Too many quality players not allowing for enough variety?

[JAttractive]

I have a couple theories as to why in later seasons you tend to see less extreme players in fictional leagues but first I will give my limited experiences in playing this game:

I created a purely fictional league and have played four full seasons. I have seen 14 homerun ratings at maximum and a 9 in batting average (all veterans who began 28 or older). However this is after only 3 seasons of spring training and fully developed fictional players to start.

The 9 average guy just had a .407 season (3rd season, 2 spring trainings).

The highest homerun total I have had is a 69 season by one of the veterans and that was in the second season (only one spring training effect on them).

==================================================
So fictional players *can* have huge seasons.... the question is, can fictional drafted rookies have them though?
==================================================

I am not far enough in to test that. The highest of the new breed so far is a 44 season by a 24 year old (5/10 rating). My 25 year old first baseman has 35 homers with 100 games played (on pace for 56) but I have tinkered with spring training allocations so that he does not ignore power. He has a 6 avg, 10 homerun rating so I don't expect Bonds/Sosa numbers anyway.

However I have three theories as to why you may not see this in later seasons:

1. Spring training decisions by the computer creating rounded players.
2. Fairly predictable development rate of *position* players (position players seem to progress at the same rate, being ready for the majors at about 24 or 25 years old) doesn't allow for much variety or widely skewed ratings. You tend to see a slow steady progression. If the RARE player began with high ratings to start they could go higher or the same effect could be reached with a wider range of development speeds. Note: Pitchers don't seem to progress so predictably though.
3. League Era totals bunching up the stats, essentially capping them (see below for why this may take effect in later years and not to start).

New theory:
4. Drafting 5 players per year and filling the minor leagues with fictional players allows for too many quality players! I don't see anyone else mention this but has anyone considered this possibility? By drafting 5 players per year it may allow for too many quality players to be in the majors and with the era totals putting a "cap" on the totals it forces the stats to be bunched up. Perhaps if we test some leagues with fewer draft rounds we would see a wider range of quality in the majors (teams forced to field poor players).

ie. If you have a league of 10 players and 500 homers to pass around but all are Bonds type players each can only have about 50 (about 10 homers, 5 avg). If you a league with 1 Bonds type and 9 various types then one can hit 70 and the weaker players will compensate.

<small>[ 05-15-2002, 09:20 PM: Message edited by: JAttractive ]</small>

[henry296]

I had a drafted player hit 70 HRs. I started with the Rolen rosters and no tweaks to ERA settings or League Totals.

Todd

[HolyCow98]

I've had a couple guys who made it to the majors that were 21-22 and had starts like Griffey. The first year would be something like .280 16 HR 85 RBI and jump a little to like .295 25 HR 100 RBI and now just had a 212 hit season batting .336 with 39 HR and 121 RBI. He is 25 years old now and is ROY winner and two time all star.

[JAttractive]

How many seasons had passed though for those players though?

I am talking years and years down the roads as the log jam of quality players starts to add up would you see the stats spread out evenly. You wouldn't see this effect by my estimations until about 10-20 years later.

[CaLíKrAzY]

When you start a fictional league it takes guys like Bonds and Sosa and turns them into Williams and so and so. In the first few years guys will have crazy numbers mainly because they are real major leaguers with different names.