Well, first, there are 144 minor league games not 162.   One could assume they were including the 18 ST games in the total but I doubt that.  IMO, they didn't know the answer so they wandered around until you could interpret it in any way you choose. 

I would think tzent would know but, quite honestly, that seems like a really dumb way to program the game. 

Basically, I feel like we should utilize the late inning replacement and SUA strategies mentioned earlier but that just feels so wrong.   SO WRONG.

In addition, tzent said playoff games help with development.  Soooooooooo, if 162 is not better than 135, why should playoff games matter?  Between ST and reg season, you should be able to get 135 games in. 

What a clusterfuck of answers.

Sometimes WifS makes me want to punch babies.

Posted by bigham23 on 2/10/2016 4:06:00 PM (view original):
note that admin did not dispel the idea of maximizing games played. as was mentioned earlier, it was a politician's "non answer answer."

if the answer to Tec's question was, "no. you should be maximizing AB's and IP's, along with total games played." then it would have been simpler.

also, in the Dev Chat the question was A) ABs/IPs, B) games played, or C) combo of both.

admin clearly and simply answered: "games played."

so admin had two chances to tell us that ABs/IPs matter in development, and both times did not tell us that ABs/IPs matter.

Looks like you've only been here since 2011, during a period where the availability of Admin providing any kind of information has been fairly non-existent. 

But in the period of time between 2006 (when HBD was first introduced) and around 2011 (when they seemingly dropped off the face of the earth), the answers that they gave back then to questions was typical of what we experienced in the Dev Chat on Friday and in response to my ticket today, including the inconsistencies between the two.

So don't read anything into their original answer of "games played" as being "the true answer".  They rarely give a straight forward answer to a straight forward question, I assume for fear of exposing the logic coded into the game engine.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/10/2016 3:48:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dakar on 2/10/2016 3:39:00 PM (view original):
Highly disappointing, but I suspect the answer was gibberish on purpose. The original info on games sounded like a slipup and they did not want to reveal any more.

So you're assuming the Dev Chat answer is correct?

Well, at least comprehensible compared to the rambling answer tec got.  At this point I am leaning towards maximizing games first, then ABs/IPs.  For instance, play a position prospect every game until he starts getting fatigued, then set him to platoon with max PH, rest and defensive replacement standards to try and get him in every game.  Pitchers are a tougher call, but I am leaning to Setup A with minimal PC as long as it is getting them close to the innings I would expect them to achieve normally.  Talk about more time wasted on the minors though....

Not sure a two word, comprehensible answer is necessarily right.

But the truth is, we/I should have probably been maximizing GP/AB anyway.    I've been running them into fatigue, benching them for a week, running them back into fatigue and on and on.    The better way would have probably been starting them for 50-60 games, using them as DR/PH for the next 40, then starting them again.  You probably get the same AB with 140ish GP instead of 125-130.

Pitching is a horse of a different color but, with a lot of work, you could probably get 70g/140ip instead of 33/140. 

If you set things up so that a guy came in and played SS for a couple innings and then moved to CF or 2/3B would his defensive development increase from getting 130 games played at his most challenging position and his second most challenging?

Posted by Gbkeith2 on 2/11/2016 7:30:00 AM (view original):
If you set things up so that a guy came in and played SS for a couple innings and then moved to CF or 2/3B would his defensive development increase from getting 130 games played at his most challenging position and his second most challenging?

No.

I've seen prospects playing exclusively as DH see their defensive ratings improve as much as position players playing regularly.

Yeah, that's one of the myths that CS perpetrated. 

This is pretty frustrating. They basically threw a grenade in the middle of what we all thought about development, and then chose not to give any additional info.

For pitchers, it would make sense for IP to have an impact on playing time-related development and/or for there to be a multiplier for starts (I.e., 1 GS = 4 or 5 GP) if games played is in fact the end all be all.

This will certainly be a SSS but these three are all AAAA-types barring some big improvements.    We're 59 games in and all have been SP with one regular season development cycle(plus ST).    I've moved them to SuA with a PC of 10/25 and a pull of 1.   Will see what happens over the next 85 games.

Player Profile: Enrique Gonzales - Hardball Dynasty Baseball | WhatIfSports  7 GS/31.2 IP
Player Profile: Donatello Roberts - Hardball Dynasty Baseball | WhatIfSports  12 GS/44.1 IP
Player Profile: Kirk Kuttler - Hardball Dynasty Baseball | WhatIfSports   11 GS/59 IP

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/10/2016 5:44:00 PM (view original):
In addition, tzent said playoff games help with development.  Soooooooooo, if 162 is not better than 135, why should playoff games matter?  Between ST and reg season, you should be able to get 135 games in. 

What a clusterfuck of answers.

Everyone keeps talking about playoff games helping with development but I have never seen my guys get a rating bump while in the playoffs, regardless of level. Am I missing something?

You are.  I've gotten additional bumps after the regular season in two ways.  1. Promotion  2. Playoff participation

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/11/2016 12:59:00 PM (view original):
You are.  I've gotten additional bumps after the regular season in two ways.  1. Promotion  2. Playoff participation

The promotion one I have seen, which confuses me. Everyone keeps saying promotions at the end of the year only takes ratings bumps that would happen in the offseason, but offseason ratings bumps are physical stats where as end of the year promotions are non-physical (or strength or whatever it's called).

What's going on with that?

My theory is the bump you see is a fraction.    59.6 becomes 60.  That goes for all promotion bumps/markers.   The problem in my head is whether or not the player would start at 59 or 59.6 the next season had you not promoted him.    I assume 59 because he never got that last bump or marker and that's why I promote before rollover.

Now that's pure bullshit theory with no factual base so everyone shouldn't think it's true.   But I do.