[nutt]

Originally Posted by RchW

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.

I think where I mentioned what the 1B/3B coaches usually end up doing is in my breakdown of coaches.