Expanding Coaches

[MrSmooth]

Of Note: After some of the discussion in this thread I spoke to a friend of mine who played the game for quite some time. He gave me positive and negative influences of coaching on him and his development. He was in agreement that coaching and personalities do influence players.

I would like to have a Football Manager type set up and give flexibility to each GM (and eventually having Manager's ask for the right to choose their staff at the ML level) to hire the following positions:

Necessary

1B Coach

3B Coach

Bullpen Coach (Ratings effect the Pitching staff at less of a level than the Pitching Coach)

Strength & Conditioning Coach (Helps players maintain, gain, or lose weight and works with increasing players stamina leaving trainers to just work with injury prevention and helping rehab players)

Minor League Pitching Coordinator

Minor League Infielding Coordinator

Minor League Outfield Coordinator

Minor League Baserunning Coordinator

If Wanted

Assistant Hitting Coach

Minor League Catching Coordinator

Coach (One added coach that can be added to the ML level)

I would like to see coaches profiles expanded to include how well they teach Infielding, Outfielding, and Catching.

For Pitching it'd be nice if there was the ability to select a pitch they specialize in that they could teach Pitchers under their tutelage.

For Hitting it would be nice to see ratings for teaching Contact and Power to further the differences in pitchers.

Finally a Baserunning rating regarding how well they can teach baserunners to be intelligent on the base paths.

For the Baserunning Coordinator that should be a position that could be linked with a Fielding Coordinator.

[Padreman]

I brought this up too recently however what benifit a do the basecoaches have? Will they improve on anything?
I had the ideas of the 1BC help improve baserrunning skills and possible increase speed by a bit
And 3BC help improve fielding or help prove catchers abilities.
That way they are just coaches standing but will have a purpose in OOTP.
I
Agree with the S&C C I mention similar points too

[MrSmooth]

Good point, they would definitely help ratings as well. With the suggestion I had for the expanding coach ratings, they could be drawn from there with the fielding.

[RchW]

I question the realism inherent in a system that seems to be based on player improvements only. There was a thread recently where it is clear that Adam Dunn has made essentially no improvements in contact throughout his career. If coaching has an effect then it must also be negative to be realistic.

I guess my concern is what % of a players total development is due (positive or negative) to coaching? I don't think it can be quantified easily. What about a player coachability rating? Is that realistic?

Given that and given that coaching ratings are known in this model, who would hire bad coaches in-game? It seems to me that to replicate real life, coaching ability should be hidden and you don't know the effect of a coach until the "apparent" results are in.

Simple question from real life; who has the better coaches, Houston Astros or New York Yankees? How can you tell?

Another conundrum. Last season the Toronto Blue Jays were very poor at basic baseball fundamentals. Was that coaching? This year some of those coaches and the manager are with the Red Sox and from everything I see the Red Sox are excellent at the fundamentals. Why is that? Coaching?

I'm not against coaching in OOTP. I'm not convinced that a realistic representation of coaching has been proposed.

[DrSatan]

I play with coaches even though there doesn't seem to be any impact on the quality of the coach. I think the OP's main point is to make coaches a bigger part of the game by giving them some sort of visable/measurable impact to the team. I've run sims where i had the best coaches and ran the same sim again with no coaches, and seen nothing to lead me to believe that coaches have an impact at all.....but I still use them because I think its neat to hire my old players as coaches.

Honestly, I have no idea how coaches are programmed to impact teams in OOTP, but it would seem to me that coach ratings would affect things that happen randomly like talent change. For example, if a talent change is triggered, perhaps a "dice roll" occurs to determine what kind of change happens. In this case coach ratings could increase/decrease your odds one way or the other.

The "dice-roll" effect could also be applied to base coaches. The quality of the base coach could play a roll in the odds of stretching out a double, stealing a base, or getting picked off. Those factors could be thrown into an equation with the rating of the baserunner's and defensive player's abilities and then crank out a result of safe or out. It wouldn't always result in a positive result, because of all factors involved. An excellent baserunner wouldn't see any positive impact from an average base coach, just like a crappy runner isn't going to get any help from an outstanding basecoach if that CF has a cannon.

