Coach Reputation vs Ratings - what to look at?

[Fronzizzle]

Hello all,

I'm in the process of filling out my coaching staff (throughout the organization) and I realized that I'm not really sure what I should be looking at/what's important.

For lower levels, I usually focus on coaches with Excellent development, they are usually younger (cheaper) with Unknown/Inexperienced reputation.

For higher levels including MLB, I'm a bit more unsure of what I should be looking at and what the differences are in terms of how they impact the game.

For example, I'm looking for both a bench coach and hitting coach. I found a bench coach that that has Excellent development, Good relationships but a Poor reputation. My team is young, so I assume I want the development but I don't know how the reputation fits in.

Once the players get older, can I put less emphasis on the Development? More on Relationships? And how does Reputation fit in?

[NoOne]

unless they changed it, reputation is solely based on success/failure, which is less correlated since there are many more varibales invovled compared to ratings, assuming they are accurate. even then, i doubt it is less correlated than success/failure.

[dward1]

the coaching feature is not fleshed out and tends to not make any sense. we can't tell if it works well or not because how it's shown in the game gives us not much information

[PSUColonel]

This aspect of the game needs to be more FM like where staff have clearer roles, speak languages, and have favored personnel (as well as players)

While on subject I’d love to see OOTPs clubhouse chemistry handled more like club dynamics in FM also

[One Post Wonder]

There is absolutely no visible information that can help you. The only way to know if a coach is good or not is to go to Commissioner mode and look at the coaching abilities there. Yes, it's ridiculous. It's been this way for years.

I believe though that better quality coaches, all things equal, ask for more money than lower quality ones. So if you've got 2 unproven coaches with 0 years experience, the one with the higher demand will probably be better overall. Which doesn't mean he's better in the areas that you're looking for (rookies vs veterans for example), and it also doesn't mean that they weren't both terrible, but it's at least something. This is how I do it, since I can't be bothered to switch to commissioner mode.

[jpeters1734]

Originally Posted by One Post Wonder

There is absolutely no visible information that can help you. The only way to know if a coach is good or not is to go to Commissioner mode and look at the coaching abilities there. Yes, it's ridiculous. It's been this way for years.

I believe though that better quality coaches, all things equal, ask for more money than lower quality ones. So if you've got 2 unproven coaches with 0 years experience, the one with the higher demand will probably be better overall. Which doesn't mean he's better in the areas that you're looking for (rookies vs veterans for example), and it also doesn't mean that they weren't both terrible, but it's at least something. This is how I do it, since I can't be bothered to switch to commissioner mode.

that's not true. There is a visible development influence rating

[jpeters1734]

Originally Posted by Fronzizzle

Hello all,

I'm in the process of filling out my coaching staff (throughout the organization) and I realized that I'm not really sure what I should be looking at/what's important.

For lower levels, I usually focus on coaches with Excellent development, they are usually younger (cheaper) with Unknown/Inexperienced reputation.

For higher levels including MLB, I'm a bit more unsure of what I should be looking at and what the differences are in terms of how they impact the game.

For example, I'm looking for both a bench coach and hitting coach. I found a bench coach that that has Excellent development, Good relationships but a Poor reputation. My team is young, so I assume I want the development but I don't know how the reputation fits in.

Once the players get older, can I put less emphasis on the Development? More on Relationships? And how does Reputation fit in?

I ignore reputation. It's a half-baked, half-fleshed out idea to intentionally make it difficult to find a coach. Sort by dev influence, then relationships. Maybe at a higher level, put more emphasis on relationships since it would affect morale

[dward1]

it's really shocking when you look back at the game's development over the past few years how little actual work goes into the game each year. stuff like this, that no one can look at and conclude this feature works in any way at all, sits in the game for years.

it would probably take a few weeks of work to totally copy FM's system at a basic level, but we still have this completely useless feature for how many versions now?

[Fronzizzle]

So what happens if you play with the "Total Coaching System" turned off?

[Aaron's Aron]

Originally Posted by Fronzizzle

So what happens if you play with the "Total Coaching System" turned off?

It treats every team as having equal, average coaches. You of course lose any advantage you had if you had really good coaches, but you have no penalty for having bad coaches. It is fair across the board.

I turn it off now since there isn't really a way to tell if your coaches are good or not and I can't be bothered with signing them all.

[Fronzizzle]

That sounds tempting. I sort of hate spending the money and keeping all levels stocked each off season, especially when the pickings are slim.

[Mat]

I have have turned coaching off, for this version.

I am liking the decision. I still get to choose a scout but strategy is now completely up to me and I dont waste time searching and negotiating with coaches.

[LegalEagle80]

I think I'm going to disable coaching as well. What's most annoying about it is the the computer is prescient and will sign coaches with outstanding ratings, even if they have "unknown" or "poor" reputations, but human players have no way of knowing who is any good aside from using commissioner mode to look at the editor.

I imagine this is a big overhaul item for next year.

[jpeters1734]

Originally Posted by LegalEagle80

I imagine this is a big overhaul item for next year.

i honestly doubt it, unfortunately

[treymancini]

Originally Posted by jpeters1734

i honestly doubt it, unfortunately

Gotta add more cosmetic features and perfect team stuff smh

[Leo_The_Lip]

For those of you who think there is no way to tell if a coach is good or not without looking at the ratings: There is!

When you go to hire a coach, look at the (new?) pair of columns under Relationships and Development. The better ones actually have higher ratings. So a Coach with GOOD in each will be a nice fit.

The only issue I've noticed --by checking in the editor-- is that Relationships might not be appropriate. I'm not talking Jerry Sandusky here, simply that a coach might be listed as GOOD but have VETERANS high and ROOKIES low so you would not really want him in the minors.

[treymancini]

That feature is in ootp19 too, problem is that its not super accessible .

[chazzycat]

honestly I think the system is realistic. How do you even measure how good a coach is? Reputations and personalities play a huge part of coaching decisions IRL, not some hard evidence that one coach is superior to another. It's purposefully obfuscated.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by chazzycat

honestly I think the system is realistic. How do you even measure how good a coach is? Reputations and personalities play a huge part of coaching decisions IRL, not some hard evidence that one coach is superior to another. It's purposefully obfuscated.

Correct.

Only thing I would change is having more info on their profile. Relationships, influence and are they better with vets or youth.