyDog, thanks for your help.

Originally Posted by NomarHits400

In fact, what I am finding out (as others have already)- is that this type of set-up isn't really practical becasue there seems to be no way to proportion the number of 5 star players on these teams- and the MLB league is quickly overrun in several years with an abundance of talent from the draft. Every feeder league team has several 5 star players- which isn't exactly realistic to either college or high school. Every 3rd or 4th Div I school in college might have a 5 star prospect- and 1 out of every 50 or so in high school- but with 5 or so per team, the talent is disproportional....Is there any way to address this that anyone can think of? Can Markus or RonCo or someone who has a better feel for how the draft is designed comment on a way to make this work...I am a little bummed out that we now have the flexibility to utilize HS and college feeder leagues but are aparently limited to a "magic number" of teams to make the draft operate properly.....Perhaps a variable where we can set the % of draft worthy prospects for our desired feeder system would work- but I don't see how it can be done currently....Help!!!!!!

One gets the impression that a different coefficient is used to define the talent distribution of feeder leagues than what is used for the amateur draft pool, because otherwise it's hard to see why the feeders in particular create problems of talent inflation.

[Amazin' Blue]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

These tend to push things toward the middle a little more, but keep the possibility of outliers alive and well. For example, the top five (24 teams) from my current season:

ERA: 2.45, 2.59, 2.70, 2.72, 2.74
K: 276, 268, 244, 233, 221
IP: 264.1, 258.2, 258, 254
WHIP: 0.99, 1.01, 1.05, 1.06, 1.10

AVG: .342, .342, .337, .330, .330
HR: 40, 37, 37, 36, 36
RBI: 119, 114, 112, 111, 111
SB: 62, 62, 50, 44, 44

Despite these rather unremarkable numbers for league leaders in this given season, it's still possible to have a rare player come along and hit .400, steal 100, hit 60, have an ERA under 1.75, or strike out 320.

That looks perfect. That's actually pretty close to what I was getting with my crudely modified version of your original settings.

In 30 years I had mostly seasons like that with some extreme variations of one 52 homer season, one 160+ RBI season (different guy and season...), one .382 season, one 300+ strikeout season, and 7 or 8 sub 2.00 seasons. The key to all those numbers is that each one was a really special season over the course of 30 years. I like seeing someone competing for the Triple Crown or having an outside shot at .400 or 30 wins but it's only fun if it's super rare.

I think I'll stick with my latest 30 year sim that I did using my slapdash settings and just change them now to your 1.1 settings for the rest of the league history. That should work fine.

Great job.

[gordyhulten]

Just to reiterate what was said earlier: there's a big difference between 16000 and 160000 ABs in the league settings - especially after 25 years.

Doh!

[thomamon]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

It has been mentioned in several places. I know that the long thread at FOFC talks about it, and there are several threads here talking about it. A search here on "NCAA" would probably yield some results. I know that someone mentioned that doing the entire NCAA yields wayyyyyyyyy too many good players.

I'm just wondering what your league avg and ERA is in 1.01. Not exactly, but if you could give a few examples I would greatly appreciate. My league I'm running seems a little low in both area.

[mikev]

In case anybody wants to see, I imported my online league to 2007 and ran a 20 year test from 1997-2017 with Skydog's settings.

http://www.sixfivepony.com/mbbatest/...re the results including 20 years of history.

[SkyDog]

Originally Posted by thomamon

I'm just wondering what your league avg and ERA is in 1.01. Not exactly, but if you could give a few examples I would greatly appreciate. My league I'm running seems a little low in both area.

That's interesting. I ran two different 100-year sims (different game starts) and in both cases, batting average was around the same, and ERA was slightly higher. Over the course of 200 seasons with 1.01, I got:

AVG: .2569
ERA: 4.088

In the 2100 season of the second sim, the top five ERAs were 2.38, 2.72, 2.73, 2.77, and 2.89, and the top five batting averages were .373, .352, .342, .322, and .332.

