So... guess the new OOTP 16 features!

[jpeters1734]

Originally Posted by BIG17EASY

I think we need to see more tangible effects from the current coaches, an easier system for hiring/promoting and the ability to hire coaches away from other teams before we start adding more coaching positions.

Just my .

I can agree with this. It really bothers me when I see a coach that has won a thousand games and had success in the playoffs, end up as a batting coach for AA.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by rpriske

I don't understand people who take offense to other people being opposed to certain suggestions.

Not agreeing with a suggestion is one thing. Actively stomping all over it and encouraging the devs to not spend a single moment on it is another.

Originally Posted by rpriske

This made up "anti crusade" is nonsense. There are just times when people disagree with you. That's it.

And sometimes people don't just disagree with a suggestion, they go out of their way to stomp all over it at every opportunity and to actively campaign for the devs to not even consider the idea. Just because you might not have seen such anti-"crusading" doesn't mean it doesn't happen. It does. I've seen it. And it's thoroughly irritating when it happens.

[Honorable_Pawn]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

And it's thoroughly irritating when it happens.

oooo...let me at 'em...let me at 'em.

[MorseMoose]

Originally Posted by chucksabr

But unless those posters do the actual coding for this specific game, they have no idea how much time or effort it would take
....
And with all due respect to all the coders in this thread, his opinion is the only one that counts for anything regarding the difficulty of coding for OOTP games.

Sure, of course. It's also quite obvious that the time spent on it is an extraordinarily high otherwise it'd already have been done.

[tomwolf2008]

Originally Posted by Padreman

Royals' Rusty Kuntz is baseball's best base-running coach | The Kansas City Star

I'll have to say though there needs to be more evidence than this to suggest that base-coaches actually mattered. Just because players and bench coaches agree that "he is the reason we stole so many bases" doesn't make it true. Is there an analysis that say, the base coaches people agrees are the best has higher SB% than those whose supposedly not as good?

[Cryomaniac]

Originally Posted by chucksabr

And with all due respect to all the coders in this thread, his opinion is the only one that counts for anything regarding the difficulty of coding for OOTP games.

Sure, but, and I don't mean this to sound big headed, coders are more likely to have some idea of how hard something is likely to be. I know I do personally give some thought, and usually say so, to how much effort I think something would be (while acknowledging that I don't know).

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by tomwolf2008

I'll have to say though there needs to be more evidence than this to suggest that base-coaches actually mattered. Just because players and bench coaches agree that "he is the reason we stole so many bases" doesn't make it true. Is there an analysis that say, the base coaches people agrees are the best has higher SB% than those whose supposedly not as good?

While I don't disagree that it'd be preferable to have more evidence, I'd ask this: If base coaches don't matter, why does every MLB (Not to mention ***, KBO etc. etc.) team, even those devoted to analytics, continue to employ them?

Clearly every single professional baseball team thinks they do matter. So what would make you think they don't matter?

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

And sometimes people don't just disagree with a suggestion, they go out of their way to stomp all over it at every opportunity and to actively campaign for the devs to not even consider the idea. Just because you might not have seen such anti-"crusading" doesn't mean it doesn't happen. It does.

Just to illustrate the difference, the subject of additional coaches in OOTP is a good one.

Personally, I have no interest in even more coaches being added to the game. I feel there are already too many staff I have to pay attention to. If it were up to me, the only staff I'd have in the game are the GM, manager, scouting and/or player development director, and perhaps the minor league managers. That's it. To me any other coaches/personnel are basically window dressing that provide busywork but no real substance.

The difference is that the most I would do is register the above opinion when the subject of additional coaches/personnel is raised. If others feel that such additions would make OOTP better for them, I don't begrudge them advocating for that cause. They certainly should have the freedom to do so if it's something they feel passionate about and is important for their enjoyment of the game. I would not actively fight against them and their particular idea. They make their case and I make mine, and that's all. After that it's up to Markus et. al. to make the choice they feel is best.

But from time to time a few folks seem to go beyond simply making their case into what feels like a campaign against and denigration of another's idea. I don't think that's a constructive path.

[tomwolf2008]

Originally Posted by lukasberger

While I don't disagree that it'd be preferable to have more evidence, I'd ask this: If base coaches don't matter, why does every MLB (Not to mention ***, KBO etc. etc.) team, even those devoted to analytics, continue to employ them?

Clearly every single professional baseball team thinks they do matter. So what would make you think they don't matter?

Most sabermetricians believe (and have tangible evidence to show) that having a designate closer or not do not impact your ability to hold lead in the last inning, yet all teams, even the most sabermetric-inclined, still have someone designated as closer.

Not a perfect example, I know, but my point is just because "every team is doing it" doesn't make it an evidence that such thing is needed and make a real impact. And, unlike things such as "team chemistry“，"leadership ability", or other supposed intangible aspects, base-running success is something that we can measure, so I would prefer to have evidence support that base-coaches make a difference in base-running successes if this is a feature that is included and will impact the base-running success in the game.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by tomwolf2008

Most sabermetricians believe (and have tangible evidence to show) that having a designate closer or not do not impact your ability to hold lead in the last inning, yet all teams, even the most sabermetric-inclined, still have someone designated as closer.

