3. Move them to the majors when they are better than what you currently have playing in the majors regardless of age.

Considering my best coaches (compared to field) are at AA. Should I put these three guys there? Or should I put Lopez and Duran at HiA and Morlan at Rookie. If you have the time, even check out my coaches.

Player Profile: Sal Duran - Hardball Dynasty Baseball | WhatIfSports
Player Profile: Paulo Lopez - Hardball Dynasty Baseball | WhatIfSports
Player Profile: Willie Morlan - Hardball Dynasty Baseball | WhatIfSports

Posted by tlowster on 12/1/2018 8:22:00 PM (view original):
No. DO NOT RUSH your guys to the majors. There are two exceptions:
1. They are aged 21 or over in their first year as a pro, in that case start them in HiA.
2. He is an absolute stud (86+ overall) and can immediately compete at higher minor league levels.

Best advice I can give is to hire coaches that fit your best prospects at that level. Sometimes you have to pay a little bit more, but at the minor league level, coaches are not paid that much.

If I move a prospect up 1 level for coaching sake, will it help or hurt?

It doesn't hurt them at all to move them up. It can only help.

Posted by tlowster on 12/1/2018 8:22:00 PM (view original):
No. DO NOT RUSH your guys to the majors. There are two exceptions:
1. They are aged 21 or over in their first year as a pro, in that case start them in HiA.
2. He is an absolute stud (86+ overall) and can immediately compete at higher minor league levels.

Best advice I can give is to hire coaches that fit your best prospects at that level. Sometimes you have to pay a little bit more, but at the minor league level, coaches are not paid that much.

There is alot of bad info in this. Age matters nothing about what level they can compete or develop in. Overall rating means nothing as well. Indvidual ratings determine if they and when they can or ever will play in the majors. Id put anyone who has a legit shot in the majors at the highest level where they can play alot and has the highest rated coaches. If they are ml ready when signed and the best option available it will not hurt there development period.

Yes - a player that is ML ready (this includes players that are under 21 and are going to be absolute studs) should probably be in the higher level of minors to get the best coaching possible. However, if you draft a guy who is 18 years old and once you see his actual ratings, he has a long was to go, putting him in AA will stunt his growth (I know this from experience).

That second piece, I meant to say that 'if he is going to be an absolute stud (86+ overall)', then go ahead and put him in the higher levels of the minors. And yes, there are plenty of guys that are not 86+ that can be studs in the MLB (C, P, 1b, LF, RF). And yes, their individual ratings will dictate that, but I was trying to keep it general.

With few exceptions (mentioned above), a guy should progress every year starting in LowA or Rookie ball. Guys that have big bats and will play C, DH, 1B, LF, RF can be rushed more than guys that play infield. Especially middle infield. But they have to be truly MLB ready by their 2nd or 3rd year. These type of guys will usually be 'big get' prospects (top 12 draft picks, high money IFA signings, 48+ overall pre DITR, high makeup DITR players)

To answer the above question. There are many factors. Does your AA team have a better chance to make the playoffs than your HiA team? YOu want to get true prospects the best chance to play as many games as possible. So, be careful, moving up one of these guys might decrease the chance of your HiA squad not making the playoffs and getting you those extra development games. For each player:

Sal Duran, if you put him in AA, he is only going to get one (maybe two) year end promotion bumps (this year from AA to AAA). Next year he will be AAA and you can give him another year end promotion bump, but then you will be paying a major league min salary two seasons from now. Will he be major league ready by then? My guess is yes. He should get a nice power bump after this season and he should see a nice bump in coachable ratings throughout this season. Also, he is only a LF, so there is no need to keep him down longer to develop his fielding. I wouldn't have a problem with moving him to AA. Just keep in mind the above. If you are moving him to AA and he will be your best player in AA with little to no help, you might want to try to supplement the AA squad (signing value free agents that still have options left) throughout the season so that the AA squad makes the playoffs

Paulo Lopez, I would leave him in HiA, I don't think he will be MLB ready in two seasons. Plus, if you truly plan to put him at 3b, he might need that extra year to develop his fielding. Might need the extra year end promotion for that.