SBs are really working well for me with these settings, by the way, is how outliers seems to pop up, but things stay fairly low in a lot of seasons. In the current season, the top five are 57, 52, 52, 51 and 41. However, the single-season leader had 121. The single-season leader had 65 or less steals 40 times, 80 or more 23 times, and 66-79 37 times.

[NDSox12]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

SBs are really working well for me with these settings, by the way, is how outliers seems to pop up, but things stay fairly low in a lot of seasons. In the current season, the top five are 57, 52, 52, 51 and 41. However, the single-season leader had 121. The single-season leader had 65 or less steals 40 times, 80 or more 23 times, and 66-79 37 times.

Looks great! I'm curious though... on the flip side of those stolen base numbers, what do the caught stealing or SB% numbers look like?

[Dunk44]

For my own personal preferences, using version 1.01, I raised the hit modifier to .975 (from .965) and it raised the league batting average to around .260 to .265 over the last 10 seasons. League ERA is still hovering between 3.9 to 4.1, and my highest batting average was a .378. Have had 9 ERAs below 1.75 over the last 50 seasons, amazingly 6 of 'em from one playerwith a low of 1.46.

Excellent job with these numbers SkyDog.

[SkyDog]

Originally Posted by NDSox12

Looks great! I'm curious though... on the flip side of those stolen base numbers, what do the caught stealing or SB% numbers look like?

Stolen base percentage is around 66%.

[gordyhulten]

Here's a league history from a 100-year sim using SkyDog's settings that I'll be using for a dynasty.

You can browse around it and see if these are the kinds of numbers you're looking for.

In terms of outliers, though, I've never seen anything like this guy:

Year/Team/League	Age	G	AB	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	R	BB	HP	SF	K	SB	CS	AVG	OBP	SLG	OPS	VORP
1970 Tennessee - RL	20	14	14	2	1	0	0	2	1	0	0	0	4	0	0	.143	.143	.214	.357	-2.4
1971 Tennessee - RL	21	147	295	78	17	1	7	36	33	18	3	2	63	0	0	.264	.311	.400	.711	-3.4
1972 Tennessee - RL	22	155	635	217	41	8	28	121	95	44	3	6	79	1	0	.342	.384	.564	.948	72.1
1973 Tennessee - RL	23	155	646	200	40	2	19	111	78	44	4	7	118	0	0	.310	.354	.466	.820	30.8
1974 Tennessee - RL	24	159	659	253	38	3	45	173	135	47	9	5	77	0	0	.384	.429	.656	1.085	119.1
1975 Tennessee - RL	25	147	590	221	41	4	48	149	131	69	7	2	70	0	1	.375	.445	.702	1.146	118.9
1976 Tennessee - RL	26	158	626	220	26	7	42	150	137	90	3	15	88	0	0	.351	.426	.617	1.043	97.3
1977 Tennessee - RL	27	158	625	226	39	5	53	165	163	97	8	6	77	1	1	.362	.450	.694	1.144	128.8
1978 Tennessee - RL	28	158	632	206	34	2	38	127	107	88	7	10	80	0	0	.326	.408	.566	.975	76.4
1979 Tennessee - RL	29	159	631	218	43	3	35	107	132	86	5	3	87	2	1	.345	.426	.590	1.016	86.6
1980 Tennessee - RL	30	159	633	222	38	1	49	148	124	84	3	3	83	0	1	.351	.427	.646	1.074	105.0
1981 Tennessee - RL	31	159	612	209	32	5	56	142	130	75	5	8	74	0	0	.342	.413	.685	1.097	105.5
1982 Colorado - RL	32	154	620	232	28	3	62	147	137	80	3	4	67	1	1	.374	.446	.729	1.175	98.2
1983 Colorado - RL	33	156	608	215	33	2	60	152	149	108	3	5	69	1	0	.354	.450	.711	1.161	95.8
1984 Colorado - RL	34	156	620	228	35	5	54	165	134	90	5	3	67	1	0	.368	.450	.702	1.151	92.8
1985 Colorado - RL	35	159	615	233	40	6	62	173	135	103	0	9	59	0	0	.379	.462	.766	1.228	112.9
1986 New York - RL	36	159	623	239	27	3	46	161	134	103	4	11	78	0	0	.384	.467	.658	1.125	120.8
1987 New York - RL	37	132	492	155	31	1	36	143	108	95	5	14	69	1	1	.315	.421	.602	1.022	63.4
1988 New York - RL	38	159	601	226	40	4	63	206	157	107	9	10	55	0	1	.376	.470	.770	1.241	138.1
1989 New York - RL	39	146	575	197	34	2	45	159	131	86	1	7	59	0	0	.343	.425	.643	1.068	83.3
1990 New York - RL	40	144	565	187	20	4	47	141	130	98	4	2	64	0	1	.331	.432	.630	1.062	79.7
1991 New York - RL	41	137	531	164	27	1	32	139	117	82	6	7	85	0	0	.309	.403	.544	.947	46.7
1992 New York - RL	42	133	471	139	30	4	13	78	68	85	9	6	88	0	1	.295	.408	.459	.867	27.1
Total         RL	23 yrs.	3363	12919	4487	735	76	940	3095	2666	1779	106	145	1660	8	9	.347	.426	.634	1.061	1893.3