Not a perfect example, I know, but my point is just because "every team is doing it" doesn't make it an evidence that such thing is needed and make a real impact. And, unlike things such as "team chemistry“，"leadership ability", or other supposed intangible aspects, base-running success is something that we can measure, so I would prefer to have evidence support that base-coaches make a difference in base-running successes if this is a feature that is included and will impact the base-running success in the game.

I'm quite a saber guy, but in the end, when it comes down to a choice between guys who merely look at things theoretically and those who look at things both theoretically and practically, I'm going to go with the opinions of the latter, especially when those guys also have as good or better credentials as the purely theoretical guys.

Sure, some old school baseball guys may lack the knowledge and education to make analytically sound decisions. But you can't say that about guys like Friedman, Epstein, Luhnow, Alderson etc, who have both the academic credentials with their degrees from Ivy League schools, as well as a wealth of practical baseball experience.

That's not to say they can't be wrong of course, or that an outsider can't be right, but overall I don't see any reason to automatically assume it's the outsiders that are right on some of these questions.

As for base coaches, I'd say some of what they contribute is certainly more in coaching and intangibles than simply in quantifiable baserunning gains or losses.

In the end, as you fairly allude to, the problem I have with a lot of the arguments against chemistry, leadership etc. is that there seems to be an assumption that because something is difficult or impossible to quantify, that it doesn't matter or doesn't exist.

Whereas the much more intellectually sound approach is simply to admit that the issue is with our inability to find a way to measure certain things, more than to assume that something we can't measure simply doesn't exist.

Hundreds of years ago we had no way to measure the effects of gravity, yet that didn't make it any less real or less vital. It's doubtless the same with a great deal of things we're currently unable to quantify or at least to quantify accurately.

[Padreman]

Originally Posted by tomwolf2008

I'll have to say though there needs to be more evidence than this to suggest that base-coaches actually mattered. Just because players and bench coaches agree that "he is the reason we stole so many bases" doesn't make it true. Is there an analysis that say, the base coaches people agrees are the best has higher SB% than those whose supposedly not as good?

Can you prove to me with stats that say a pitching coach or a hitting coach Mather that much and make a difference and not just having players, managers and executives say they do so? You can't but apparently they do make a difference. As far as base coaches if the people on the field and the executive offices say they matter and make a difference no offense but I'll take their opinion since they would know

[tomwolf2008]

Originally Posted by lukasberger

I'm quite a saber guy, but in the end, when it comes down to a choice between guys who merely look at things theoretically and those who look at things both theoretically and practically, I'm going to go with the opinions of the latter, especially when those guys also have as good or better credentials as the purely theoretical guys.

Sure, some old school baseball guys may lack the knowledge and education to make analytically sound decisions. But you can't say that about guys like Friedman, Epstein, Luhnow, Alderson etc, who have both the academic credentials with their degrees from Ivy League schools, as well as a wealth of practical baseball experience.

That's not to say they can't be wrong of course, or that an outsider can't be right, but overall I don't see any reason to automatically assume it's the outsiders that are right on some of these questions.

As for base coaches, I'd say some of what they contribute is certainly more in coaching and intangibles than simply in quantifiable baserunning gains or losses.

In the end, as you fairly allude to, the problem I have with a lot of the arguments against chemistry, leadership etc. is that there seems to be an assumption that because something is difficult or impossible to quantify, that it doesn't matter or doesn't exist.

Whereas the much more intellectually sound approach is simply to admit that the issue is with our inability to find a way to measure certain things, more than to assume that something we can't measure simply doesn't exist.

Hundreds of years ago we had no way to measure the effects of gravity, yet that didn't make it any less real or less vital. It's doubtless the same with a great deal of things we're currently unable to quantify or at least to quantify accurately.

This could certainly be true, but I'm uncomfortable with include a feature that will impact certain aspects of the game play despite there is no evidence that such feature actually do have an impact. Especially if it's impacting something that can be actually measured.

Say if you argue that if a team with a good base-coaches that its player are slightly more likely to have a higher baserunning or steal rating, I can get the idea behind that, but I'm uncomfortable with the idea that a base-coaches will impact my success rate of stealing bases in game unless, of course, you can show data that support that it's indeed the case.

[tomwolf2008]

Originally Posted by Padreman

Can you prove to me with stats that say a pitching coach or a hitting coach Mather that much and make a difference and not just having players, managers and executives say they do so? You can't but apparently they do make a difference. As far as base coaches if the people on the field and the executive offices say they matter and make a difference no offense but I'll take their opinion since they would know

No, and that's why I manage the game myself.

