[Hawkwing7423]

I complained about how bad Mike Trout was, months ago, and he also downgraded from a 100 live to a 98 live.

Yet as of now, he is outperforming Babe Ruth and Ken Griffey, Jr.

Trout - 98 rating / CON 64 / POW 121 / EYE 104 / .,246 / 30 HR 2nd in league

Ruth - 100 rating / CON 86 / POW 156 / EYE 152 / last 2 seasons batted .197 and .164

Griffey Jr - 101 rating / CON 119 / POW 152 / EYE 133 / HR per 162 is 8 and BA is .218

How does the above make any sense? If there's a hidden stat where players have a "good" or "bad" year, it would sure be nice if this was exposed to the manager.

In low diamond, my Roy Halladay is the worst of 18, my Chris Sale is the worst of 12, and my Mike Trout is having a career year. My Toad Ramsey is having his best year for me of 6 years.

I'm a programmer, I hate guesswork. It seems like you have to see who's doing well on Mondays, and if Sale and Halladay are stinking it up again, you have to try some other 100 in their spot. But that reserve 100 may be just as bad, or better, for no apparent reason. It's very frustrating.

It also seems like new players do very badly, for no reason, if you acquire them that season. I mean, KG Jr 8 HR per 162? If they get a large penalty as newly acquired players, why isn't that transparent?

Maybe others enjoy all this guesswork...