Another way to work it would be equate a base coach's ratings by their ability to exploite what is know about the defensive team. Does the catcher have a weak arm making it easier to steal? Does the CF throw wild, increasing the runner's chances of stretching a single to a double? Does the pitcher have a wicked pick-off move causing me to hold the runner a step closer to the bag? In these cases an outstanding coach would be able to exploit weaknesses better than an average coach.

Either way, it would be nice if we could get a better detailed explanation of how coaching plays out in OOTP. If its out there somewhere already, then sweet baby Jesus show me where it is.

[MrSmooth]

Originally Posted by RchW

I question the realism inherent in a system that seems to be based on player improvements only. There was a thread recently where it is clear that Adam Dunn has made essentially no improvements in contact throughout his career. If coaching has an effect then it must also be negative to be realistic.

I guess my concern is what % of a players total development is due (positive or negative) to coaching? I don't think it can be quantified easily. What about a player coachability rating? Is that realistic?

Given that and given that coaching ratings are known in this model, who would hire bad coaches in-game? It seems to me that to replicate real life, coaching ability should be hidden and you don't know the effect of a coach until the "apparent" results are in.

Simple question from real life; who has the better coaches, Houston Astros or New York Yankees? How can you tell?

Another conundrum. Last season the Toronto Blue Jays were very poor at basic baseball fundamentals. Was that coaching? This year some of those coaches and the manager are with the Red Sox and from everything I see the Red Sox are excellent at the fundamentals. Why is that? Coaching?

I'm not against coaching in OOTP. I'm not convinced that a realistic representation of coaching has been proposed.

Coachability is key in ANY sport. I've been around guys who refused to change what they were doing no matter what a coach said. I read reports on a few players that said "I know my swing better than anyone. I'll make the adjustments as I see fit.." when asked about what he and the hitting coach had worked on.

Coaching is important. Glad you mentioned Adam Dunn..during his massive slump of last year (was it)? He answered a few questions and mentioned that he hadn't changed any of his offseason preparation. So, I believe it's a work ethic issue and honestly I'm sure most of his hitting coaches have been terrified to change his swing. It could curtail his power and he gets his walks, I doubt much is said about any serious adjustments as long as he's walking and going deep.

There's no way to know who has the best coaches unless you watched them all in action, fans cannot do this. So coaching is important there just are other factors; as you mentioned how receptive they are to coaching, their work ethic, and the quality of coaching. Youth coaching is probably the most important to not create those bad habits, but it would take a lot of time to insert all the HS programs around the country so that's not simulated.

Very good points my friend.

Originally Posted by DrSatan

I play with coaches even though there doesn't seem to be any impact on the quality of the coach. I think the OP's main point is to make coaches a bigger part of the game by giving them some sort of visable/measurable impact to the team. I've run sims where i had the best coaches and ran the same sim again with no coaches, and seen nothing to lead me to believe that coaches have an impact at all.....but I still use them because I think its neat to hire my old players as coaches.

Honestly, I have no idea how coaches are programmed to impact teams in OOTP, but it would seem to me that coach ratings would affect things that happen randomly like talent change. For example, if a talent change is triggered, perhaps a "dice roll" occurs to determine what kind of change happens. In this case coach ratings could increase/decrease your odds one way or the other.

The "dice-roll" effect could also be applied to base coaches. The quality of the base coach could play a roll in the odds of stretching out a double, stealing a base, or getting picked off. Those factors could be thrown into an equation with the rating of the baserunner's and defensive player's abilities and then crank out a result of safe or out. It wouldn't always result in a positive result, because of all factors involved. An excellent baserunner wouldn't see any positive impact from an average base coach, just like a crappy runner isn't going to get any help from an outstanding basecoach if that CF has a cannon.

