Page 1 of 1
opinions on this
Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 1:39 pm
by rowech
What year is a good year to start with for a historical league? 1901? 1920? 1946? 1962? 1977?
Anybody have a favorite starting point?
RE: opinions on this
Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 3:07 pm
by Dunk44
Really depends on what your looking for. My favorite thing to do is to rebuild some of the worst teams in history. Taking over the '27 Yankees isn't fun for me.
RE: opinions on this
Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 4:49 pm
by rwd59
Pre-60's doesn't do much for me. Start in 1962 and take over the Mets if you want a challenge.
RE: opinions on this
Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 7:40 pm
by Tanaka
ORIGINAL: rowech
What year is a good year to start with for a historical league? 1901? 1920? 1946? 1962? 1977?
Anybody have a favorite starting point?
Definitely 1946!
RE: opinions on this
Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 8:03 pm
by Nukester
I always start in 1903, if only because leagues dont change much after that for a long time (excpet a few name changes). Only thing is, in 1904 the schedule went from 140 games to 154 games
RE: opinions on this
Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 8:15 pm
by 33sherman
I also start in 1903, for the same reasons (easy expansion). In 1901 you get that anomalous Brewers' team. You chop a couple years off Christy Mathewson's career, but you get all of Ty Cobb, Tris Speaker, etc. The fictional players fizzle out after a few years and it's all historical.
RE: opinions on this
Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 8:17 pm
by DandricSturm
Often mentioned in this type of thread is 1951. Mantle and Mays.
RE: opinions on this
Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 6:58 am
by Claymore Cut
If you want one of the worst teams in history, the 62' mets are a must!