Coaches
 

For the Veterans,

At the highest level (MLB) do Coaches impact outcome of the hitting of the team? Or are they mainly as a factor of development for young players coming up that still need some development?

Thanks in advance!

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

The OOTP manual says that hitting/pitching coaches do affect the results of the team. Here: https://manuals.ootpdevelopments.com...ersonnel_roles

How much of an effect is hard to say, it may be an interesting thing on which to run tests. But in a 162 game season every little advantage helps.

Personally I plan to disable the coaching system from all of my saves going forward, as I think it needs a lot of improvement.

My fictional team was 20th in a 26-team league in batting average last season with a "fair" coach. We're in July of this season and we're fifth with a "great" coach. Roster changes don't explain it. We signed a new second baseman who is a slightly better hitter, lost a slugging outfielder in free agency and replaced him with a defensive guy -- otherwise it's basically the same lineup.

(Why the focus on batting average? The owner is obsessed with it.)

I think it can make a big difference.

FWIW, I ran the simulation module, and editing a coach's attributes had zero effect on his team's performance.

Maybe coaching is something that doesn't show up in the simulation module. Or maybe coaching only affects the development and regression of players, which indirectly will affect performance when progressing through time.

Reputation has to do with team record where the coach was, nothing related to Coach ability.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

That was exactly what I was looking for, thanks man, I really appreciate that piece of work. So Coaches only useful for player development.

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

I didn't draw that conclusion. The manual says contrary to my test anyways. I did have the caveat that the simulation module may not have coaching as a variable.

I've very poor results with pitching and hitting coaches that were incompatible with the talent on the roster. Coaching changes to better align coaches with the roster have led to positive results. For that matter, I've had managers who were incompatible as well and the team's fortunes turned for the better once a change was made.

Coaching and baserunning are the biggest bug-a-boos from what I can tell.
My St.Louis River Walkers are in a gigantic team-wide slump going from the third (or fourth) offense across the board in every category to dead last in every one.
We're 66 games into our 2024 season and players who were perennial All-Stars -- or close to becoming one -- are batting some 75 to 100 points below their norms in the key offensive averages/percentages.

This came following a coaching change -- the former one retired -- where I went from a coach with solid ratings (I cheated and looked at his numbers, I figured you can do it for a player in these days of analytics, you can do it for a coach) to the one who had the best ratings across the board of all those who were available.
The only thing I can find wrong with him, is I went from a neutral to a contact guy. He also is described as temperamental.
And don't get me started on baserunning.
The lack of going first to third and second to home, especially with two outs drives me nuts.
Along with the reluctance of players with high steal ratings to swipe bases, i.e., they just trot back to the bag when asked, when the opposition is making the game look like a track meet.

Speed never takes a day off. That's why I try my best to procure speed merchants who are great base runners and stealers. Of course the lineup needs a couple of power guys, too but where we are at in HRs hasn't been that important. My first season I had a manager who played it safe on the bases and the team suffered. I canned him and hired a guy who gave green lights to steal and take extra bases at every opportunity. We have led the league in stolen bases, base running, and over all offense the past several seasons and won a WS title in my past simmed season.

If you have the wrong manager or coaches for your roster, results will suffer.

Actually, make a large change to a coach's abilities, take one not rated very well whose abilities for his position (e.g. teach hitting for hitting coaches and to some degree manage players/rookies/veterans for everyone, also teaching each thing for managers/bench coaches) and type save so it recalculates, and you'll see that a big bump in the ratings often helps reputation a little. So reputation tells you a small amount (and tells you a whole lot about scouts and trainers, but everyone who pays attention knows that).

The records of the teams the person coached at is far more important though: That part is clearly true.

It should be more 50/50 between performance and ratings (compared to now when it's probably 90/10 or 95/5), only 50/50 rather than ratings-heavy, because in real life if someone coaches hitting and the batters do very well on his team, or has very good years managing winning teams, that person will get a reputation for being very good, deserved or not.

But it should also be about half ratings, so you truly can get an idea if someone's any good (which then will also lead to higher contract demands for better managers/coaches). As it is it's so hard to have any idea that I cheat and look at the ratings because you know essentially nothing otherwise.

i think reptutation goes up faster if they are well-rated? and drops more slowly, but could be wrong. it still is not something to trust in any way. it's less correlated than a 16y.o. IAFA accuracy, i'd bet.

when you make a coach that's well-rated, they never start with agood rep. they start like everyone else. i could be wrong about the rate of change effect... never tried to test it. if a poorly rated coach is legendary after 2-3 ws, then it's the same.

age may even be a factor, unless it merely changed over the years. i havefound a young 30s coach took longer in the past than the older coaches i made a few releases later. (tried to maximize career length at some point early on, and the rep was slow AF @ ~30)

heck, they may start asking for money sooner, if actually rated well? only a few things to test to figure out what is most correlated.

are they more important in mil or ml? no idea... since we can't see anything, it's a total stab in the dark. i think the focus is something to pay attention to in MiL. e.g. don't waste a "power" guy with rookie level, since they rarely develop power then.

even the "works well with ...." doesn't tell you anything much. it could be 10/200 vs 20/200, which are both horrible regardless of the coach being better with one of the two.

** run a season or two and see if that has any noticeable difference from the sim module. a simmed season definitely does everything the same for human or ai(processes apply that is)... so, i'd assume the sim module would too, but maybe not.