For awhile now, I've seen different opinions on Makeup (the characteristic, not the stuff chicks put on their face) and how much it effects development.

Some people say they don't touch a player without a makeup over X.

Some people say they don't even pay attention to it.

Some say it's involved in the total overall formula of how good a player can be, but have no idea how much Makeup figures into the end statistics.

Has anyone ever actually done any type of solid research on this? I searched the forums and couldn't find much of anything but "I think/don't think it's important, but I've got nothing to back that up."

Does anyone have any specific examples of players with really low Makeup reaching their projected stats?

Sort of a catch-22, don't you think?

If you've got people saying "I don't touch a player lower than X" and others saying "I don't pay any attention to it", you've got no one who drafted a low make-up player AND followed his progress to see how low make-up works.

There are 2 things I'm 99% sure of when it comes to low makeup players:

1) They don't recover well from injuries. Either they are injured for longer periods of time compared to high makeup players OR they are injured for the same length of time but don't recover as many ratings points as high makeup players.

2) They start to decline quicker than high makeup players. this seems to be especially true for the "skill" ratings such as power, range, speed, velocity, and pitch quality. Low makeup players might maintain decent splits into their early 30's but these ratings ALMOST inevitably drop slightly beginning at age 27 or 28.

Meet Albert Gonzales and his 0 makeup. If you look closely at his ratings you will see he had a terrible Fielding Instructor in S8 and didn't really develop his defensive skills. He then had improvements of 5/4/4 in next few seasons. He had a minor injury which knocked his power from 61 to 59, then regained a point to 60 a few seasons later. He's already begun to lose DUR despite a training budget of $20M. He has also asked for $378K in both of his arb hearings. I like him a lot as a backup/platoon infielder and he's had some very productive seasons for me, including a GG in his one season of starting duty.

As for whether he hit his projections - I honestly don't care. When I took over the team in S10, he was a guy who could contribute to a major league roster if he got PT, so he got PT in the minors, then PT in the majors, then settled in as a backup. He had major league potential, based only on his current ratings, in every year as he developed, so whether he "reached his projections" is meaningless, IMO. Projected ratings are a mirage. If a guy with decent current ratings gets good coaching and PT in his formative years, he will improve.

Once had a C with a makeup of 5. He was good enough to be my 2nd catcher in his second pro season .... and never got significantly better, never good enough to start.

I drafted a C/DH with my supplemental 1st round pick in S11 with a makeup of 6. He was 20 at the time. I traded him the following season, and he was a Rule V pick last season (age 24), and went .202-2-5 in 84 ABs.

From age 20 to age 24, he'd improved from a draft-day OVR of 48 to an OVR of 62. His original projected OVR was 69.

Quote: Originally Posted By jimmystick on 6/07/2010There are 2 things I'm 99% sure of when it comes to low makeup players:

1) They don't recover well from injuries. Either they are injured for longer periods of time compared to high makeup players OR they are injured for the same length of time but don't recover as many ratings points as high makeup players.

2) They start to decline quicker than high makeup players. this seems to be especially true for the "skill" ratings such as power, range, speed, velocity, and pitch quality. Low makeup players might maintain decent splits into their early 30's but these ratings ALMOST inevitably drop slightly beginning at age 27 or 28

+1

SPECULATION NOT BACKED BY FACT.

If people want to make "99% statements" how about a few player cards cited to show that you're not just pulling crepe paper from your orifice?

#2 is rebutted by the player I posted above. Got a counter example? I'd like to see it. #1 is impossible to prove and I'm pretty sure it's inaccurate.

Don't give out bad information and don't "+1" something that has already been shown to be inaccurate.

Actually #1 is "largely" true but, like most things in this game, it's never 100% of the time.

Make-up does play a role in the recovery, at least the length of recovery, of a player. Medical plays a much larger role. Of course, there's no way to "prove" this without hundreds, if not thousands, of example. But, in my experience, the lower make-up players seem to be injured longer. Of course, there are varying degrees of "ankle, sprained" so you can obviously write it off as "Well, he took longer to recover because the injury was more severe" any time you choose.

Since I largely avoid low make-up prospects, I don't have an indisputable feel for how low make-up players decline. However, I'm pretty damn sure high make-up players progress better. Therefore, I'm pretty confident that low make-up players decline quicker. I've not seen anything that would indicate they "ALMOST inevitably" decline at 27-28. I'd say they take a steeper decline at 32-33 when most players begin declining. But, as I said, I mostly avoid the low make-up guys on draft day and I'm damn sure not going to acquire them in their early-mid 30s so I can't/won't make definitive statements.

Quote: Originally posted by soxfan121 on 6/09/2010SPECULATION NOT BACKED BY FACT.

If people want to make "99% statements" how about a few player cards cited to show that you're not just pulling crepe paper from your orifice?

#2 is rebutted by the player I posted above. Got a counter example? I'd like to see it. #1 is impossible to prove and I'm pretty sure it's inaccurate.

Don't give out bad information and don't "+1" something that has already been shown to be inaccurate.

Pretty funny you say he can't say 99% by looking at a few player cards but then show 1 player card and say his theory is wrong..

Quote: Originally Posted By oriolemagic on 6/09/2010

Quote: Originally posted by soxfan121 on 6/09/2010 SPECULATION NOT BACKED BY FACT.

If people want to make "99% statements" how about a few player cards cited to show that you're not just pulling crepe paper from your orifice?

#2 is rebutted by the player I posted above. Got a counter example? I'd like to see it. #1 is impossible to prove and I'm pretty sure it's inaccurate.

Don't give out bad information and don't "+1" something that has already been shown to be inaccurate.

Pretty funny you say he can't say 99% by looking at a few player cards but then show 1 player card and say his theory is wrong..

Lol good point Oriole. Even if you don't know that a 2-seam and sinker are the same pitch :)

From my experience I do believe makeup plays a role in development but coaching and playing time play a bigger role in devlopement than makeup does. It would take hours to dig up statistics on players to prove this 100% which I will not do but in general I think this is how it works with development.