[NoOne]

i wish he'd focus more on development and maintaining of ratings than mlb career stats.. that data is all about after the player has fully developed -- or mostly developed.

it's clear the work ethic guys last longer..

while you see some low wrok ethic guys at top, you see even fewer low intelligence guys at the top.. ie fewer of them reach their ceiling while developing.

both are important, but he is basically ignoring intelligence in this experiment and it is definitely part of the equation. i wish he'd have differentiatedmore on intell\igenc in equal ways and combinations with work ethic and also just used ratings during development and % of development achieved to actaully look into this effect...

looking at a player after he is developed and in their stats taht occur after development isn't going to tell us much about development... it will tell us about longevity in their mlb careers - which is good info too.

if you have ratings on, you should not use stats like he does... it'll just slow down that player's development. if ratings are rising, the player is getting better and closer to the MLB.. if he hits .200 while doing it, it simply doesn't matter. fully developed is fully developed no matter what their MiL career numbers say.. it won't change the quality of the player at all.