Posted by bigham23 on 2/10/2016 3:56:00 PM (view original):
so... putting the dev chat response together with this response:
1) Games Played is the only priority for playing time-related development
2) 135 games played is equal to 162 games played
So, I would take that to mean we should have SP prospects in the bullpen and set up to pitch in at least 135 games. For position player prospects, we should start them and make sure they get to at least 135 games played.
I think what they were trying to say was this - There are 144 games in each non-SS level. MiLB players probably - don't - get any benefit in any kind of extra play above what would essentially be a full season of minor league ball. Maybe that is considered 135 games (92-95% of a team's games played). Who knows. So if an owner figured out that by working in off days, promotions, and (I guess) spring training, that they could get a player over that 135/144 games played mark, it would do them no good. If they played in 150 games combined, the added 5-15 games would net them no additional improvement.
Now what "While those strategies would net the player games played, it's more about is the player playing in enough games that matters." means I am not sure. Is it a case where a 'game played' isn't essentially an appearance, but any appearance with X number of innings? Maybe. Lets say it is 4 innings player for a position player. Then perhaps the ultimate goal is to get a player in 135 games in which he plays at least 4 innings.
But thats just a guess, because whoever wrote Tec's CS response probably rode the short bus.