Personnel Questions

[Galeg]

When searching for new personnel I'm a little confused about the descriptions in each persons profile. For instance, I was recently searching for a new hitting coach. One coaches profile said that have had success working with power hitters in the past and for another coach it said he has had success developing power hitters in the past. If they both look identical otherwise, is only one of them good at developing players?

[NoOne]

it jsut doesn't tell you anything definitively... outside a one tangible thing..

focus..

power ptichers, finesse pitchers, contact, power etc etc

that's the only thing you can know for sure.

without cheating and looking at ratings, it's probably best to pay most attention to their focus. if it says "power" and the other guy is "neutral" he will develop power better, all other factors remaining the same.

this also likely means there's a sacrifice in contact/eye... it can't be all gravy.

apply common sense... power doesn't develop at Rookie, short a, or A-ball 99% of the time. even aa is slow for power... even aaa cna be slow and some prospects won't develop their power until in the MLB...

so, imo, don't put a power focus at Rookie ball for sure... i don't use them until AA/AAA. that's jsut a guess though... do your own expirementation.

MLB coaches -- minor difference... conern yourself with focus but also their strategies... that will have a huge influence on teh decisiosn they make.. in teh MiL you are only concerned with development.. i'd get the coach with the 'right' focus yo uwant over strategey.. in the MLB i reverse that thought process.. i want a good strategy becaue development is mostly complete for the majority of players. in the MLB and the concern is the Win/Loss column to an extreme degree.

reputation has an extremely, and i can't stress that enough.. .extremely low correlation to the ratings under-the-hood for handling and developing players. don't even look at it... if you have a 'winning' team, tehy will have an excellent reputation in short order. never concern yourself with a temporary and intangible factor.

[Galeg]

Originally Posted by NoOne

this also likely means there's a sacrifice in contact/eye... it can't be all gravy.

reputation has an extremely, and i can't stress that enough.. .extremely low correlation to the ratings under-the-hood for handling and developing players. don't even look at it... if you have a 'winning' team, tehy will have an excellent reputation in short order. never concern yourself with a temporary and intangible factor.

Thanks, it's good to get some info from people that know the game better than I do. I didn't realize that reputation was of such small importance, though it wasn't stopping me from looking at less reputable coaches.

What happened in my game is that I had a Patient HC and he seemed to be doing a decent job because my team was near the top in least Ks, but my team just isn't producing runs. We get on base well but have a ton of LOB. Coupled with that my owner is demanding that we increase HRs. Since I can't replace my whole team I was hoping a HC with a power focus might help my players adjust. Is that likely to happen or is it wishful thinking?

Also, I found it odd that the HC I fired didn't have a relationships listed when he was an employee, but as soon as I let him go his relationships screen populated with ~15 players.

[NoOne]

it's correlated, just weakly...


as proof with a long-runing simulation.. go cehck out the coaches with themost wins or highest reputaitons. currently in your league... turn commissioner mode on and look at their ratings... a large poriton of the most successful coaches will have mediocre or worse ratings..

rep is 100% based on results... how much does a manger control outside of strategic decisions? not much in the broad view of things. that's the reason it's so weakly correlated.. becaue their input to results specifically tied to their unseen ratings is low.

which begs the question.. ar ethe ratingns relevant to worry about? meh.. probably for development but nearly as much as strategy sliders of that coach in the MLB.

don't take my word as gospel.. the quantitative stuff i say is spot on.. application and relvance could be off of course.

[Timofmars]

Originally Posted by NoOne

as proof with a long-runing simulation.. go cehck out the coaches with themost wins or highest reputaitons. currently in your league... turn commissioner mode on and look at their ratings... a large poriton of the most successful coaches will have mediocre or worse ratings..

Have you looked at the text descriptions of coaches in a long-running simulation to see if there is a correlation to their abilities?

I looked through coaches in a new game before, looking at how their descriptions matched up with ratings in the editor. There was barely any correlation, if any, just by eyeing it like that. Like, maybe where it said the coach had some big ideas about how to coach something, but haven't had the chance to put it to the test, those coaches were usually pretty bad. But coaches that had a ton of experience but poor reps and the game says they that it was incredible they managed to stay in the game so long with their poor rep; they were usually decent coaches. And coaches with "few eye-popping success stories" or "not the most exciting coaches" tended to be pretty decent as well.

I thought perhaps the descriptions were supposed to give hints about more than just reputation and focus, but would be more inaccurate with less experienced coaches. Like "few eye popping success stories" means they had some success at least. Or not exciting means they stick with typical proven coaching methods that work, unlike all the new know-it-all coaches that want to try something new that probably doesn't work well, but maybe there's a slight chance they are the real deal and are a superstar coach?

And perhaps as the game was simmed along more years, these descriptions could become more accurate.

Have the devs ever shed any light on this, like whenever they made the change from the old system that just displayed the coachs' abilities?

[NoOne]

it tells you if one rating is higher than the other, but nothing to what that value is.

e.g.

"prefers workign with rookies" [sic]

all this means is his handle rookies is higher than his handle vets...

1 vs 10? 10 vs 200? no way to know. i don't know the gap necessary for that feedback to be activated, but it can all be fleshed out if you wanted to.. it's not inconsistent and adheres to specific qualifications that you can learn if you wanted to. (imo, not worth the effort, but .. i do lots of things that aren'tworth the effort when it comes to ootp)

you can't even tell from relationships (as of '18, have not played 19 much yet)... i've made plenty of 200/200 coaches and players still have numerous "bad relationships". that's mostly 'personality' controling vs easy going...

i can't remember which, but in the drop down of coach editor, it's one short of the 'last' or 'first' choice.. personable or easygoing typically have the fewest bad realtionships in the coach feedback onthat stuff. in the past i've cycled through those on multiple teams to see its effect. same with focus - that helps/hurts with relationships too.

in the end, never read into the small stuff too much.. talent and abilty always trumps that stuff. as long as team chemistry isn't tanking (while winning) you are fine. nothing you can do on a losing team, so don't trade the future away.