I think it's excellent, though, that the game can create guys who can be so far ahead of their peers.

[thomamon]

The only thing I think tha tI would like is the league Batting Averages to be a bit higher.

Originally Posted by gordyhulten

Here's a league history from a 100-year sim using SkyDog's settings that I'll be using for a dynasty.

You can browse around it and see if these are the kinds of numbers you're looking for.

In terms of outliers, though, I've never seen anything like this guy:

Year/Team/League	Age	G	AB	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	R	BB	HP	SF	K	SB	CS	AVG	OBP	SLG	OPS	VORP
1970 Tennessee - RL	20	14	14	2	1	0	0	2	1	0	0	0	4	0	0	.143	.143	.214	.357	-2.4
1971 Tennessee - RL	21	147	295	78	17	1	7	36	33	18	3	2	63	0	0	.264	.311	.400	.711	-3.4
1972 Tennessee - RL	22	155	635	217	41	8	28	121	95	44	3	6	79	1	0	.342	.384	.564	.948	72.1
1973 Tennessee - RL	23	155	646	200	40	2	19	111	78	44	4	7	118	0	0	.310	.354	.466	.820	30.8
1974 Tennessee - RL	24	159	659	253	38	3	45	173	135	47	9	5	77	0	0	.384	.429	.656	1.085	119.1
1975 Tennessee - RL	25	147	590	221	41	4	48	149	131	69	7	2	70	0	1	.375	.445	.702	1.146	118.9
1976 Tennessee - RL	26	158	626	220	26	7	42	150	137	90	3	15	88	0	0	.351	.426	.617	1.043	97.3
1977 Tennessee - RL	27	158	625	226	39	5	53	165	163	97	8	6	77	1	1	.362	.450	.694	1.144	128.8
1978 Tennessee - RL	28	158	632	206	34	2	38	127	107	88	7	10	80	0	0	.326	.408	.566	.975	76.4
1979 Tennessee - RL	29	159	631	218	43	3	35	107	132	86	5	3	87	2	1	.345	.426	.590	1.016	86.6
1980 Tennessee - RL	30	159	633	222	38	1	49	148	124	84	3	3	83	0	1	.351	.427	.646	1.074	105.0
1981 Tennessee - RL	31	159	612	209	32	5	56	142	130	75	5	8	74	0	0	.342	.413	.685	1.097	105.5
1982 Colorado - RL	32	154	620	232	28	3	62	147	137	80	3	4	67	1	1	.374	.446	.729	1.175	98.2
1983 Colorado - RL	33	156	608	215	33	2	60	152	149	108	3	5	69	1	0	.354	.450	.711	1.161	95.8
1984 Colorado - RL	34	156	620	228	35	5	54	165	134	90	5	3	67	1	0	.368	.450	.702	1.151	92.8
1985 Colorado - RL	35	159	615	233	40	6	62	173	135	103	0	9	59	0	0	.379	.462	.766	1.228	112.9
1986 New York - RL	36	159	623	239	27	3	46	161	134	103	4	11	78	0	0	.384	.467	.658	1.125	120.8
1987 New York - RL	37	132	492	155	31	1	36	143	108	95	5	14	69	1	1	.315	.421	.602	1.022	63.4
1988 New York - RL	38	159	601	226	40	4	63	206	157	107	9	10	55	0	1	.376	.470	.770	1.241	138.1
1989 New York - RL	39	146	575	197	34	2	45	159	131	86	1	7	59	0	0	.343	.425	.643	1.068	83.3
1990 New York - RL	40	144	565	187	20	4	47	141	130	98	4	2	64	0	1	.331	.432	.630	1.062	79.7
1991 New York - RL	41	137	531	164	27	1	32	139	117	82	6	7	85	0	0	.309	.403	.544	.947	46.7
1992 New York - RL	42	133	471	139	30	4	13	78	68	85	9	6	88	0	1	.295	.408	.459	.867	27.1
Total         RL	23 yrs.	3363	12919	4487	735	76	940	3095	2666	1779	106	145	1660	8	9	.347	.426	.634	1.061	1893.3

