So, in other words, you believe that WifS has designed a system that encourages the users to play LF at SS in the minors?

I refuse to believe that WifS is that short-sighted.   I could be wrong but I'm not buying it.

And, in my experience, playing a SS at 2B or LF doesn't hurt his development.  Sitting him does.

Posted by tecwrg on 12/3/2010 8:26:00 AM (view original):

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.

Ive not seen many teams that are so loaded in the minors that they have true ML 2B, SS, CF, 3B, RF and LF prospects.  I could be wrong, but the only way that is happening is trade rape like a mother f-er.  So why not play C and 1B prospects at a more demanding position, just to max out projections right?  I agree with MIke, I find it hard to believe that WIS would encourage MiLB tanking just for the sake of fielding improvement...could be wrong, but it seems dumb. 

Besides, Im not sure anyone can provide quantifiable reasoning of how much difference it makes

So the consensus is that no one knows for sure how much of an effect position played has on development, if any?

That's what it sounds like to me.