|
see how it correlates to change in ratings... more or less likely to improve? again, mil stats don't mean anything... if they develop 'better/neutral/worse' than some other comparison that is all that matters. the question is whether poor stats has a large effect on developement.
(from horse's mouth it is at least a small factor as far as doing well vs doing poorly.. but how small? that tidbit doesn't limit other potential effects like age and how that may or may not effect stats as well as development.).
in the most basic sense.. you cannot get better from simply a good result. you don't gain strength by hitting a home run etc. you learn through practice and other things to get better (learning on field too -- competitors, parks etc). confidence and other man-made effects (psychological?) like these are probably what they are modeling etc.
i've seen guys with very high contact and any promotion above X results in extremely bad stats.. i am very forgiving due to sample and all the moving parts... i mean really really bad... like you should retire bad if this happened in real life, lol.
sometimes it scares me, sometimes i see continued development and so i ignore it... if you want to get some teenagers to the MLB over time, you'll need to push some early and see what happens.
i am all about maximizing # of years for the 'best' players. while i may not have the 'best' way possible, it's a very good method. stick to ratings development. focus any study around how that rate of change or probabilty of increases per time can be improved.
|