[NoOne]

i believe the sabermetric pcm's have somethign to do with development or at least give us a good idea of where the ceiling is for each level.

the manual isn't 100% clear on it. could just be their choice of words. you can read and decide for yourself. (section about sabermetric PCMs)

development is your key... if you can see it accurately, even better. other things can be used to determine the accuracy of said ratings too. you'll want a combination of things, but development is primary concern, correct?

so, don't move them too soon or too late to next level. is it % of development or at a specific value that you should promote? not sure.

age can be a concern too, if their ratings are above normal for that particular age. i will let extremely poor results cause a demotion of a 'younger' player for that level. it has to be beyond terrible, though.

i've pushed numerous 18-20yo through the system as fast as they allow. some cannot do it, some can... just a matter of luck to some extent. personality helps too. some have a career MiL ~.200BA, then hit .300+ for the next 10+ years in MLB. i pushed those particular players faster because their ratings continued to increase, regardless of results.

that is the goal here... ratings 'high enough' to play in MLB. stats only obviously cannot let ratings dictate.

i don't expect solid accuracy of ratings until AA/AAA. even A-ball is a bit uncertain at times. i spend alot on mil scouting, too. so, using stats at lower levels is a very good tool. i see someone 150% of that levels stats and ratings don't jive, i promote them and see what happens.

saying ratings are best rail to go by does not preclude the extremely useful and needed tools outside of ratings.

pro/con of relative ratings in minors --

yeah, you can tell if they are above average ovr if they are above 50... i don't think it affects the individual ratings? and if it does, same thing.. .you can see relative to average for that league how good they are very easily... could argue you can see this just as easily without relative too.. simple sort and look of players.. it stays proportional. so not any real additional benefit, but a bit more intuitive i guess?

but what it is telling you changes each year.. that makes it less intuitive. also, what if the AI is not putting the right players in that league? too good or too bad = similar but reversed problems. our own MiL rules can easily cause these potential problems too, if too restrictive.

that's good if it's based on competition and not based on league level... based on how things work, i'm fairly certain it's not about competition, because there's too many possible outcomes to account for that would cause significant problems with functionality of the game. there's even a check box that tries to place prospects based on ability as opposed to a top-down mechanism. so, that means they ahve some pre-defined ability level for each mil tier. (possibly the sabermetric pcm as a 'rail')

could see what happens if you change them, and i guess you'll see a statistically significant change, if its true. figuring out a baseline first, of course. compare a A-ball with 1.000 saber pcm with a A-ball with .500 saber pcms etc. compare % development from start of season?? just break it down in the most fundamental, incremental way and compare to baseline.

fill a mil with pro-level players and 1 who is properly rated for that level and even witha .001BA i bet he develops ~normally.