Tips for developing prospects?

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by jpeters1734

I don't think it matters much that people can look in the editor for true ratings. They could do it then and they can now.

I was agreeing with syd who was responding to someone speaking about good/bad stats on high rep/bad rep coaches. As i mentioned, there are other ways the game can implement showing off a staff member’s strength.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Syd Thrift]

So... while I agree that the way coaching is handled could be improved, if you don't like the fact that you'll never know exactly whether or not that high-rep coach is actually helping or hurting your guys, my recommendation is to not use coaching in your game. That makes one less variable that you need to track, although of course that's going to increase the amount of randomness in terms of development (well, depending on how you define "random", not having complete information about your coaches can be "random" as well).

[jpeters1734]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

So... while I agree that the way coaching is handled could be improved, if you don't like the fact that you'll never know exactly whether or not that high-rep coach is actually helping or hurting your guys, my recommendation is to not use coaching in your game. That makes one less variable that you need to track, although of course that's going to increase the amount of randomness in terms of development (well, depending on how you define "random", not having complete information about your coaches can be "random" as well).

You’re absolutely right. I have been seriously considering turning off coaching in my games but I feel like it would remove a storytelling element from the game.

[PSUColonel]

One thing to consider is this: Are you using "relative ratings?

If you are, it's fairly easy to see who should be at what level...if you aren't (and I think perhaps more realistic since they seem to have reined in the over inflated ratings without relative). its a bit more strategic. You will have to weigh ratings vs stats. If you really want a challenge, try using the new feature which uses stats somewhat to formulate the overall/potential and component ratings.

[jpeters1734]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

One thing to consider is this: Are you using "relative ratings?

If you are, it's fairly easy to see who should be at what level...if you aren't (and I think perhaps more realistic since they seem to have reined in the over inflated ratings without relative). its a bit more strategic. You will have to weigh ratings vs stats. If you really want a challenge, try using the new feature which uses stats somewhat to formulate the overall/potential and component ratings.

I really like relative ratings off. I feel like you get a better sense on how far off a prospect is since you have to look at current ratings compared to ML

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

One thing to consider is this: Are you using "relative ratings?

If you are, it's fairly easy to see who should be at what level...if you aren't (and I think perhaps more realistic since they seem to have reined in the over inflated ratings without relative). its a bit more strategic. You will have to weigh ratings vs stats. If you really want a challenge, try using the new feature which uses stats somewhat to formulate the overall/potential and component ratings.

I don’t see a big difference anymore when giggling between the two settings. At least not on the top end of talent. Last year there were big differences.

[One Post Wonder]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

So... while I agree that the way coaching is handled could be improved, if you don't like the fact that you'll never know exactly whether or not that high-rep coach is actually helping or hurting your guys, my recommendation is to not use coaching in your game.

If I did that then I wouldn't get to use managers, and while I think managers need work too I am happy with the way they are currently implemented and think they add a lot to the game. If I could just turn off coaches I would do so in a hot minute.

I'm pretty sure that Tony Larussa would know if his pitching coach was a turd or not. From our perspective though, it is impossible because we don't have enough information. If something isn't working out we don't know if the problem is the player, or the coaching, or plain bad luck.

Dusty Baker stuck around so long because he was able to maintain great relationships with his players, which is something we can also see in OOTP. You and I think he is an idiot because of moves that we saw him make, which is also viewable in OOTP. He's someone with high player relationship scores and terrible strategy settings.

Now if coaches started out blind and then you got an idea of how good they were after a year or two of experience, I'd be great with that. Even more great if abilities changed over time.

JPeters, I've been complaining about this ever since the ability to view development influence was taken away from us, 6 or 7 years ago. I think this is ridiculous given how important player development is and honestly, coaches have come to bother me enough that it will be the sole influencer on whether I buy 22 or not.

It's vexing because we all know the information is right there. It's been there all along. All OOTP needs to do is add it to the list of viewable information in the charts.

It's also vexing because everyone in the game currently knows this information except the player. Coaches themselves know how good they are because I believe their demands are based on experience, reputation, AND skill. And I'm pretty sure actual skill is looked at when AI teams are hiring staff.

[jpeters1734]

Originally Posted by One Post Wonder

If I did that then I wouldn't get to use managers, and while I think managers need work too I am happy with the way they are currently implemented and think they add a lot to the game. If I could just turn off coaches I would do so in a hot minute.

I'm pretty sure that Tony Larussa would know if his pitching coach was a turd or not. From our perspective though, it is impossible because we don't have enough information. If something isn't working out we don't know if the problem is the player, or the coaching, or plain bad luck.

Dusty Baker stuck around so long because he was able to maintain great relationships with his players, which is something we can also see in OOTP. You and I think he is an idiot because of moves that we saw him make, which is also viewable in OOTP. He's someone with high player relationship scores and terrible strategy settings.