The key difference is this: I can get behind the idea by the "intangibles", given other things equal, the guys on my team will more likely to have good hitting ratings if I have a good hitting coach. What I'm very uncomfortable with, is that in game, say player A at bat, this player A will more likely to get a hit in a given situation if he is on a team with good hitting coaches than if he is on a team with bad hitting coaches.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by tomwolf2008

This could certainly be true, but I'm uncomfortable with include a feature that will impact certain aspects of the game play despite there is no evidence that such feature actually do have an impact. Especially if it's impacting something that can be actually measured.

Say if you argue that if a team with a good base-coaches that its player are slightly more likely to have a higher baserunning or steal rating, I can get the idea behind that, but I'm uncomfortable with the idea that a base-coaches will impact my success rate of stealing bases unless, of course, you can show data that support that it's indeed the case.

Yeah, I actually agree. I'm more arguing generally in favor of including coaches. I agree with you that if included, they shouldn't have a clearly measurable impact on basestealing.

[Padreman]

If coaches did not have an impact then they would not be needed. The fact that owners and GM continue to pay these men they must feel they are having an impact. Are they game changers? Probably not because the player still has to perform but do they develope new skills from these coaches or learn new methods? Yes, players will tell you so. I fact Greg Maddux gave credit to his pitching coach during hall-of-fame speech

[tomwolf2008]

Originally Posted by Padreman

If coaches did not have an impact then they would not be needed. The fact that owners and GM continue to pay these men they must feel they are having an impact. Are they game changers? Probably not because the player still has to perform but do they develope new skills from these coaches or learn new methods? Yes, players will tell you so. I fact Greg Maddux gave credit to his pitching coach during hall-of-fame speech

Well, but for all I see most people (though apparently not you or lukasberger）wants base-coaches in the game want there to be an actual impact on the rate of successful base stealing (or advancement of extra bases) in game, that's the part I don't agree to, if you just wants have base-coaches in game and have them impacts a player's base-running ratings, I don't see a reason against that.

Just giving an example: In both 2012 and 2013 New York Mets have Tom Goodwin as their first base coach. In 2012 Mets stole 79 bases in 117 attempts, a success rate of around 68%; in 2013 Mets stole 114 bases in 149 tries, a success rate of around 77%. Is it because Goodwin suddenly become a much better base-coach or because Mets just have new players that are better at stealing bases (Eric Young Jr. in this case) to begin with?

[Padreman]

I only want coaches to help development of my players not to increase odds of getting more hits or stolen bases. Coaches should be there to help a okayer advance and reach his full potential

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by tomwolf2008

Just giving an example: In both 2012 and 2013 New York Mets have Tom Goodwin as their first base coach. In 2012 Mets stole 79 bases in 117 attempts, a success rate of around 68%; in 2013 Mets stole 114 bases in 149 tries, a success rate of around 77%. Is it because Goodwin suddenly become a much better base-coach or because Mets just have new players that are better at stealing bases (Eric Young Jr. in this case) to begin with?

Obviously the players are the main impact. So better players lead to better results. But better coaching leads to players better developing their skills. That's pretty indisputable, I would think.

Again, if the coaches have no impact at all, why do MLB teams hire tons of them and pay each of them $50,000 a year or so? Why have teams been increasing coaching staffs with assistant hitting, pitching coaches etc. in recent years, even as analytics and cost consciousness have taken hold around MLB.

Clearly it's because the teams think they provide a benefit that's worth the cost.

Who actually has any evidence that they aren't providing a benefit? No one. Would anyone here actually propose running an MLB team with no coaches? That would seem to be foolish.

The best that can be said from your side of the argument, is that we can't measure the benefit provided. But as I discussed above, that likely has more to do with our lacking proper tools to perform those measurements, than it does with providing some sort of proof that there is no benefit.

[tomwolf2008]

Originally Posted by lukasberger

Obviously the players are the main impact. So better players lead to better results.

But again, if the coaches have no impact at all, why do MLB teams hire tons of them and pay each of them $50,000 a year or so? Why have teams been increasing coaching staffs with assistant hitting, pitching coaches etc. in recent years, even as analytics and cost consciousness have taken hold around MLB.

Clearly it's because the teams think they provide a benefit that's worth the cost.

Who actually has any evidence that they aren't providing a benefit? No one.

The best that can be said from your side of the argument, is that we can't measure the benefit. But as I discussed above, that likely has more to do with our lacking proper tools to perform those measurements, than it does with there actually being no benefit.

On that point we agree, we just don't know.

That's not my point though, as I said several times in my previous posts, all I'm against is having base-coaches impact my ability to steal or to advance extra bases in game, that's all.

[rpriske]

Do you know what I would REALLY like to see that would make a very tangible difference to my enjoyment of the game?

Fix the play by play so when it quotes stats in quotes stats from the level they are playing on, not all levels.

It is really ridiculous for a major league announcer to quote stats that include AAA or lower. "He has hit 15 home runs this season..." Uh, not in the bigs he hasn't! He has hit six. (To use an example I am looking at right now...)