Good point. I live in St. Louis (not a Cardinals fan) and I couldn't believe that LaRussa kept sitting Drew on the bench. He could've been considered a star last year if LaRussa would've just let him play. Living here I see what a bad manager LaRussa really is. The amazing thing is though that he's probably in the top half of managers when you consider that there are guys like Boone, Muser and Baylor in charge of teams.

First I ever heard one's growth would be stunted from playing in the independents. What kind of nonsense is that?

It's not a new idea, I heard it floated a lot when jason varitek went that route. I think the idea is that the independents might be less focused on being instructional than the minors. IOW, in theory the independents are seen as more a year of "treading water" facing Mark Lemke throwing a knuckleball or Juan Berenguer still pitching at 70 years old.

Chris...

I agree that taking time off or missing time due to injury can slow down a player's development.

But, how does playing against weaker competition for one or two years diminish the peak a player eventually achieves.

I think there are a limited number of factors that can inhibit a player from developing over the long term:

1) a debilitating injury - e.g. a knee injury which permanently decreases a player's speed.

2) lack of adaptability/intelligence - a player who can't adapt will tend to reach a lower level than one who can and not develop past it.

3) lack of opportunity - a player gets stuck in the minors because no one believes in him or plays poorly in a limited trial and isn't given another chance until much later.

4) lack of proper work ethic - a lazy player will probably not develop as he should.

5) poor instruction - an organization may have problems developing particular types of players.

If what you say is true, why do players who elect to play college baseball instead of signing out of high school not have lower peaks ? They face worse competition and play fewer games. The college baseball programs' first priority is to win, not develop major leaguers.

If a guy diominates a minor league, he's moved quickly to a higher level. If a college player dominates in his 2nd year, there's no higher league for him to go to - he just faces the same level of competition in year three.

College players usually start their career about 2 and a half or 3 years later than high school signees. They seem to catch up by the age of 24 or so. Is this wrong ? Were they better talents in the first place ?

Chris...

I agree that taking time off or missing time due to injury can slow down a player's development.

But, how does playing against weaker competition for one or two years diminish the peak a player eventually achieves.

I think there are a limited number of factors that can inhibit a player from developing over the long term:

1) a debilitating injury - e.g. a knee injury which permanently decreases a player's speed.

2) lack of adaptability/intelligence - a player who can't adapt will tend to reach a lower level than one who can and not develop past it.

3) lack of opportunity - a player gets stuck in the minors because no one believes in him or plays poorly in a limited trial and isn't given another chance until much later.

4) lack of proper work ethic - a lazy player will probably not develop as he should.

5) poor instruction - an organization may have problems developing particular types of players.

If what you say is true, why do players who elect to play college baseball instead of signing out of high school not have lower peaks ? They face worse competition and play fewer games. The college baseball programs' first priority is to win, not develop major leaguers.

If a guy diominates a minor league, he's moved quickly to a higher level. If a college player dominates in his 2nd year, there's no higher league for him to go to - he just faces the same level of competition in year three.

College players usually start their career about 2 and a half or 3 years later than high school signees. They seem to catch up by the age of 24 or so. Is this wrong ? Were they better talents in the first place ?