I think it's excellent, though, that the game can create guys who can be so far ahead of their peers.

[Theonlystd]

Originally Posted by gordyhulten

Here's a league history from a 100-year sim using SkyDog's settings that I'll be using for a dynasty.

You can browse around it and see if these are the kinds of numbers you're looking for.

In terms of outliers, though, I've never seen anything like this guy:

Year/Team/League	Age	G	AB	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	R	BB	HP	SF	K	SB	CS	AVG	OBP	SLG	OPS	VORP
1970 Tennessee - RL	20	14	14	2	1	0	0	2	1	0	0	0	4	0	0	.143	.143	.214	.357	-2.4
1971 Tennessee - RL	21	147	295	78	17	1	7	36	33	18	3	2	63	0	0	.264	.311	.400	.711	-3.4
1972 Tennessee - RL	22	155	635	217	41	8	28	121	95	44	3	6	79	1	0	.342	.384	.564	.948	72.1
1973 Tennessee - RL	23	155	646	200	40	2	19	111	78	44	4	7	118	0	0	.310	.354	.466	.820	30.8
1974 Tennessee - RL	24	159	659	253	38	3	45	173	135	47	9	5	77	0	0	.384	.429	.656	1.085	119.1
1975 Tennessee - RL	25	147	590	221	41	4	48	149	131	69	7	2	70	0	1	.375	.445	.702	1.146	118.9
1976 Tennessee - RL	26	158	626	220	26	7	42	150	137	90	3	15	88	0	0	.351	.426	.617	1.043	97.3
1977 Tennessee - RL	27	158	625	226	39	5	53	165	163	97	8	6	77	1	1	.362	.450	.694	1.144	128.8
1978 Tennessee - RL	28	158	632	206	34	2	38	127	107	88	7	10	80	0	0	.326	.408	.566	.975	76.4
1979 Tennessee - RL	29	159	631	218	43	3	35	107	132	86	5	3	87	2	1	.345	.426	.590	1.016	86.6
1980 Tennessee - RL	30	159	633	222	38	1	49	148	124	84	3	3	83	0	1	.351	.427	.646	1.074	105.0
1981 Tennessee - RL	31	159	612	209	32	5	56	142	130	75	5	8	74	0	0	.342	.413	.685	1.097	105.5
1982 Colorado - RL	32	154	620	232	28	3	62	147	137	80	3	4	67	1	1	.374	.446	.729	1.175	98.2
1983 Colorado - RL	33	156	608	215	33	2	60	152	149	108	3	5	69	1	0	.354	.450	.711	1.161	95.8
1984 Colorado - RL	34	156	620	228	35	5	54	165	134	90	5	3	67	1	0	.368	.450	.702	1.151	92.8
1985 Colorado - RL	35	159	615	233	40	6	62	173	135	103	0	9	59	0	0	.379	.462	.766	1.228	112.9
1986 New York - RL	36	159	623	239	27	3	46	161	134	103	4	11	78	0	0	.384	.467	.658	1.125	120.8
1987 New York - RL	37	132	492	155	31	1	36	143	108	95	5	14	69	1	1	.315	.421	.602	1.022	63.4
1988 New York - RL	38	159	601	226	40	4	63	206	157	107	9	10	55	0	1	.376	.470	.770	1.241	138.1
1989 New York - RL	39	146	575	197	34	2	45	159	131	86	1	7	59	0	0	.343	.425	.643	1.068	83.3
1990 New York - RL	40	144	565	187	20	4	47	141	130	98	4	2	64	0	1	.331	.432	.630	1.062	79.7
1991 New York - RL	41	137	531	164	27	1	32	139	117	82	6	7	85	0	0	.309	.403	.544	.947	46.7
1992 New York - RL	42	133	471	139	30	4	13	78	68	85	9	6	88	0	1	.295	.408	.459	.867	27.1
Total         RL	23 yrs.	3363	12919	4487	735	76	940	3095	2666	1779	106	145	1660	8	9	.347	.426	.634	1.061	1893.3

