Top 100 Prospects? Looks Like Only 17 To Me ...

[chucksabr]

How does it happen that a league with twenty teams in it cannot muster up any more than 17 players to list in its "Top 100 Prospects" list?

is there an adjustment I can make to correct this? Or is this a random luck-of-the-draw thing?

[endgame]

Do more than 17 players qualify under the definition of prospects? That's the only thing that comes to mind right off the bat.

[chucksabr]

What's that definition?

[endgame]

Originally Posted by chucksabr

What's that definition?

If I recall correctly, it's under 26 and no more than 45 days ML service. And do you have that many players in your setups? I don't recall the details, but I do recall your configurations aren't exactly traditional. Just wondering if, I guess, there are enough players to be called that in any given .... league or whatever it was you call them, Division I see.

[chucksabr]

Originally Posted by endgame

If I recall correctly, it's under 26 and no more than 45 days ML service. And do you have that many players in your setups? I don't recall the details, but I do recall your configurations aren't exactly traditional. Just wondering if, I guess, there are enough players to be called that in any given .... league or whatever it was you call them, Division I see.

I just counted everyone in the division who meet both those criteria as of 12/31/1909, and I come up with 173 out of 673 total players. One hundred and nine of them are in the free agent pool, 64 are on rosters, and 28 of those are on teams who played in D2 during the year (the rest coming from two relegated teams from D1, and three elected teams from outside the League.)

So I would think, at the very least, that there would be 28 on the list instead of 17, and why free agent pool players wouldn't be considered, I'm not sure?

FWIW, I just ran another Top Systems report and now there are 45 players on it. However, 34 of those guys play on the five teams that are new to the division, and only eleven on teams who played in the division in 1909.

Still: if there are 173 guys who fit this description, why can't the report rank the top 100 among them and display them? Why the cut off at 45? There must be some other criteria at work besides under age of 26 and under 45 days ML service?

[endgame]

I think it's a league-wide criteria. No FA candidates would be included in that report, IIRC.