My assumption is there is no singular way to max out development, and I've noted competing voices as I lurk on forum threads. Recently, two experienced owners in one of my league appear to be stashing their top developing talent at the High A level. Even players they acquired via trade that might have been at a higher level previously were re-assigned to High A. I can make up some reasoning there (player was too high previously, want to have a clear progression matching when they want talent to arrive at ML level), but at least one experienced and successful owner seems to leave guys at that level indefinitely until they come up to the bigs.

Is there any benefit to keeping players at High A or some other level? Does it help with development to have a player rage at a level overmatched to talent or continue progressing a player to levels that provide a potential challenge?

Related to player development, it seems players max out development over four or five seasons, regardless of age. Would the initial season (say the season they are drafted - doesn't look like that displays on the player card) be considered one of those development seasons? I'm still pretty green but it looks like return on development seems to peak in the first season recorded on the player card. Then growth is roughly half the second season, roughly half of the second for the third season, and so on.

Is that a naive observation on my part or does "normal" development typically follow that pattern? How does that initial partial season factor in?

Thanks.

First, I'd say your observation about the development pattern is pretty close to form. Max first, half, half, etc.

Second, settling players at some level or another, I think that depends on the owner, draft strategy, coaching strategy. If you're drafting very good 22 year olds you probably won't want them at Low A or Rookie for very long. Likewise, you'll see AAA teams with either no prospects (because they're already in the bigs) or lots of prospects (because the owner's stacking them to hit the majors at the same time). Some owners like to put their prospects wherever their best coaches are.

I usually end up with blah AA teams because that's where my roster filler type players end up collecting. The guys I don't want to spend AAA money on, but they'd be taking up roster spots in the lower minors.

Some prospects, especially 18 y/o's, start with low ratings and develop a ton in the first two full seasons (2 rating bumps per cycle, 3 in ST). I think I've seen a number of prospects get just as many in the second. For the initial season, some prospects barely get much of bump except, again, those guys who start with low ratings but have a high ceiling.

Here's my quick thoughts on max development. If you get them into as many games as you can they will get extremely close to their ceiling. I don't even think coaching plays that much into it unless you have below average or terrible coaches.

I'm fairly certain in this because you used to be able to see any players true ratings ceiling until I sent in a support ticket and they fixed that bug. All my guys came within 1 rating point of their training ratings and three points of their coach-able ratings. I could never figure out how to close the gap on the coach determined ratings but it doesn't matter because 99% players across all worlds were almost always 3 points or worse from their ceiling. So whatever is responsible for those three missing ratings points, everyone is doing it wrong.

Thanks both. I appreciate the community here being so open to sharing their expertise.

At first blush, it seems like finances and player development are crucial aspects to success. I made horrific decisions with budgeting and finances the first season and it took me a few seasons to dig out. Trying to gain a decent grasp on potential development approaches at this point. Thanks again.

Posted by brianplath on 3/28/2018 9:46:00 PM (view original):
Some prospects, especially 18 y/o's, start with low ratings and develop a ton in the first two full seasons (2 rating bumps per cycle, 3 in ST). I think I've seen a number of prospects get just as many in the second. For the initial season, some prospects barely get much of bump except, again, those guys who start with low ratings but have a high ceiling.

Here's my quick thoughts on max development. If you get them into as many games as you can they will get extremely close to their ceiling. I don't even think coaching plays that much into it unless you have below average or terrible coaches.

I'm fairly certain in this because you used to be able to see any players true ratings ceiling until I sent in a support ticket and they fixed that bug. All my guys came within 1 rating point of their training ratings and three points of their coach-able ratings. I could never figure out how to close the gap on the coach determined ratings but it doesn't matter because 99% players across all worlds were almost always 3 points or worse from their ceiling. So whatever is responsible for those three missing ratings points, everyone is doing it wrong.

On the topic of setting star prospects as rest replacements to help them avoid injury and get as many appearances as possible... I obviously know how to set the rest hierarchy, but how do I insure that those guys are actually subbed in EVERY game? It seems like the rest replacements only come in when the starters are actually fatigued, which isn't always.

