Please read/critique my updated rulebook

Positive points:
- The grammar, layout, etc is done well.
- The rules are logically structured.
- The use of examples in boxes is done well.

Section 1 may benefit from a synopsis or overview of the game before launching into Section 2. Tell the readers what the object of the game is (i.e. the winning condition) and an overview of how it is played, so the reader knows what to expect as they read through the detail.

Section 2.1 says each year consists of "1. Off Season", but then we find in section 4 that it is not used for Minor League. Maybe annotate as "Major League only".

Section 2.1 introduces acronyms (ES, MS, LS, CS) which are subsequently not used elsewhere. In general less acronyms means the document is more accessible to a wider audience.

Section 2.2 introduces quite a few terms and abbreviations without the necessary context to understand them. For exmample, the paragraphs underneath the table may be better above the table; they help to give the table some context.

The rule "Sections marked with an * denote an Action Card must also be played." is buried at the end of a paragragh, but it looks quite important. It may benefit from being moved to a separate line or otherwise highlighted in someway.

Section 2.3.2 I don't understand the mathematics in the example: "4 times 1 equals 3". If the formula is "OPS times multiplier" then how does the number of AS have any relevance; alternatively if the formula is "AS times multiplier" then how does the number of OPS have any relevance? The example may benefit from some rework to make the relationship clearer.

Section 3 introduces a Farm System, which I presume is a term that baseball fans would understand. However, to a non-baseball initiate like me it lacks context. Similarly, the terms Pennant, Propsects, Phenom, AS, SS, etc lack context for a non-baseball fan, however by the end of reading the rules I had figured out what they meant. I never did figure out what DRM meant (Digital Rights Management? Probably not).

Section 4 looks like a wall of text. You may consider if there is a way to break it up or make it more accessible to the reader. In particular, a long list of 24 items can be a turn-off to the reader; maybe it could be broken up into subsections or somehow grouped into logical groups.

Section 5.1 has 7 subsections, but no section 5.2. Could the subsections be moved up one level to be 5.1 through 5.7?

Overall, I think these rules are looking pretty good. Despite me not having the relevant background, by the time I got to the end I think I had it figured out. The suggestions above may make it a bit easier for first-time readers. The examples in the blue boxes really help, and if anything you may want to expand them or add more examples along the way. Keep up the good work, and I wish you all the best with your game.

Regards,
kos