Quote:
Originally Posted by cavebutter
The expanded coaching staff bit at the top of the list saves me from having to write my annual plea for this.
Many times when this is brought up, especially in regards to base coaches, we fall down the rabbit hole of having to justify the addition by trying to quantify the effect that their inclusion will have on the game model.
I don't care anymore. I think the immersion value that their inclusion would bring is so high that they can just be eye candy.
|
I understand your pov but feel just as strongly that to add them without quantifying the effect they may have is damaging to my sense of immersion.
If we are to have base coaches then some outs, pickoffs, baserunning blunders, failure to advance must be attributed to them. What proportion that is remains a complete unknown.
Similarly the actual contribution of a specific coach to the running game (despite breathless home team articles about it IRL) is often hidden in the overall strategy of a team, team record, player development, player injury and natural variation in performance. My annual plea is that coaching influence must be all of negative, neutral and positive to the results in-game, otherwise it is an artificial construct that reduces realism and may damage statistical accuracy.
I know my opinion is in the minority and I don't mind as long as I can turn these things off. My position is: show me data
not anecdotes which identify the contribution of a specific coach and how this is influenced by external factors as shown above and I'll be first in line to sign up.