Quote:
Originally Posted by craftdr
How was AV's ratings? For example, was his rating good? or excellent? Also what was his teach pitching like? I believe that coaches make a difference as the manager in my OP really turned Louisiana around (they could have signed a bunch of good players too). What SirMJ has me thinking is if coach success is related to their ratings or if some of them just have "it"? I believe there may be too many variables to really get a good reading (or even if it's possible). For example, does that team have a good GM that gets his team good young players that can be developed? Or are those players just being developed better by the coach? Random talent bumps or is the trainer doing a great job at keeping the players healthy so they play better? All areas that contribute to that fog that makes the game fun for me.
I'll admit, until last night/today, I haven't really delved into the ratings too much but just took it at face value that the higher rated the better. I do treat my player evaluation quite a bit different though as I don't go by ratings as much.
Maybe when I start getting a bit bored with my current league I'll create some coaches with varying degrees of ratings and track their development and history over 20-30 years to see how they develop and the success they have. That ought to make for a new game experience even if I don't ever get any definitive results. Sorry for the ramble.
|
Also the manager's strategy configration could play a role in having better success despite ratings.