Now if coaches started out blind and then you got an idea of how good they were after a year or two of experience, I'd be great with that. Even more great if abilities changed over time.

JPeters, I've been complaining about this ever since the ability to view development influence was taken away from us, 6 or 7 years ago. I think this is ridiculous given how important player development is and honestly, coaches have come to bother me enough that it will be the sole influencer on whether I buy 22 or not.

It's vexing because we all know the information is right there. It's been there all along. All OOTP needs to do is add it to the list of viewable information in the charts.

It's also vexing because everyone in the game currently knows this information except the player. Coaches themselves know how good they are because I believe their demands are based on experience, reputation, AND skill. And I'm pretty sure actual skill is looked at when AI teams are hiring staff.

I wish that as the GM, I could control the manager hire and the manager can worry about filling his coaches. I would love to see some hitting or pitching coaches tag along with a manager to a new gig. Or managers hiring former players.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by jpeters1734

I wish that as the GM, I could control the manager hire and the manager can worry about filling his coaches. I would love to see some hitting or pitching coaches tag along with a manager to a new gig. Or managers hiring former players.

Yea i would also like to see coaches build up their relationship to include not only other staff members but players from outside the team.

language could also play a factor in coaching, development and building relationships. FM does a decent job here.

[ablobj]

Originally Posted by jimmysthebestcop

Well what team are you playing with? Some teams are obviously better from a market size and financial outlook aspect.

If you are playing with like say the Marlins and let the AI do everything it probably would take a decade to climb out of the basement.

Those tiny teams are lucky to afford 2 long term players over 5 years. So you can almost never sign a free agent star or even extend your homegrown players once they are nearing the end of arbitration. You might not even afford some arbitration deals depending if they reached super star status.

Gigantic difference from the top market teams Dodgers, RSox, Yankees, Cubs . But even a big difference from the normal teams Phillies, Nationals, Braves, Rockies.

Fictional League...the Mt. Lebanon Liberty. We finished last the first 3 years, but turned the corner in year 4 and started winning...my core players are now all in their 30's so our run may be coming to an end soon.

[jimmysthebestcop]

Originally Posted by ablobj

Fictional League...the Mt. Lebanon Liberty. We finished last the first 3 years, but turned the corner in year 4 and started winning...my core players are now all in their 30's so our run may be coming to an end soon.

Yeah huge difference. If your mlb small market team basically no one will reach their 30s on your team. Unless they are a has been, a never was, or ridiculously injury ridden and youre rolling the dice. Couple veteran leadership roles maybe.

[toddr037]

I pretty much agree with all you said. Finding the right coach is the hardest part. What would be a cool addition would be to have the ability to interview a coach. shortlist say 10 guys you find. Maybe they are from free agents, or maybe they are from the minor league system. Hell maybe you can ask another team for permission to interview one of their minor league coaches. Even if the interview isn't a manual thing, maybe just have the interview results emailed to you. Could really be the game breaker to decide who the right coach is, and who you will offer that contract too.

Originally Posted by jpeters1734

I believe the problem lies in the fact that OOTP hasn't really decided what it wants. Back when they "overhauled" how coaches are represented, they wanted players to focus on the reputation. But at the same time, they hid development and relationship ratings in the coach profile. And since the game gave no indication, and still doesn't, on how reputation is determined, users ignore the rep and go into the manager's profile to find the best development guy. Finally they added those to the personnel tab so that we can sort by it.

The coach system is in dire need of redesign. I posted a long ass suggestion a few years back that was ignored. I'll try to find it and hopefully get it revived

EDIT: Found it. This was from 2017 but much of it is still valid

[SirMichaelJordan]

Originally Posted by toddr037

I pretty much agree with all you said. Finding the right coach is the hardest part. What would be a cool addition would be to have the ability to interview a coach. shortlist say 10 guys you find. Maybe they are from free agents, or maybe they are from the minor league system. Hell maybe you can ask another team for permission to interview one of their minor league coaches. Even if the interview isn't a manual thing, maybe just have the interview results emailed to you. Could really be the game breaker to decide who the right coach is, and who you will offer that contract too.

Interview process have been asked for before. It would be a great addition. Pretty much scouting for coaches. This would add immersion and keep the fog affect OOTP trying to accomplish now. But as mentioned other times this have been brought up, some would say why not skip the interview process and just reveal everything. I think the latter is best of both worlds because I think the game want to get away from “sorting and picking the best guy available”

Coaching is due for a revamp so hopefully we will see something soon along with the addition of more staff like 3B coach.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[naturaldopamine]

First thing I do when I take over a team is cut 95% of my minor leaguers with low leader, low work ethic, and low intelligence.

Then absolutely fill my entire minors with tons of high leader, high work ethic, and high intelligence guys.

