[Clovidequano Dovatha]

There was a player called Perry Turnbull or something similar who played for the Blues in the 1970s and 1980s. We also had Bernie Federko and others on the Blues for a while, as well. Brett Hull played well for us for much of his career, and I sort of remember him as a member of the Duluth Bulldogs in college before he went to the Calgary Flames a couple of years after he began playing for the Bulldogs. If I remember correctly, Hull didn't play four years for the Bulldogs of the WCHA in college before he joined the Flames.

How much longer do you think you're going to keep up the super-high offensive era in your IPA that has been going on for decades? Normally you wouldn't see players routinely hitting .400 or .450-plus in a full regular season for at least 140 or so games a year, in actual reality. Also, it looks like you have many teams routinely winning over 100-110 games a season, which rarely happens in actual reality for seasons with no more than 150 or so games in them. Not criticizing you, of course, about how you play your games, but I have been finding it rather interesting that those things are evidently true, and have been true for quite some time in your version of the IPA.

Maybe you might want to dial down the offensive numbers and all a bit, and change things up a bit, at least, so there aren't so many superteams here. And so that more teams who haven't won in a while might have better chances to win in your IPA, I think. IF you make changes to your IPA as suggested, maybe you might be able to see more teams doing better than they typically have, as well. It could be that you have too many teams present in each division and/or subleague, so you may need to adjust things at least a little bit for your IPA.

I know I've mentioned this before, but if it might be true that you have too many teams at present in your IPA, you may want to reconsider the structure of the IPA, and figure out how you can perhaps improve things here for it. As I've said any number of times before, it might be a good idea to break up the IPA as you have it now into multiple leagues. Either as part of a potential promotion-relegation system or as part of a potential minor league baseball-type framework, or some other type of organizational system entirely, however you might want to do any possible changes to the IPA. If I remember correctly, your IPA has eighty teams in it at present.

IF you divided those eighty teams into two leagues, that would make forty teams per league. If into four leagues, that would make it twenty teams per league. And if into five leagues, then sixteen teams per league. You could divide those teams into those leagues any way you so choose, if you did so, of course.

I have followed your IPA for quite a while now, as you've probably known for some good length of time. I would like to see it continue for a good while longer, of course. And I would like to see AG win at least one title before he's done, if possible, for sure, you know. But I don't really think he'll get it with Hillsboro, if things continue to be as they are for that team and for the IPA much longer, in truth. You may need to have him on the same team as GC for a good while. I would love it, I'm quite sure, if they could form a battery of sorts with each other, in fact. And I would love to see the IPA go back to 4-man starting rotations as standard practice with starters routinely able to go at least 7 innings per start, as well, for sure.

Thank you for your time and attention here and all, of course, jg2977. I look forwards to seeing how things continue to turn out very soon for the IPA, especially seeing as it won't be long until you reach my birth year of 1973, as a matter of fact. CD out.