Like everyone else, I've given teams a trial run in exhibition leagues, just to try different combos. But, how much does this help? I've tried combos that other guys won big at in OLs. But in exhibitions, too many other owners go totally against the grain with management. One owner played Michael Jordan an average of 42 minutes from a season he averaged only 37 & Nate Thurman 46 from a season he averaged only 40. He overused his other players as well. Other owners did the same, though not quite as bad. How can you compete with that? We all know this wouldn't hold up over 82 games in an OL, but in a 10 game span they can dominate.
I treat exhibitions like a normal season, playing guys the same I would over 82. I know this isn't which isn't exactly a perfect evaluation, but I feel it should give me an idea. So, what am I left with? If my team averages almost 115 points a game, can I just look at that as a positive & disregard the fact other teams were getting over 120 a game against me? My D ratings aren't all great, but I would've expected these guy's ratings- 09/10 Jason Kidd (82), 80/81 Artis Gilmore (66), 97/98 Dennis Rodman (70), 05/06 Gerald Wallace (100), 09/10 Andrei Kirilenko (99), 96/97 Jason Kidd (73), 10/11 Shaquille O'Neal (60) to be more than addequate to overcome 84/85 Bernard King's 41 & 11/12 Steve Novak's  31 ratings.
The only spot I know I was truly at risk was Rodman at PF. He gave me 35 minutes but without anyone on the bench who could really back him up. So, some guys played a bit out of postion. If I took this team into an OL, I would of course remedy that by bringing up the rookies & dropping the 3 scrubs. Either way, I thought I could've gotten a bit of an idea how to project this team's success in the event it were in an OL. So, how should I see it? That team I mentioned at the top with Thurman & Jordan had four D ratings of 90 for their starters & most of the others were in the 70s or higher. Can I justify losing to them by 20-30 points each time from overplaying their top guys so much? I'd really like to know.
Please, any words of wisdom are appreciated. I thought having two good D rated & offensive minded Jason Kidds taking up almost all the point guard minutes alone would make an impact, not to mention the part timers in other positions who's D rates were even higher. Clearly, it didn't work as expected. I thought this team could win 50+ games in an OL. So Please tell me, why I was so wrong & went 3-7?

an exhibition season can give u an idea of how ur team interacts with itself, don't read a lot into the W-L records

So, would I be somewhat realistic to look at their offensive output as how it interacts with itself, but not look too much into what it gave up? I mean, Rodman was Rodman (17+ Reb/game. Kidd was Kidd. Gilmore shot his 60% from the field, 22 PPG, 10 Reb/game. King did his thing- no D but almost 24 PPG in just 28 min. Wallace, Novak, & Kirilenco combined for almost 36 PPG off the bench between SF, PF, & SG positions. O'Neal did well backing up at center. The team's rawe numbers looked good, even out rebounding other teams 54 to 48. The big problem was TOs (22 per game) & OPP FG% (49.6%). Perhaps I'll try this team in an OL. Going 3-7 with that kinda scoring could level out once the scrubs are dropped by rookies who can put in more minutes.