I'm really struggling with what to make of this rating. What's the low end for guys you just won't touch? If someone is sitting at a 43, should I just assume they'll never sniff the projections and steer clear?

Is there a clear sliding scale for how makeup factors into the development? i.e, 100 makeup means the can be expected to make 100 percent of the growth from draft day to projections, 90 means 90 percent, 43 means 43 percent, etc?

Ignore it. It's not even close to having that kind of impact on development. It seems to play more of a factor in a player's decline in ratings after age ~32 for position players age ~36 for pitchers. The guy you draft might not even be on your team by that age.

This guy was my test subject with a makeup of 12 and his projections being a solid DH. His development has looked just fine so far, minus the injury. https://www.whatifsports.com/hbd/Pages/Popups/PlayerRatings.aspx?pid=8643396

Posted by brianplath on 1/12/2018 1:59:00 PM (view original):
Ignore it. It's not even close to having that kind of impact on development. It seems to play more of a factor in a player's decline in ratings after age ~32 for position players age ~36 for pitchers. The guy you draft might not even be on your team by that age.

Agree. Additionally, there are some players who will kind of trickle up in ratings, 2-3 points at most, from the end of their major development through about age 28, and a guy with low makeup won't do that in my experience. But primary development seems to me to be only modestly affected by makeup, if at all.

It's been my experience that high make-up players improve faster and decline later in the "learned" skills. I have no way to know if they reach ceilings better but I suspect they do not.

Disclaimer: "Learned" skills are a by-product of coaching so maybe what I think I'm experiencing is just coaching. I don't play the "hold them back 20" or insist that only 4th-5th year pros are ready to be BL players.