I've read a number of threads over the 2 years I've been doing this addressing the appropriate place to put prospects.  I've typically tried to put my best prospects in the level with the better coaching.  Sometimes this involves having a 19 year old in AA or AAA.  Even though their ratings may be better than most AAA players, I'm not sure whether I'm slowing down their development.  I've read that appropriate level vs. age is a development factor.

 

Does anyone have examples of similar players who developed better in lower levels first due to their age (all other things being equal)?  These guys usually still rake, but it seems to me that they don't really jump in their ratings as much as I would expect...

I think the only thing that matters is playing time and coaching.  Now there is a debate that keeping a guy in AAA for 3 years could stunt his development in seasons 4 & 5 (as small as they might be), but I have no proof of that.

For hitters I'm not sure it matters as much as they'll tire out at the same rate no matter the level they play given equal playing time.  For a pitcher though, it would reason that they'll get more outs at a lower level, or at least one that their skill set would place them at, and therefor pitch more innings and develop better at the level where they can get a proper combination of innings and coaching.

I won't be able to produce any examples but players do(or did at one time) stagnate if stuck at the same level.   My thought was "Best minor league coaches are in AAA so that's where my best prospects go."   But I began seeing 3rd year players not developing.   Maybe that's all they had.  Maybe they didn't appreciate being at AAA for 3-4 seasons.   Don't know but I stopped doing it.   I don't have a problem with a repeated level but I'm not doing it 3 times and expecting development.

A lot of my guys end up with HiA, AA, AAA, AAA before getting the BL call.  Some repeat AA because I have someone blocking playing time in AAA.

Posted by MikeT23 on 4/20/2011 3:47:00 PM (view original):
I won't be able to produce any examples but players do(or did at one time) stagnate if stuck at the same level.   My thought was "Best minor league coaches are in AAA so that's where my best prospects go."   But I began seeing 3rd year players not developing.   Maybe that's all they had.  Maybe they didn't appreciate being at AAA for 3-4 seasons.   Don't know but I stopped doing it.   I don't have a problem with a repeated level but I'm not doing it 3 times and expecting development.

A lot of my guys end up with HiA, AA, AAA, AAA before getting the BL call.  Some repeat AA because I have someone blocking playing time in AAA.

Sorry to bump an old thread, but was searching about this, and want to follow up on this comment. I've read that players will still develop in the majors, however If I have a player in his 1st or 2nd year and who is good enough for the majors, and promote him to the majors, will he faced stalled development? 

I've got a couple of examples that say "No, they will develop just fine."

Hardball Dynasty – Fantasy Baseball Sim Games - Player Profile: Jimmy Powell
Hardball Dynasty – Fantasy Baseball Sim Games - Player Profile: Greg Wood

Posted by MikeT23 on 10/28/2013 4:45:00 PM (view original):
I've got a couple of examples that say "No, they will develop just fine."

Hardball Dynasty – Fantasy Baseball Sim Games - Player Profile: Jimmy Powell
Hardball Dynasty – Fantasy Baseball Sim Games - Player Profile: Greg Wood

So it's only if you keep them repeating a level in the minors (i.e. so that you don't just keep sending all top prospects to Triple A and leaving them there for 3-4 years), that players will face stalled development?

In my experience, that's correct. 

Great, thanks for the clarification! 

Sorry another question.

From the "Help" page for the "Coach Hiring" page:

Coaching Role Description - The big league level requires 7 coaches and each minor league level requires 3 coaches. The fielding instructor is a roving coach that impacts player development at each level. Bench coaches at the minor league level play a role in all facets of player development. Pitching coaches and bullpen coaches impact pitcher ratings. Hitting coaches, 1B coaches and 3B coaches impact hitting and baserunning ratings.

The part that I highlighted in red specifically says that bench coaches only help with development at the minor league level.  If you take that at face value, then the answer to your question would be "no".

Are there any benefits to cranking up "argumentative"? 

From the "Help" page for the "Manager Settings" page:

General Description - From this page, you may set the tendencies of you manager at each level. In simulated game play, these settings are used to make managerial decisions. For example, if you set your manager's argumentative rating to a five he is highly likely to contest a call at a pivotal point in the game. In this case, if he argues the call his players immediately receive a ratings boost for that half inning. However, if he is ejected, the bench coach must take over for the remainder of the game. Bench coaches use the default neutral managerial settings. Also, having an argumentative manager will increase the player's temper rating. There are positives and negatives associated with every tendency. Users are recommended to choose the brand of baseball they most believe in and stick to it. Changing managerial settings often is not recommended as consistency fosters player development