I am not interested in joining, though nothing against the league or the idea. But I wanted to ask something: since the career stats are exactly as gigrant explains, won't that mean that players will have the same "season" (the average one of their career) every season from their rookie year till retirement ?
Granted, a combination of normal standard deviation and slight variations (some new players in the league each season) will mean there will be variations in their performance from season to season, but even so, all 20 some odd seasons of Ty Cobb will have him batting .367 etc.
So won't the lack of variety in player performance - players don't wear down as time goes on, so Babe Ruth or Willie Mays will be just as good toward the end of their careers as in their peak seasons - mean little incentive to make roster changes ? No need to drop players who have slowed down in performance, meaning that teams, except when players actually retire, will merely replace one career player with a better one or else have no incentive to draft new ones ?
Am I missing something here ? After a short time the result will be All-Star teams it seems: you have the same players as last season - none have declined, and so you draft some player who also has no rookie season and needs no time to develop, so the team gets stronger and so do your opponents' teams, with only the occasional retirement putting a dent in the overall upward trend.
This might be something a lot of people like, but it seems like it deserves mention as a likely outcome, since part of the attraction of progressive leagues is that players change and develop over time. These players won't.