Another way to work it would be equate a base coach's ratings by their ability to exploite what is know about the defensive team. Does the catcher have a weak arm making it easier to steal? Does the CF throw wild, increasing the runner's chances of stretching a single to a double? Does the pitcher have a wicked pick-off move causing me to hold the runner a step closer to the bag? In these cases an outstanding coach would be able to exploit weaknesses better than an average coach.

Either way, it would be nice if we could get a better detailed explanation of how coaching plays out in OOTP. If its out there somewhere already, then sweet baby Jesus show me where it is.

That's why I believe more need to be added in a FM type model. That would help explain what each coach does and how they effect the team. I like your suggestions as well.

[The Game]

I am against the idea of adding more useless coaches. Although some of them seem promising. Do coaches ever improve in their ratings? i have a coach who has made 4 WS appearances winning 1 never had a losing record in 13 seasons and is still rated as OK in hitting and veterans. He was my BC my 1st season.

[Ripamaru]

I don't know what effect they have but i always spend money on the best coaches all the way down the line to rookie ball.

I have noticed that some of my good young players really improve quickly in 14 as opposed to past years.

In my first draft on my new league I got an amazing HS 1B at #1 overall (I trade my mid to late round picks and players I don't want anymore for high picks every year, it works). He had an 80/80 potential and by the end of his 1st full season in the minors he was at 74/80 and being called up to the show.

It was really nice to see as this does happen sometimes with the Bryce Harpers of the world, it seems like in past years all of my great prospects would either flame out or take 5-6 years to develop.

[MrSmooth]

Originally Posted by The Game

I am against the idea of adding more useless coaches. Although some of them seem promising. Do coaches ever improve in their ratings? i have a coach who has made 4 WS appearances winning 1 never had a losing record in 13 seasons and is still rated as OK in hitting and veterans. He was my BC my 1st season.

Who said they would be useless (are they so in RL)? I laid out exactly where they would improve ratings. And another idea was posted about coachability and other factors.

Coaches should have a personality in the game, a coach "make up" like players do as well to judge how well they handle situations whether they are strict or not..to make decisions a bit more difficult and fun.

I play the game without stars and most ratings to make the game that more difficult and realistic. Adding personality and more coaches would make a strong imprint on the importance of having an organization of good coaches.

I'd even eventually like an interview process so the strategic settings in the coaches profile mean something..as far too often right now they all seem to practically mirror one another. So my additions, in the way they are laid out would be far from pointless.

[The Game]

Smooth I get your point, I wasn't trying to insult your idea. I suggested an overhaul on coaches myself a week ago. It would be nice if you could see some impact a bad rated coach has ona good team or a great rated coach has on abad team. I spend as little as possible on coaches. I have great players on 2 of my teams in 2 different leagues. I do have good managers in both though but the rest of my coaches for those 2 teams are bad. I have a HC that is fair in hitting yet I lead the league in AVG.

[MrSmooth]

I agree, I think that's where a personality rating should come into play. Maybe a good manager has the wrong approach with a team and they "tune out" same with the other coaching slots.

I would like to see bad coaches effect players negatively and show up in storylines with receiving bad advise, bad coaching, and other things. That would be very interesting in my opinion.

Originally Posted by RchW

Another conundrum. Last season the Toronto Blue Jays were very poor at basic baseball fundamentals. Was that coaching? This year some of those coaches and the manager are with the Red Sox and from everything I see the Red Sox are excellent at the fundamentals. Why is that? Coaching?

I'm not against coaching in OOTP. I'm not convinced that a realistic representation of coaching has been proposed.

With what I mentioned of personality and coachability maybe that is what's different. I don't know the make up of both staffs and who is in charge of what, but that could be different. Maybe in Toronto they "tuned out" the coaches as there wasn't a personality fit.

Also there is the case that perhaps the Red Sox players are just better fundamentally than the Jays team of last year.

