Used to do this (alot) w/ the free exhibiton leagues, -&
there upon came the notion that my random selection
of salary caps for each full league, was skewing those
results that were emerging...
Obviously, the chasm between best-&-worst is a good
study here, however --->>> let me explain...
The redundant capping in brain-washed increments of
5's, & 10's, is instead an unfruitful fork-in-the-road, as
we all seek to discover those in the database who've
MOST consistently & reliably performed... Arbitrarily,
the tendency to stop a cap at $40 mil, or $115 mil, -is
is (at best) just another stage, -or rung-on-the-ladder,
wherein a fine tuning adjustment needs to be tested...
An example would be to tweak any given cap, & run
a series of test leagues at a cap of $77 mil, $73 mil,
or even dance around that $70 mil cap above, with a
good dozen leagues at $68 mil, or $71.5 mil... Those
studies narrow the normalizations for standard caps
which grace the classifieds...
Thanks for sharing your numbers at $70 mil... -&, can
truly appreciate the approach that produced the above
roster... Differences are staunch & stout comparing all
of the 'PFielder/DUggla' (presumed) middle of the line-
This isn't really a 50/50 coin flip here... Pitching doesn't
show above as a strength concern, rather, it seems like
the 100% fatigue goal was the accomplishment ... Just
because you make fatigue a non-concern by managing
pitchers well, it may hamper the search for hitting, which
can offset lower cap leagues, when everyone else must
often start a pitcher at less than 100%...
Most certainly in my opinion, there should have been a
slightly modified option, to compare the gap between a
best & a worst... This would be a more proficient study
(at this point), to partner PFielder w/ someone else at a
slightly lower/higher cap (either way), --& try partnering
DUggla with another in the 3rd-4th-5th-&-6th slots...
To me, once you escalate 'OFF' of that standard cap in
the free leagues, the hitting starts to have an edge here.