Good point.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/2/2010 5:58:00 PM (view original):
Are you telling me that you play your LF at SS if you don't have a SS prospect?

If I don't have a SS prospect, I let SIMMY decide who plays SS.

That makes no sense if you believe the position can help develop fielding.   Do you not want your future LF to be all he can be?

Or if you dont have a SS prospect, your next best fielding prospect (CF, 2B, 3B)...

And as far as developing BEYOND projections, everyone's projections are different or vary slightly.  So yes they could theoretically improve beyond projections depending on what projections you are starting with HS/Coll vs. ADV and what team the projections are coming from. So it makes sense that you would want to play your best prospect at the SS position to maximize his fielding improvement, if position actual has a quantifiable effect on player improvement 

Which now confuses me and begs me to ask the same question once again. Does it matter which position you play a prospect in the minors? Will the position played have any effect on the player's speed of progression and likelihood of reaching his maximum projections? If yes, then wouldn't it make sense to play a prospect at the most challenging position?

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/2/2010 11:02:00 AM (view original):
I won't dig it up again but I posted a handful of SS who were sometimes forced to play 2B, 3B or CF because I had a better SS prospect in my system.   There wasn't any noticable difference in their development.    One of them was Hardball Dynasty – Fantasy Baseball Sim Games - Player Profile: Angel Hernandez.   As you can see, he played less than half of his innings at SS in the minors.   In the seasons where his glove took the biggest jumps(S13), he played CF the most.   

Could he have been better had he played SS the entire time?  Maybe.    But the season his glove became SS-like, he was playing CF/3B for over 600 innings and SS less the 300. 

S13, he played over 700 innings at SS/CF, which both have a recommended GLV rating of 85.  That was far more innings than he played at the two most "demanding" GLV positions than he had played in previous seasons.

So more playing time at the tougher GLV positions aided his development in that rating.

Posted by ediacou on 12/2/2010 9:46:00 PM (view original):
Which now confuses me and begs me to ask the same question once again. Does it matter which position you play a prospect in the minors? Will the position played have any effect on the player's speed of progression and likelihood of reaching his maximum projections? If yes, then wouldn't it make sense to play a prospect at the most challenging position?

Little late to the party, thats what a few of us have already been saying...

Posted by tecwrg on 12/2/2010 10:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/2/2010 11:02:00 AM (view original):
I won't dig it up again but I posted a handful of SS who were sometimes forced to play 2B, 3B or CF because I had a better SS prospect in my system.   There wasn't any noticable difference in their development.    One of them was Hardball Dynasty – Fantasy Baseball Sim Games - Player Profile: Angel Hernandez.   As you can see, he played less than half of his innings at SS in the minors.   In the seasons where his glove took the biggest jumps(S13), he played CF the most.   

Could he have been better had he played SS the entire time?  Maybe.    But the season his glove became SS-like, he was playing CF/3B for over 600 innings and SS less the 300. 

S13, he played over 700 innings at SS/CF, which both have a recommended GLV rating of 85.  That was far more innings than he played at the two most "demanding" GLV positions than he had played in previous seasons.

So more playing time at the tougher GLV positions aided his development in that rating.

I don't think that was his point.  I think his point was that instead of playing at SS, he played primarily at CF in S13 and still had good development.

He specifically mentioned how much his glove rating improved in S13.  The recommended glove rating is the same for CF as it is for SS (both 85).  So if you want to develop glove, playing CF and SS are equivalent.

So now you're saying that everyone should play their best prospects at SS or CF?

For the record, my best FI in MG was S10-S13.

And, to me, his development the next season was more "surprising".    He improved 5 glove points with a lesser FI and play 3B-382, LF-96, CF-108, SS-405.

That was his 3rd pro season when develop is noticably slower.  He improved 7 glove points in his 2nd season.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/3/2010 8:04:00 AM (view original):
So now you're saying that everyone should play their best prospects at SS or CF?

No.  I'm saying that they should play the prospects at the most appropriate position for their projections.

If a prospect has LF defensive projections, then playing him at SS isn't going to turn him into a SS because he's not going to exceed his true projections which make him a LF.  If you play him at SS, then you may be wasting development opportunities for another player who may have higher defensive potential.

And you're completely missing my point.   I'll be as clear as humanly possible.

My LoA team has one legit prospect.  One.  No one else should ever sniff AA let alone the big leagues.   Unfortunately, his fielding ratings project to be 62/68/58/51.   Dude is never going to be anything but a 1B/LF.   However, if he falls short of those projections, he might just end up being a GG 1B.   So, in order to maximize his fielding ratings, should I play him at the most demanding position possible?

Within the context of how the HBD development engine works, probably yes.  But as he approaches his true projected ratings, he'll start to see diminishing returns, at which point playing him at that "most demanding position" (I assume SS) is just wasted capacity.

Not saying that's the way it should work, but I believe that's the way it does work.