Is there a line you draw when it comes to how soon is too soon for Call ups? I have two international prospects that are 18, just started RL, but both are projected to be MLers eventually. Should I start playing them now at the roster expansion and then assign them to Low A next year or wait until they are at high A before getting ML exposure?

I expect you'll get different answers. Those worried about "the clock" will tell you "No, never do that." Some will worry about the burnt option.

I'll tell you I do it all the time in hopes of getting an extra development bump. I don't worry about arb/FA clocks because, unless you call a player up for good when he's 20, you'll have him locked in his entire career before decline starts. I don't worry about options because I'm not calling up/sending down good players three times.

Agree mostly with Mike.

If I keep them in the minors I keep them at AAA (assuming my best MiL coaches are there) regardless of age. Best coaching = best chance at reaching ceiling. But if my team is contending and they are better than my current option I'm going to bring them up to the bigs ASAP. Heck, even if my team isn't contending I probably need them anyway to stay competitive while having budget flexibility. I've called up 18 y/o's to the ML immediately after signing. I almost always call them up at roster expansion to get them exposed to ML coaches.

There's no such thing as calling up too early in this game, players aren't negatively affected by it. The important thing is to get them in as many games as possible. My stud prospects that are in the minors always come in as rest replacements and only play ~3 innings a game, every single game of the season. It checks the game played box for development while reducing the likelihood of injury. I have yet to see one player that didn't reach his potential using this strategy (the studs still get their 2 rating bump cycles despite only playing three innings a game).

Having all your good prospects at one minor league level also increases your chances of making the MiL playoffs, giving them more games to get some extra development from.

Player Profile: Yoervis Adames - Hardball Dynasty Baseball | WhatIfSports

I just signed this guy this season. Started him at AA, promoted him to AAA. Now thinking he's a better option at the ML level than a couple guys I currently have there. If I plan on making a serious run, it makes more sense to promote him, which I will probably do. He's 21, doesn't really make sense to keep him down.

So it doesn't matter if they hit every level in terms of development? They can go from RL to the call ups to AAA and still have a good chance to hit their projections?

Posted by jimt14120 on 3/14/2018 1:27:00 PM (view original):
Player Profile: Yoervis Adames - Hardball Dynasty Baseball | WhatIfSports

I just signed this guy this season. Started him at AA, promoted him to AAA. Now thinking he's a better option at the ML level than a couple guys I currently have there. If I plan on making a serious run, it makes more sense to promote him, which I will probably do. He's 21, doesn't really make sense to keep him down.

As a 21 year old IFA, he's already pretty close to full development.

Yeah, he is, first one I've gotten like that.

Obvious disclaimer here. Their injury rating will as close to as low as it will ever be at 18. More games means more chance of injuries. A lower injury rating (if I understand how it works) means a longer injury. I'm not saying don't do it, just making sure we do not miss the obvious caveat.

Posted by ham00020 on 3/14/2018 1:31:00 PM (view original):
So it doesn't matter if they hit every level in terms of development? They can go from RL to the call ups to AAA and still have a good chance to hit their projections?

The only factors that affect development are playing time (specifically games played as opposed to number of PA or innings in the field) and coaching ratings. Given this information, a player is most likely to develop to his absolute fullest potential by getting playing time (however little) in every game of the season at the ML level.

Having said that, it seems like coaching doesn't play nearly as big of a role as playing time. My hunch is as long as you don't have abysmal coaches , your players will develop properly. But why take the chance, just put them at the level with the best coaches, typically AAA, unless you want/need them in the majors.

Having taken over a team with a low double digit FI, bad coaches will cause decline. I'm not sure how much good coaches affect improvement but there is something there.

On the development question, I understand that games played is the driver for hitters. But what about pitchers? Would I be better off using a quality starting prospect out of the pen to get him more appearances, or is minor league pitcher development based on innings?

I don't think I've seen a definitive answer to that question. My hunch is pitchers only need ~30 appearances, starting or relieving, to get their max quota but I put my starting SPs in the pen with low pitch counts to get 50+ appearances just in case.

It's counter-intuitive to use SP as RP to max development. Much like playing a 1B at SS to maximize his glove/arm accuracy.

I had never thought of x-number of appearances = max development but that makes sense. I'm on board!!!

I think you need to be aware of patience too.

I believe there is a correlation to a player "playing below his ratings" and being stuck at a level for an extended period of time (usually AAA), and that correlation seems to get stronger if the player has a lower patience rating

I had never thought of x-number of appearances = max development but that makes sense. I'm on board!!!

Can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. I did get the Dev chat quip though.