Yeah, I've had C play COF/CIF and 1B play COF. Nothing seems to have changed with them as far as development.

In light of the fact that you only hire a fielding coach, instead of a coach specifically for infield/outfield/catching, hard to believe that they would somehow separate player improvement based on what position you play a guy at. As Mike said, wouldn't people just start playing everyone at SS, CF, 2B and 3B to maximize fielding improvement?

Quote: Originally Posted By firemanrob on 3/04/2010In light of the fact that you only hire a fielding coach, instead of a coach specifically for infield/outfield/catching, hard to believe that they would somehow separate player improvement based on what position you play a guy at. As Mike said, wouldn't people just start playing everyone at SS, CF, 2B and 3B to maximize fielding improvement

You realize, of course, that it's one player per position. You can't just designate all 25 players for SS and roll them out each game.

Actually, if you have 7 guys with the system fielding recs of a "SS", then you can have a lineup with 7 SS's, a DH and a C. I've got a AAA team like that after a getting a little overzealous in back to back Rule 5's and signing some 75-75-75-75 minor league FA.

So (noob here trying to follow along), if development is predicated on playing time, isn't fielding improvement dependent upon chances in the field, and therefore SS, 2B, and 3B the best places to put a future MLer? Or is the difference so small as to be negligible? I just drafted a bat who was listed as a 2B but will clearly be a LF in the bigs, but I'm keeping him in at 2B in RL so far to try to help his development...

The logic some of us are presenting is that you'd be better served by playing him at SS since he'll get the most chances. Assuming that more chances = better development.

And it seems silly that the game would be developed in such a way that we'd be encouraged to play DH at SS in hopes that they'd develop into marginal 1B.

Quote: Originally Posted By toddcommish on 3/04/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By firemanrob on 3/04/2010
In light of the fact that you only hire a fielding coach, instead of a coach specifically for infield/outfield/catching, hard to believe that they would somehow separate player improvement based on what position you play a guy at. As Mike said, wouldn't people just start playing everyone at SS, CF, 2B and 3B to maximize fielding improvement?

You realize, of course, that it's one player per position. You can't just designate all 25 players for SS and roll them out each game

Take a minor league roster, set everyone's primary to SS and then just manually rotate them into different positions every few days. Yes it would be labor intensive, but if you tell me my prospect that projects to 1B defensively could end up being decent at 3B or something, it would be something to consider.

Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 3/05/2010
The logic some of us are presenting is that you'd be better served by playing him at SS since he'll get the most chances. Assuming that more chances = better development.

And it seems silly that the game would be developed in such a way that we'd be encouraged to play DH at SS in hopes that they'd develop into marginal 1B.

I don't know if people are basing it on "chances at plays" or if you just say that by playing SS you will improve in more categories. I personally believe position played likely has no effect, but if the logic is that a SS has to work on all 4 categories vs. 2 or 3 and somehow its written into the code that way then playing a guy at SS would make sense. Again though, I don't believe any such phantom code exists. I'd base things more on current player ratings, coaching, age and training budgets mostly

If it were to work like you mentioned, it would still be best to play any prospect at SS. Maybe play your weak-armed players at 3B or RF and you're range deficient players in CF or 2B.

That would be ridiculous.

Ridiculous yes.

Precisely why I don't think its part of the game. A 22 y/o 1B prospect with an AS of 30, projecting to say 45 shouldn't and won't improve to 65/70 if I play him at 3B/RF.

Quote: Originally posted by firemanrob on 3/05/2010Ridiculous yes.  Precisely why I don't think its part of the game.  A 22 y/o 1B prospect with an AS of 30, projecting to say 45 shouldn't and won't improve to 65/70 if I play him at 3B/RF. 

Sure, he won't make 65/70 if you play him at 3B/RF. The better question is whether he has a better *chance* of hitting his proj of 45 (or whatever his "true" projection is) if he's playing 3B/RF instead of 1B.

I think he should. Developers have implied he should. My experience tells me it's not necessarily even working *that* way.

So again back to what I said earlier, set everyone's primary to SS, CF and 2B and just rotate them out every few days.

Quote: Originally posted by firemanrob on 3/05/2010So again back to what I said earlier, set everyone's primary to SS, CF and 2B and just rotate them out every few days.

The primary positions (or secondary positions, for that matter) don't impact anything beyond what the recs will tell you and what the manager will do if you don't set lineups/replacement.

As far as playing time goes, do you really think playing RF should allow a player to develop defensively at the same rate of playing SS? What about LF? 1B? DH?

If it worked "properly" and you wanted to rotate guys so that everyone got a chance to play SS/3B/2B some games, you'd have that option. The 1B would be more likely to reach his 1B projections (playing some at SS) and the SS would be less likely to reach his projections (playing some at 1B or sitting). I think sacrificing the D of a SS/MI for that of a 1B is pretty foolish, but if you think that's a recipe for long-term success, you could certainly give it a shot.

I think all three of us agree that it doesn't work that way.

But, if it did................

Wouldn't it be wise to play a 1B at SS if he was the only legit prospect at that level?

Quote: Originally posted by MikeT23 on 3/05/2010I think all three of us agree that it doesn't work that way.But, if it did................Wouldn't it be wise to play a 1B at SS if he was the only legit prospect at that level?

Sure. Assuming (as I do, but I may be wrong) that success/failure at a level is irrelevant and that you have no prospect pitchers there either.

Do you really disagree with that making more sense though? In RL, if you take an 18-year old slug and play him at DH, he's not going to improve much (at all?) defensively. In RL, if you take an 18-year old slug and play him at SS (again with the assumption that success/failure in HBD doesn't matter like it would in RL), you don't think it would make it more likely that he has a better chance of developing the defensive skills that might someday make him a passable 1B (assuming had that *potential* to begin with)?