[Dunzie]

Originally Posted by Orcin

I made this case weeks ago and, as you may remember because you were in the thread, Zorro told me I was wrong. Finally, out of desperation, I tried it anyway because I thought I had a good team but all of my tinkering could not make it win.

The first year, I was 71-91, but I made no changes. The second year, with the same exact team, I won 94 games and made the playoffs. For the next four years, I won at least 95 games and made the playoffs every year - with no changes. Some players had lousy years but other players picked up the slack.

Last year, I got a wild hair and changed (upgraded in theory) two starters, but I kept the original players on reserve. I went 83-79 but only after scrapping the experiment mid-year when I was 10 games under .500. This year, with the original lineup, I am 51-30 and in position for the first wild card.

I am convinced that a set roster improves by playing together. Your mileage may vary. I am also convinced that the best players win the most games, so I am not naïve enough to think any f2p team can use this strategy to win in perfect leagues. I am just saying that, all things being equal, the team that has continuity performs better.

P.S. The team is playing "Red" right now, so you can see that it is not a super team by any stretch of the imagination. My best pitchers are 96 Walter Johnson and Kevin Brown, and my best position players are probably Sisler and Anson.

I believe I have found the same thing. One tweak to the roster in a season seems to be ok, but a whole lot of additions and subtractions and fiddling with things seems to spell disappointment in my experience. And the first year I add a major upgrade player on paper he seems to have a rough year, or at least a rough start. Players go up and down week to week anyway, but I really believe you are right that continuity in the team makes for more success...