It certainly helps a lot.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by One Post Wonder

If I did that then I wouldn't get to use managers, and while I think managers need work too I am happy with the way they are currently implemented and think they add a lot to the game. If I could just turn off coaches I would do so in a hot minute.

I'm pretty sure that Tony Larussa would know if his pitching coach was a turd or not. From our perspective though, it is impossible because we don't have enough information. If something isn't working out we don't know if the problem is the player, or the coaching, or plain bad luck.

Dusty Baker stuck around so long because he was able to maintain great relationships with his players, which is something we can also see in OOTP. You and I think he is an idiot because of moves that we saw him make, which is also viewable in OOTP. He's someone with high player relationship scores and terrible strategy settings.

Now if coaches started out blind and then you got an idea of how good they were after a year or two of experience, I'd be great with that. Even more great if abilities changed over time.

JPeters, I've been complaining about this ever since the ability to view development influence was taken away from us, 6 or 7 years ago. I think this is ridiculous given how important player development is and honestly, coaches have come to bother me enough that it will be the sole influencer on whether I buy 22 or not.

It's vexing because we all know the information is right there. It's been there all along. All OOTP needs to do is add it to the list of viewable information in the charts.

It's also vexing because everyone in the game currently knows this information except the player. Coaches themselves know how good they are because I believe their demands are based on experience, reputation, AND skill. And I'm pretty sure actual skill is looked at when AI teams are hiring staff.

That’s a weird guy to bring up because LaRussa basically found one good pitching coach early in his career - Dave Duncan - and stuck with him basically the whole way, including to different organizations. And Duncan was a guy with a big, wait for it, reputation when LaRussa lured him in thanks to turning around the pitching staffs of both the Cleveland Indians and Seattle Mariners. In any case, Hawk Harrelson certainly didn’t see the “obvious talent” of either LaRussa or Duncan when he fired them both midway through the 1986 season.

[ThePride87]

I've noticed people suggesting you should go off of stats to make your development decisions...isn't that the wrong thing to do? Stats can be very misleading, and it can take ages for them to normalize (i.e.Johnny has a .400 wOBA in AAA....does that mean he's ready for the Majors? How do you know, 2 months isn't a big sample size). I would've thought the ratings my scout provides are a better predictor of what a player is today, that's why I am paying the top scout with a $24M budget, to tell me what a player is and will be. It tells me what level my player should be in at this moment (i.e. 38 OVR in MLB, 45 AAA, 54 AA...sounds like he should be in AA right now)

[jpeters1734]

Originally Posted by ThePride87

I've noticed people suggesting you should go off of stats to make your development decisions...isn't that the wrong thing to do? Stats can be very misleading, and it can take ages for them to normalize (i.e.Johnny has a .400 wOBA in AAA....does that mean he's ready for the Majors? How do you know, 2 months isn't a big sample size). I would've thought the ratings my scout provides are a better predictor of what a player is today, that's why I am paying the top scout with a $24M budget, to tell me what a player is and will be. It tells me what level my player should be in at this moment (i.e. 38 OVR in MLB, 45 AAA, 54 AA...sounds like he should be in AA right now)

that is a good point, which is why I try to let them spend a full year at a level before I consider promoting them. There's always exceptions of course. I don't believe you should ignore ratings, just as you shouldn't ignore stats. Ratings can also be very misleading. you have to use them together

[slugga27]

Originally Posted by jpeters1734

that is a good point, which is why I try to let them spend a full year at a level before I consider promoting them. There's always exceptions of course. I don't believe you should ignore ratings, just as you shouldn't ignore stats. Ratings can also be very misleading. you have to use them together

The problem with ratings (unless you use the 20-80 scale with increments of 5) is that it’s not realistic. Managers and GMs don’t have these ratings to go off of and can only go off of stats.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jpeters1734]

Originally Posted by slugga27

The problem with ratings (unless you use the 20-80 scale with increments of 5) is that it’s not realistic. Managers and GMs don’t have these ratings to go off of and can only go off of stats.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

i emphatically disagree with that statement. Ratings do for us what actually seeing the player take batting practice, fielding work, throwing bullpen sessions do for the coaches and scouts. Real managers and GM do not only look at stats. Why else would teams spend millions to have scouts scour the globe for players if they could just look at their stats?

[slugga27]

Originally Posted by jpeters1734

i emphatically disagree with that statement. Ratings do for us what actually seeing the player take batting practice, fielding work, throwing bullpen sessions do for the coaches and scouts. Real managers and GM do not only look at stats. Why else would teams spend millions to have scouts scour the globe for players if they could just look at their stats?

My point is the only real scale used to 20-80 in increments of 5. The ratings we have, I believe, are far in excess of what managers and GMs have in reality.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk