f'in a right we do

i don't believe you

I don't either.

belie dat!

I don't think having a few minor league teams in a league will actually effect the development of any players on other teams. Getting more at bats and scoring more runs with a higher average and OBP etc. won't make players develop faster since player performance is irrelevant in development.

That being said it could affect the league if people care about it. I like seeing my minors do well, and compete. Sure I know it doesn't matter in the end and having my minors team win 90 games instead of 60 won't help me win a WS. But I get value out of it, so if I'm looking at taking over a team and that team has 10 guys at each level from retirements, or there are a handful of ML prospects with just training camp pitchers and 1B/DHs I'm probably not going to want that team. I care way more about the minors than most though, I removed everyone on the 40 who only has 4 years at the end of the year so I can add on as many potential 6 yr FAs as I can, even if the vast majority I have no intention of ever sniffing the big league club.

It's not about "performance", it's about playing time. In a normal setting, a player may get 12-13 AB in a 3 game series. Against some chumped up team, he may get 20+. I won't bring a player to the bigs until he has a minimum of 1200 AB. That could take 300 games or 200 games. There's the difference.

At least from what I've seen, with guys coming off the bench and getting fewer at bats etc., I don't think a large # of bats really affects development. I've seen guys get 80 AB in the first half of a season, and 250 in the 2nd half since guys ahead of them I start resting, and their development is the same each cycle. Your 1200AB is a threshold you apply, but I would think that, barring injury, ever single player who has 1200 AB over 300 games will be further developed over someone who has 1200 over 200 games, or even 1300 AB over 220 games.

I think it's one thing to not worry about performance or whether your team wins 50 or 90 games in the minors. It can be another matter (I think...) when there are teams that are literally 0-99 for the season and have perhaps 20 total wins across all 6 levels. I have a hard time thinking that's good for a world...

I agree I don't think its good for the world. But their argument can be that it doesn't matter, and really its not hurting, or helping, any other team's development. I think it looks bad though, and it does affect recruiting of some owners.

I guess that's where we disagree. You seem to think that playing time doesn't matter that it's only a matter of service time. I'm almost certain that you're wrong.

You can test it if you'd like. Take two similar players. Play one full-time. Leave the other inactive. See who develops.

Wouldn't having one play full time and another part time be the real test?

I think jv has a point.

FWIW, I agree with Mike that AB/IP is the determining factor for development, not games played, but to prove it, you have to prove that 500 AB > 250 AB > 0 AB in terms of development.

Otherwise, leave your best guys on the bench to avoid injury, no?

I agree with Mike as well. I'm just wondering if there are diminishing returns with AB/IP, and maybe even a cap.

Sure. However you want to work it.

I can tell you how it turns out. I became less than interested in one of my worlds because I think it's 'tarding itself up. Because of that, I forgot about a semi-prospect who I had de-activated due to fatigue. He'll pitch 30-35% less than his historical numbers. He didn't improve at all over the last couple of cycles. Maybe, because he's a 4 year pro, he's pretty much done. Maybe, because he was inactive during the progression cycles, he didn't improve. Or, more likely, he didn't improve because he didn't pitch his max numbers. At least that's my experience.

But, hey, if playing time doesn't matter, developing players should be easy and no one should ***** about minor league results.