[PSUColonel]

This was sort of a first step toward improving staff and coaches. There is a lot I'd like to see included in OOTP that I am not sure will ever make it in, but I will discuss some of my ideas here, and mention them in BETA as well.

Reputation does not and should not equate to good coaching ability. Think of the manager who wins because he has the benefit of a massive payroll...then think of the winning manager who wins in spite of not having much of a payroll. (e.g. Joe Maddon with the Rays) I believe in a dynamic coaches system. I believe we have a taken a step towards this, but I see much more in the way of potential.

We need to find a way to bring coaches and players to life, while not making things to hokey, or gamey.

I like the idea of creating blurbs about coaches describing their philosophies, and history. These however should be dynamic, in that a manger will adjust his tendencies based on the type of talent on the roster, while other managers are more tactically rigid.

I'd like to see statistical breakdowns for each manager. Wins and losses just aren't enough. I feel the sliding bars for tendencies for showing tendency should be eliminated in favor of statistical breakdowns of what each manager is doing. How often he calls for the steal, how successful that is...what percentage of the time he calls for the hit & run, percentage of time he employs the shift etc... So what I am saying is, I'd like to see dynamic stats and written word replace "sliding bars" .

Another way of bring coaches and staff to life is to give every staff member the same sets of attributes no matter which position they may hold. This way certain staff can move through the ranks, or be placed in positions other than their primary one. So no more "Joe X is not interested in being a manger, so he doesn't have any attributes. To me, this is just a bit lazy looking, and not thorough. It seems this is almost just a way to limit the number of managers within the game. Just not very real or dynamic IMO. So theoretically, a Coach or manager could become a GM, and vice versa. It doesn't men they'd be good, but the possibility should be there. (and I'd like to see only former players be the only coaches and managers...this too is very dynamic...players should also state late in their career if they have interests in coaching...these would be players with high intelligence, leadership and motivation)

This now brings us to reputation....As I have said, I think all coaching and staff ratings should be "under the hood" and displayed only as "blurbs" and "stats"...although I feel the descriptions of coaches really needs to be greatly expanded, and the addition of statistical analysis will help. Reputation should be based on a hybrid of different factors. Obviously winning percentage, playoff appearances, and championships play a significant role in reputation, but there really needs to be more that's visible to us. This to me is obviously different form philosophy (as it is now) in that it's not so much about how you win, but rather the fact that you either do or do not. Now that of course begs the question: what goes into winning? It's easy to look at a win-loss record and say "hey, he wins"...but we need to delve into the reasons why certain players and coaches win, while others, do not. Success at the minor league level may be graded differently than success at the major league level, and this goes for both players AND coaches. To me, development of players is what measures a ton of the success at the minor league level. In fact, the lower you go in the minors the more development should be weighted. Each coach and staff member should be "tied" to certain players. If a player reaches a certain level of success in the MLB, the coaches that coached them at any level, should have some credit in helping to develop them. The amount of credit given to the coach should be based on the performance of the player, his scouting increases or decreases, and the amount of time (games/seasons) the coach was with the player. General Managers would have a list of key players they drafted, also a list of coaches they've hired. This combined with a team's winning percentage should all go into an equation which determines reputation. This way, the reputation may be served, or not so well deserved, it's just like real life.

I also feel most managers would want to bring a long their own staff, and during your "interview" process with managers, they should be providing a list of suggested assistants they would like you to hire. This will help those who feel hiring staff is too tedious (which I have never understood) and will better reflect reality. As a trade off, I'd like to see the coaching staff greatly expanded to a realistic number. Catching, bullpen, base coaches, strength and conditioning should all be included, and should also have some sort of effect on the team, even if it's not a huge one. This way, those who don't want to deal with hiring and firing won't have to. Things might work a little differently in the minors, or maybe not. Managers could still make suggestions about who to hire, or perhaps the assistant GM could also have a role in it. This is a way to make staff and personnel as detailed and realistic as you want. Basically you can simply instruct your assistant GM to go offer contract to whomever you decide you want on staff.


Well, this brainstorming session is done for now.. Perhaps more will come later. I will pass this along to the BETA team.