Manager -> Edit Manager Settings -> Go down the page until you see "Defensive Subs and Rest".
I use the following settings (don't forget to check the box next to each):

x Use player rest if winning by 1 in the 7th inning or later.
x Use player rest if losing by 1 in the 7th inning or later.

This ensures they get in each and every game. I've debated going as high as the 9th inning to reduce injury chances even further but just in case there is some minimum innings involved in ratings growth I knock it down to the 7th inning.

Thanks!

Would maximizing amount of games played also apply to pitchers? Meaning SP will develop less than RP?

I'm sure the threshold is much lower for pitcher appearances in games. Probably something like 1/5 games. I haven't noticed any stunting of growth in my SP prospects. Having said that, I have recently been putting my SP prospects as SuA's to get them in as many games as possible, just in case. And again, they pitch fewer innings as a SuA which means less chance of injury.

Posted by brianplath on 4/3/2018 1:13:00 AM (view original):
I'm sure the threshold is much lower for pitcher appearances in games. Probably something like 1/5 games. I haven't noticed any stunting of growth in my SP prospects. Having said that, I have recently been putting my SP prospects as SuA's to get them in as many games as possible, just in case. And again, they pitch fewer innings as a SuA which means less chance of injury.

I know you posted something about this elsewhere, and I'm inclined to agree. Otherwise there's no way those really annoying 35/8 type of RPs would develop, pitching only about 30 innings a season, yet they do.

I'm almost 100% sure that it's not a "more is better" thing, but a "if you reach this usage threshold you'll have a chance at ratings increases" thing. Starters who get turned into SuAs don't develop any faster or better than guys that just pitch their regular turn in a rotation.

Posted by saintonan on 4/3/2018 10:12:00 AM (view original):
I'm almost 100% sure that it's not a "more is better" thing, but a "if you reach this usage threshold you'll have a chance at ratings increases" thing. Starters who get turned into SuAs don't develop any faster or better than guys that just pitch their regular turn in a rotation.

Yeah, that's probably a better way of putting it. Or maybe an even better way is to combine those two statements. More is better up to the point where you reach whatever mysterious threshold the game has in place. The question is whether that is IP or appearances. I'm inclined to lean towards appearances. A SP could reach 100 IP halfway through the season, but if he isn't pitching at all during the second half he isn't going to get ratings increases for the second half cycles. It's probably meet "x" appearances/ratings cycle in order to get the ratings for that cycle.

Perhaps something like:

There's 5 cycles during the regular season (6 total but the first is for ST). So 162 games divided by 5 cycles = ~32 games per development cycle. 32 games divided by 5 (1 appearance every five games) = ~6 appearances per development cycle. So as long as your pitchers (RP or SP) are getting in 6 games during each development cycle they are probably getting enough playing time for full development (if they appear in only 3 games, perhaps they only get half development, then again maybe it's not perfectly linear). This is making a lot of assumptions but based on my observations something along these lines makes the most sense.

Again, I put my SP prospects as SuA primarily just to get the appearance and then get out to keep their IP down. But I also run $0 Med so I have much more incentive to do this than owners with $20M Med.

A few observations/corrections:

1. Minor league seasons are 144 games, not 162.
2. Spring training ratings increases are handled differently than regular season increases, as evidenced by the dozens of minor league players not on the spring training roster who nevertheless get ratings increases.
3. Dev chats in the past imply that ratings increases are a continuous process, and the periodic player screen updates are only catching up the ratings display to match the database. End of season promotions tend to corroborate this, as guys on teams that didn't go deep in the playoffs still get ratings increases up to 20 or 30 cycles after their last appearance. If this part is true, then I think the "did he play enough" threshold is low enough that it doesn't matter whether you count by GP or PA/IP. Any significant playing time seems enough to meet this hurdle.

So, does that mean it is better to promote your true ML prospects at the end of each season instead of at the beginning of the next year?

I do it at the end of the season mainly to ensure they don't retire prematurely.