I think it's excellent, though, that the game can create guys who can be so far ahead of their peers.

The really scarery thing is hes not the all time Vorp Leader. And the alltime vorp leader was team mate of this guy from 71 to 76.. That had to be one very good offense

[SkyDog]

Did you up home runs, or use park factors? (I've been testing with all park factors as neutral.) I ask because, with these settings, I've never seen anything close to the number of 50 HR seasons and 500 HR careers you got.

[okcyankee]

Originally Posted by Sven Draconian

Anybody know if I should use the settings for all minor league teams as well, or if these should only be used for the majors.

If Majors only, what should I use for the minors?

SkyDog, can you answer this question? Thx in advance.

[gordyhulten]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Did you up home runs, or use park factors? (I've been testing with all park factors as neutral.) I ask because, with these settings, I've never seen anything close to the number of 50 HR seasons and 500 HR careers you got.

I upped neither home runs nor park factors.

I plugged all my park factors into a spreadsheet, and the two most extreme for HRs are Colorado (1.275) and Iowa (.867), but the average of all HR park factors in 1.002, and the median is .993.

I did get some strange 500 HR guys, though: Dave Kramer and Dave Nelson. They were both 500 HR guys with OBPs around .300. I'm sure there are others like them, but I noticed them because they were in the HoF, although I promptly removed them.

I am using full minors and two feeder leagues, so perhaps that increases the likelihood of getting someone with a high Power?

[rbartlett]

I think it's really cool you guys do this.... unfortunately I think I screwed something up.

Of course I'm running a smaller league (just 16 teams with 1 level of minors) to test things.

But when I put in those numbers I had a number of guys hitting over .400 and 1 or 2 that hit nearly .500.

I guess I don't have a grasp on how all the modifiers work.

When I went to like decrease the hits, it actually made the batters better.

And my pitchers ERA's went through the roof... while messing around I had some good numbers one time, then went to change the hitting stats a bit to lower them......

and my best pitcher in the league had a 4.95 ERA.

I guess I'll mess with it more but I must be doing something wrong or just not understanding how the modifiers affect the performance.

Or maybe it's just because of using a smaller league.

I don't know.