Important Traits for Minor League Coaches?

[Shdoxz]

I saw a post on OOTP reddit about this and there seemed to be a lot of confusion, and I don't see a clear answer in other threads - so I'll ask the experts here:

For developing prospects, what traits are important for minor league pitching/hitting coaches?

- Aside from "teach hit/pitch", are other traits like "mechanics" and "development" actually relevant to the coach's value?

-Also, how important is it to have personalities that mesh? (Is it better to get the Legendary "teach pitch" pitching coach who makes everyone angry, or the Excellent guy that everyone gets along with?)

Any advice is appreciated! I'm just trying to get a sense of how much time I should actually spend trying to get all of these factors to line up. Thanks

[Brad K]

If you're playing with historical players you don't need to care about this at all.

If you're playing with fictional players, I'd guess maybe a little bit.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Stuff like this should never have a right or wrong answer. Every scenario should be different instead of math equations for best results.

[OutS|der]

Originally Posted by SirMichaelJordan

Stuff like this should never have a right or wrong answer. Every scenario should be different instead of math equations for best results.

But every scenario doesn't give the best results, that's not how it works. So doing math to take advantage of the good results is a wrong answer now?

Just because you want to be kept guessing doesn't mean the rest of us have to.
Nothing wrong with trying to maximise your results, people will do that with every aspect of every game and every part of life

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by OutS|der

But every scenario doesn't give the best results, that's not how it works. So doing math to take advantage of the good results is a wrong answer now?

Just because you want to be kept guessing doesn't mean the rest of us have to.
Nothing wrong with trying to maximise your results, people will do that with every aspect of every game and every part of life

I’m not saying throw darts in the dark. Everything that was listed should be equally important but for different rosters. What worked for me shouldn’t work for you because we don’t have the same roster of players. I’m speaking about game design. If there actually is a one size fits all all answer to this question then the entire model is flawed.


And to answer the OP question, personalities matter as much as you want it to matter in the global settings under coach cohesion impact.

[Mr. Marlin]

Oh man I have been plunging down this rabbit hole ever since team chemistry became a game feature. I've dumped team and player stats into excel, even replayed the same season with different milb coaches. So does chemistry matter? From the data I'd say definitely maybe. I can confirm players perform better when team chemistry is content or better. A little better statistically speaking.

Now as for coach ratings there is a definite trend in development when the coach has a high teaching rating in his primary skill. I replayed four seasons with the same milb team and made no roster changes with injuries off. Four different hitting coaches and the team BA with the Outstanding teaching skill was .277, with Poor it was .221. The other two were in the middle. Same team, same schedule.

This isn't proof by any means. All this s--t could still be random. But it is a data point.

[Mr. Marlin]

Originally Posted by SirMichaelJordan

And to answer the OP question, personalities matter as much as you want it to matter in the global settings under coach cohesion impact.

Hmmm. I never knew that was adjustable. I guess the default is that it does.

[phenom]

I have no basis for this, but I like higher development ratings for lower minors and higher mechanics ratings for upper minors.

[Shdoxz]

Originally Posted by Mr. Marlin

Oh man I have been plunging down this rabbit hole ever since team chemistry became a game feature. I've dumped team and player stats into excel, even replayed the same season with different milb coaches. So does chemistry matter? From the data I'd say definitely maybe. I can confirm players perform better when team chemistry is content or better. A little better statistically speaking.

Now as for coach ratings there is a definite trend in development when the coach has a high teaching rating in his primary skill. I replayed four seasons with the same milb team and made no roster changes with injuries off. Four different hitting coaches and the team BA with the Outstanding teaching skill was .277, with Poor it was .221. The other two were in the middle. Same team, same schedule.

This isn't proof by any means. All this s--t could still be random. But it is a data point.

Thank you for this! It re-assuring that there seems to be at least some impact from the main teaching trait. Maybe I'll replicate your idea and try testing the secondary traits

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Shdoxz

Thank you for this! It re-assuring that there seems to be at least some impact from the main teaching trait. Maybe I'll replicate your idea and try testing the secondary traits

I believe he's saying his data showing improvement is within the margin of error.

However if correct, it seems to me that the same result could be obtained by making one good trade or FA signing at a lot less effort by the GM. So I guess it's a matter of how much time you have.

[Mr. Marlin]

Originally Posted by Brad K

I believe he's saying his data showing improvement is within the margin of error.

However if correct, it seems to me that the same result could be obtained by making one good trade or FA signing at a lot less effort by the GM. So I guess it's a matter of how much time you have.

Just to clarify. The point of my experiment was if coach primary skill ratings helped player development. As opposed to MLB level player performance. All four experimental seasons were run on MILB teams with the rosters and positions locked.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Mr. Marlin

Just to clarify. The point of my experiment was if coach primary skill ratings helped player development. As opposed to MLB level player performance. All four experimental seasons were run on MILB teams with the rosters and positions locked.

OK. Good test.