Willie Morlan, definitely want to move him up. He is only a RF and his bat will compete.

I might even put Morlan in AAA. He could compete at the major league level right now, but I would give him at least one year in AAA and then call him up after 20 AAA days next season.

Thanks so much tlowster. All my minor league teams aren't going to make the playoffs. The problem you suggested is moving guys up too quick. I agree with this problem. My solution would be to promote these guys at the end of the season, then demoter them before spring training. So if I promote Duran, Morlan, and Lopez to AA, then I will promote them to AAA at the end of the season, then demote them down to AA before spring training. Will that stunt development?

Looks like both your HIA and AA have a long way to go to make the playoffs. If it were me, I would put player A in AA, player B in HiA, and player C in AAA. Depending on when you want to call up your guys, maybe put player C in AA.

General rule is that you don't want your prospects to repeat the same minor league level for a full season.

So, even though I got into extreme detail above, I guess the simple way to put it is that you evaluate each player on a case by case basis. If a player is drafted or signed and you see his current ratings, you should be able to get a good idea what his arch looks like (how many years he has before he is MLB ready). If he is going to be MLB ready in one or two seasons and your organization's plan is to promote him to that level in that time period, then go ahead and put him in the higher minors. Just keep in mind that most 18 year old players (outside of high draft picks and big money IFA free agents) will need the full 3-4 years of development. Stud players and older players (21+) can be rushed, but on a case by case basis.

If player has current ratings to where you think he will be MLB ready in two seasons and that plan fits the plan of your organization, go ahead an put him in AA to start off with - His first year will be in AA, with a year end promotion to AAA. His second year will be in AAA, with a possible year end promotion (many factors go into making this decision from AAA to MLB promotion and that is a separate topic). You can either immediately demote him back to AAA to avoid paying him an MLB salary the next year (if he has a high enough patience rating, he will not take a demotion nerf). Then his third year will be spent with 20 days in AAA, and his rookie season in the big show.

Posted by tlowster on 12/1/2018 11:30:00 PM (view original):
Yes - a player that is ML ready (this includes players that are under 21 and are going to be absolute studs) should probably be in the higher level of minors to get the best coaching possible. However, if you draft a guy who is 18 years old and once you see his actual ratings, he has a long was to go, putting him in AA will stunt his growth (I know this from experience).

That second piece, I meant to say that 'if he is going to be an absolute stud (86+ overall)', then go ahead and put him in the higher levels of the minors. And yes, there are plenty of guys that are not 86+ that can be studs in the MLB (C, P, 1b, LF, RF). And yes, their individual ratings will dictate that, but I was trying to keep it general.

With few exceptions (mentioned above), a guy should progress every year starting in LowA or Rookie ball. Guys that have big bats and will play C, DH, 1B, LF, RF can be rushed more than guys that play infield. Especially middle infield. But they have to be truly MLB ready by their 2nd or 3rd year. These type of guys will usually be 'big get' prospects (top 12 draft picks, high money IFA signings, 48+ overall pre DITR, high makeup DITR players)

To answer the above question. There are many factors. Does your AA team have a better chance to make the playoffs than your HiA team? YOu want to get true prospects the best chance to play as many games as possible. So, be careful, moving up one of these guys might decrease the chance of your HiA squad not making the playoffs and getting you those extra development games. For each player:

Sal Duran, if you put him in AA, he is only going to get one (maybe two) year end promotion bumps (this year from AA to AAA). Next year he will be AAA and you can give him another year end promotion bump, but then you will be paying a major league min salary two seasons from now. Will he be major league ready by then? My guess is yes. He should get a nice power bump after this season and he should see a nice bump in coachable ratings throughout this season. Also, he is only a LF, so there is no need to keep him down longer to develop his fielding. I wouldn't have a problem with moving him to AA. Just keep in mind the above. If you are moving him to AA and he will be your best player in AA with little to no help, you might want to try to supplement the AA squad (signing value free agents that still have options left) throughout the season so that the AA squad makes the playoffs

Paulo Lopez, I would leave him in HiA, I don't think he will be MLB ready in two seasons. Plus, if you truly plan to put him at 3b, he might need that extra year to develop his fielding. Might need the extra year end promotion for that.

