GM and Manager role IRL vs OOTP

[Vinnyvagus01]

Hi everyone,

A kind of newbie question if you like.

In real life, throughout Spring training I've heard a lot from the (Bench) managers being interviewed talking about why they sent the player A back to Triple-A, or why they've decided player B is going to start in the majors etc. For example, the Red Manager, Price, was saying why he's sent some pitchers back down to AAA.

It made me think...

In OOTP if you play as "Manager only", I recall from previous versions that you don't have any say or input into who goes down from the Majors or bringing someone up. I've just bought the latest OOTP19 but is it still the case, when playing in "Manager-only" mode you'll have no say or little influence on who goes down and who comes up from AAA?

[Orcin]

Price didn’t make that decision, although he probably had input. Real life managers tend to say “we” when they really mean “they”. It is an organizational decision but the GM has the final say. OOTPB doesn’t model the discussion phase of the action, so the manager has no input.

[Vinnyvagus01]

Originally Posted by Orcin

Price didn’t make that decision, although he probably had input. Real life managers tend to say “we” when they really mean “they”. It is an organizational decision but the GM has the final say. OOTPB doesn’t model the discussion phase of the action, so the manager has no input.

Gotcha! Yeah, I agree they do say "we" and I'm sure they sit around a room discussing it but it'll be hard to put that into the game. Saying that - maybe a feature could be to "agree/disagree" with a move from your GM and it affects your morale/relationship with the GM etc.

[DaBears]

Originally Posted by Vinnyvagus01

Gotcha! Yeah, I agree they do say "we" and I'm sure they sit around a room discussing it but it'll be hard to put that into the game. Saying that - maybe a feature could be to "agree/disagree" with a move from your GM and it affects your morale/relationship with the GM etc.

I have always believed there should be an option to play manager-only AND be able to control 25-man active roster. This is particularly true in historical. Whitey Herzog, Billy Martin, certainly Earl Weaver, all had almost complete control over the 25-man. Buck Showalter probably does today. OOTP does a very good job of giving you the option to make it what you want, but this has always been a hole that seems so easy to fill.

I don’t want to do finances, drafts, manage my minor league system. Would much rather have a great GM do all that stuff so I can put all of my time into being a manager (have posted elsewhere that I reall play for the immersion of game-to-game managing), and playing as GM/Manager and delegating all but that one thing is frustrating. You are judged by your owner for a role you real aren’t trying to play.

Per usual, just my two cents.

[Vinnyvagus01]

Originally Posted by DaBears

I have always believed there should be an option to play manager-only AND be able to control 25-man active roster. This is particularly true in historical. Whitey Herzog, Billy Martin, certainly Earl Weaver, all had almost complete control over the 25-man. Buck Showalter probably does today. OOTP does a very good job of giving you the option to make it what you want, but this has always been a hole that seems so easy to fill.

I don’t want to do finances, drafts, manage my minor league system. Would much rather have a great GM do all that stuff so I can put all of my time into being a manager (have posted elsewhere that I reall play for the immersion of game-to-game managing), and playing as GM/Manager and delegating all but that one thing is frustrating. You are judged by your owner for a role you real aren’t trying to play.

Per usual, just my two cents.

That's a valid point. You're judged on our GM role, even if we delegate most of the roles.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[Noone_Uknow]

The one problem I see with this is would you make it work in reverse?

If you are playing as a GM only, do you have some managers that control the 25 man roster the same way some managers today control the lineup?

IMHO, this is one of those ideas that sounds great on the surface, but could become a nightmare once you get into the details...

[DaBears]

Originally Posted by Noone_Uknow

The one problem I see with this is would you make it work in reverse?

If you are playing as a GM only, do you have some managers that control the 25 man roster the same way some managers today control the lineup?

IMHO, this is one of those ideas that sounds great on the surface, but could become a nightmare once you get into the details...

My guess is most people playing as GM-only want to control the 25-man.

[Matt Uk]

Maybe a simple way to do it would have it based on your reputation, within the game plus with the current GM. Initially he might have, let's say, a 20% chance of listening to you but you've been there four seasons and made the play offs the last two and now it's 40%.

So you get a message from the GM saying I want to bring up player A and move down player B, what do you think? You then agree or disagree. If you disagree there's a 40% chance he'll go with your decision. That way your standing within the organisation would weight your chances of having some degree of control over the Major/AAA movement decisions. Your reputation would be a factor plus how well you've done at this current team.

[Warhawk]

Originally Posted by Matt Uk

Maybe a simple way to do it would have it based on your reputation, within the game plus with the current GM. Initially he might have, let's say, a 20% chance of listening to you but you've been there four seasons and made the play offs the last two and now it's 40%.

So you get a message from the GM saying I want to bring up player A and move down player B, what do you think? You then agree or disagree. If you disagree there's a 40% chance he'll go with your decision. That way your standing within the organisation would weight your chances of having some degree of control over the Major/AAA movement decisions. Your reputation would be a factor plus how well you've done at this current team.

Less simple but perhaps more fun, in addition to that you could have GMs who have personalities that are more controlling or deferential, which would modify the percent chance they'll go with your decision, and even a "confidence rating" in the particular decision, ranging from "I'm basically leaving it up to you" to "this is non-negotiable."