Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiskyTango
Ya, I seem to recall it was around there. I seem to recall having this discussion in another thread and I forget the exact figures. Or maybe that was about 4A players.
|
I don't know if the following applies to 4A players but this is what I've noticed with career minor league batters who make MLB.
Their profile is not that of an average MLB player. They tend to have low contact ratings, low power ratings, high eye ratings, and high fielding ratings. The pattern in pitchers is lower stamina but high enough ratings that they out rate real MLB and fill up the bullpens.
You know the talent in your league is highly diluted but in addition to that the profile of the players is different. Also you're using the development engine only. I don't know its effects but I've never seen a claim that it results in average talent being the same as historic talent. In fact, it seems nearly impossible for it to do this.
It would have to figure the plusses and minuses from historic for every player and then adjust the development for a zero sum. They get the same result from using auto-calc without much effort.
It may be that there are limits to how much adjustment auto-calc can make but I don't know if there are. If you get historic results with auto-calc in a league with highly diluted talent and atypical player profiles, then if here's a limit you haven't reached it.
Concerning the items you have unchecked on the Historical tab, I don't see any that I can imagine prevent auto-calc from controlling the league output to match historic league output.