Willie Morlan, definitely want to move him up. He is only a RF and his bat will compete.

For Sportsbulls sake, I will try to go through and clean up what is not true in it.

First off, a player that is ML ready should be in the ML (assuming you don't have a better option already in the ML). The goal is to win as many ML games as possible. Plus, your best coaches are in the majors. There is no stunt to growth from moving a player up too fast. I'm not sure where you got this from, but it is simply not true.

There is no difference in the progression curve between C, DH, 1B, LF, RF and every other position. They can all progress through the system at the same rate.

TLowster's point about MiLB playoffs is valid. The more games they play, the more opportunities for them to progress. I agree with this one.

As far as the individual assessments of the players, the fielding attributes will develop the same regardless of level. Your ML fielding instructor handles the development of all of the players in your organization. It doesn't matter if they are in rookie ball or the big leagues. There is no reason to keep a position player at a lower level with a worse hitting coach simply to "develop their fielding".

All I have to say is that if you have a stud prospect at a premium defensive position, don't rush him unless his bat AND his glove are ready. Believe me, there are stud players that you get on your team and their bat becomes mlb ready before their glove. You can make the mistake of putting them in the majors, out of their [future potential] position, just to get their bat in the lineup. You will soon find out that playing them out of defensive position stunts their defensive growth.

Also, if you can, do the experiment yourself. Draft two guys in the same year and take note of what their projections were. Make sure they were in the same budget (i.e. both players from HS prospect or INTL prospect) and that the budget was close to max as possible. Then place one player at AAA for three years and one player in Rookie or Low A with methodical progressions up to AA or AAA for three years. See which one works out. I contend that the latter will work out better than than the former almost every time. I am not going to do the experiment myself because I do not want to waste the potential of a prospect's development. Also, I could start the experiment and then one player gets injured and messes it up.

You guys can do it how ever you want to. That is what is great about the sim. But I would suggest NOT to rush guys that have great defensive potential until both their bat and glove are ready.

Enough is enough, TLowster. I am glad that you are enthusiastic about the game, but please stop giving him bad advice. Players in HBD don't have "natural" positions. They have ratings. There is no "out of position" in this game. Well, there is but not in the sense of development. It is different than real life. Players don't need reps at a certain position to become proficient at that position. They don't have to take 100 ground balls a day at 3B to be good at 3B. I can take a guy with CF caliber ratings and put him at 1B and he will win a gold glove every season. I can't take Lorenzo Cain in real life and put him at 1B and expect him to win a gold glove. In HBD, it doesn't matter whether you play a guy at 1B, 2B, 3B, SS, LF, CF, or RF. Their glove will still develop the same. It will IN NO WAY stunt their defensive growth.

As far as your experiment, even $20M in any scouting budget comes with a level of fuzziness. You can't base progression off of projected ratings. The fuzziness is different for every player. Check out sportsbulls "who to draft" thread. Veteran owners with much more experience than you or I were discussing where the potential projection red flags were. Once again, it doesn't matter which level you place a guy at when it comes to fielding development. Every level utilizes the same fielding instructor. It doesn't matter which position you put a player at. He will still develop.

Sportsbull, the most important factor in player development is that he plays. Coaching does matter, but I am not sure there is much of a deviation in development between players that play for a 72 rated hitting instructor and a 68 rated one. Obviously there is some, but I don't think it is much. Playing time is key.