Someone in another post this summer mentioned an IFA with very low durability and questioned if it would increase and by how much.

FWIW - Rafael Rijo - SS

He cost me $30 million and I was quite worried that he had a 59 Dur at age 19 in Season 43. He jumped up to 69 right at rollover for Season 44.

Posted by pjfoster13 on 10/16/2017 10:43:00 AM (view original):
keeping guys at 99-100% all season appears to help Dur progression in the low minors

Do you have evidence of this?
I've gotta think coaching and playing time factor in bigly as well. A guy could never play and be at 100 all year.

Posted by frymaster99 on 10/16/2017 1:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pjfoster13 on 10/16/2017 10:43:00 AM (view original):
keeping guys at 99-100% all season appears to help Dur progression in the low minors

Do you have evidence of this?
I've gotta think coaching and playing time factor in bigly as well. A guy could never play and be at 100 all year.

Depends on the durability, but you are correct. As a player that is still developing, it is very unlikely the durability would be above 90. I'd personally take everyday playing over keeping the player at 99-100 but everyone has their own thoughts on development.

Posted by frymaster99 on 10/16/2017 1:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pjfoster13 on 10/16/2017 10:43:00 AM (view original):
keeping guys at 99-100% all season appears to help Dur progression in the low minors

Do you have evidence of this?
I've gotta think coaching and playing time factor in bigly as well. A guy could never play and be at 100 all year.

coaching and playing time are for only the coaching attributes (contact, splits, fielding, etc). In your seasons that are about to roll, pay attention to guys who were run down to the 60-70% range and then observe how their Dur does after rollover. It appears to make a difference whether a guy rolls at 65% vs rolling at 100%

I'd think DUR, as a physical trait, would be influenced by training and actual ceiling like every other physical trait.

If anyone has proof that this isn't the case, I'd love to see it.

Nothing to add regarding durability but in terms of playing time: I've been using my top prospects as subs in the minors for the past few seasons now to limit their opportunities for injury. They play almost every game since my rest settings are +-1 run in the 7th. As far as I can tell, they develop just as well as if they were starters. The elite guys still get the 2 point/cycle increases early in their development despite only getting one AB a game. I'm convinced now more than ever that games and not AB's are the determining factor for development. I put top SP's as closers too to keep their IP down as well. I figure I should be reducing my chance of injury by ~2/3 doing this while maintaining the same level of development.

Now that I think about it, I should put the position players at the DH rest to eliminate fielding injuries.

Actually now that I think about it, I do have something to mention on DUR. Used to be you could see a player's ceiling before they fixed the bug. All the physical traits on my guys got to within 1-2 points of their ceiling as long as I had 20M in training during their development. (Coachable ratings are another story).

I'm with Mike, physical traits are only affected by the training budget.

I start all of my top prospects. I also keep my training maxed out. Player rest is at 1 for winning and losing in the 5th inning. I then have defensive replacements at 7th inning. This gets all my position players in almost every game while making sure those prospects get 400+ ABs. My SPs are usually in 4 man rotations with reduced pitch counts. My top RPs are all SUAs with Inning availability set to 3.

In the end, all geared to get them in each and every game and keep them fresh. Seems to be working so far.

Agreed about getting them in every game. I just think if you can get the same development while reducing playing time and the injury risk that comes with it, why the heck not.

Went back and looked at two guys as an example of the ceiling thing if anyone is interested. The ceiling numbers are their actual ceilings, not scouting ceilings.

Both guys are still mid 20's and could potentially reach their ceilings but you'll notice coachable ratings lag behind physical ratings. My 1st/3rd base coaches must have been pretty bad since Wascar is 6 points behind his ceiling in base running. All physical ratings are within 1 (and probably closer but we can't see fractions of ratings) except Wascar's range which is 2 points off).

Age 25 Wascar Aguilera

	DUR	HEA	CON	PWR	VLH	VRH	EYE	BAS	SPE	RNG	GLO	ARM	ACC	PC
Ceiling	85	100	68	89	69	28	100	70	60	92	95	98	92	0
Current	84	99	66	88	66	25	97	64	59	90	93	97	88	0
Difference	1	1	2	1	3	3	3	6	1	2	2	1	4	0

Age 23 Thomas Del Rosario

	HEA	DUR	STA	CON	VLH	VRH	VEL	GB	P1	P2
Ceiling	86	100	33	91	98	94	91	57	90	71
Current	85	99	32	88	95	91	90	54	88	69
Difference	1	1	1	3	3	3	1	3	2	2

I got both these guys in as many games as possible. I also called them up to the bigs early (Aguilera at 20, Rosario at 18), so the ML coaches probably had a not insignificant effect on their development.

Posted by pjfoster13 on 10/16/2017 1:52:00 PM (view original):

Posted by frymaster99 on 10/16/2017 1:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by pjfoster13 on 10/16/2017 10:43:00 AM (view original):
keeping guys at 99-100% all season appears to help Dur progression in the low minors

Do you have evidence of this?
I've gotta think coaching and playing time factor in bigly as well. A guy could never play and be at 100 all year.

coaching and playing time are for only the coaching attributes (contact, splits, fielding, etc). In your seasons that are about to roll, pay attention to guys who were run down to the 60-70% range and then observe how their Dur does after rollover. It appears to make a difference whether a guy rolls at 65% vs rolling at 100%

Why would any capable owner be playing position players at 60-70%? Asking honestly.

I let the AI run my minors but I check to make sure my top pitching prospects aren't on the inactive list (unless necessary) and I'll deactivate my top fielders for a few games if they're below 95%.

I'm assuming a couple days off shouldn't hurt development and would rather avoid injuries, if possible, even with 20/20 training/med.

I see no reason to run them into the ground when they're only developing and don't mean anything to the current Big League team.

Posted by brianplath on 10/16/2017 3:48:00 PM (view original):
Agreed about getting them in every game. I just think if you can get the same development while reducing playing time and the injury risk that comes with it, why the heck not.

Went back and looked at two guys as an example of the ceiling thing if anyone is interested. The ceiling numbers are their actual ceilings, not scouting ceilings.

Both guys are still mid 20's and could potentially reach their ceilings but you'll notice coachable ratings lag behind physical ratings. My 1st/3rd base coaches must have been pretty bad since Wascar is 6 points behind his ceiling in base running. All physical ratings are within 1 (and probably closer but we can't see fractions of ratings) except Wascar's range which is 2 points off).

Age 25 Wascar Aguilera

	DUR	HEA	CON	PWR	VLH	VRH	EYE	BAS	SPE	RNG	GLO	ARM	ACC	PC
Ceiling	85	100	68	89	69	28	100	70	60	92	95	98	92	0
Current	84	99	66	88	66	25	97	64	59	90	93	97	88	0
Difference	1	1	2	1	3	3	3	6	1	2	2	1	4	0

Age 23 Thomas Del Rosario

	HEA	DUR	STA	CON	VLH	VRH	VEL	GB	P1	P2
Ceiling	86	100	33	91	98	94	91	57	90	71
Current	85	99	32	88	95	91	90	54	88	69
Difference	1	1	1	3	3	3	1	3	2	2

I got both these guys in as many games as possible. I also called them up to the bigs early (Aguilera at 20, Rosario at 18), so the ML coaches probably had a not insignificant effect on their development.

See I'm still gunshy about bringing up a prospect to the BLs until he's 21. I've been burned a couple of times where an early callup plateaued and didn't perform well. While I - don't - do this for salary reasons, I've been calling up players midseason and they seem to get right into it.