I want personality ratings for coaches in as well could account for that in a realistic manner. But, doing nothing to the current system would be a mistake. I'd like to put together an organization with coaches and scouts. It could be something that could be set for the AI to do if some don't want it.

A system that takes in player/coach personality and player/coach talent would be very nice to see.

[metsguy234]

I think incorporating this plus some sort of option (forgive me if this already exists) to change the effect coaches have on player development would be a good idea. We all have different opinions on how much coaching actually affects players in real life, so why not make it so that we can incorporate it as much as we choose?

Personally, I'd love the option to expand with additional coaches, as it'd add to the immersion factor and also find some jobs for the poor unemployed pool of random coaches that is always in the "available personnel" screen. I'd prefer, though, to keep the effect of, say, a 1B coach, to be mostly minimal.

[MrSmooth]

If the 1B Coach is amazing at lets say Coaching Catchers (as I'd like a break down of how they are with coaching OF, IN, and C's) then he would have a good effect. Lets say it's broken down so there's a rating at how they coach 1st and 3rd...A high rating at 1st could allow runners to get better jumps and time up the pitcher better (Former base sealers should have a high rating here at least you would think).

While a good 3B coach would know when to be aggressive and not to be as I feel that's not something a GM who is watching the game would have control of from the press box. Again you could cut it off if you want that control, but I'd like a 3B coach to have that ability as they do take some flak.

Reports (in game and to your messages) about poor decisions by a 3B coach would be cool.

[Le Grande Orange]

The problem is how do you quantify the effect coaches should have? How much of a performance or developmental boost should they contribute? There is no way to measure that in the real world, so there is no reference point. Which means OOTP basically has to guess or make up what the effect should be. I'm generally not in favour of the game having to guess. Also, the effect coaches have could have an impact on the statistics of the league depending on how strong an effect they are granted.

While I get why folks want more personnel, if I was coding the game, I'd abstract out a lot of the coaches as, really, without a notable effect they are just window dressing.

[MrSmooth]

Would have to disagree..as there is a lot of guessing already...Scouting process..we don't 100% know the effect scouts have. Last I read being a Pull Hitter or Spray hitter has no effect on BA..I would say (no stats in front of me to go by) that using all parts of the field does help a hitters batting average. So the game may guess wrong there...

Those are just a few examples and using your real life reference point, are coaches just window dressing in real life? I would say no, that is why I thought of the formula with personality effects, expanding coaches to have rating for IN, OF, C...Pitching Coaches broke down further...etc.

As I feel having the right people in place do matter with specific teams and a certain coach may get more out of a player than others. So, not going with it wouldn't be the best in my opinion as I strongly feel it would enhance the game.

Again, I stated if one doesn't like it they could have the AI take care of it and as to their effect? Coaching should effect players as in RL, I don't feel we as players should ever know how much.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by MrSmooth

Also there is the case that perhaps the Red Sox players are just better fundamentally than the Jays team of last year.

Which calls into question the effect of coaching? Put another way is coaching only successful when players are already good? I submit that point to suggest why it doesn't matter what coaches the Houston Astros hire. The team wont get better unless the players get better.

[rutri01]

Originally Posted by Padreman

I brought this up too recently however what benifit a do the basecoaches have? Will they improve on anything?
I had the ideas of the 1BC help improve baserrunning skills and possible increase speed by a bit
And 3BC help improve fielding or help prove catchers abilities.
That way they are just coaches standing but will have a purpose in OOTP.
I
Agree with the S&C C I mention similar points too

At the least- it be cool if they had a effect like the players leadership. Poor coaches have a slight negative effect and great coaches the opposite. Would also lover the option to play with Managers only- and not coaches.

[Le Grande Orange]

As long as all these extra coaches can be turned off, then have at it. Personally, the only personnel I want to deal with are the team owner, general manager, director of scouting/player development, manager, and the minor league managers. That's more than enough for me. I find the rest of the personnel to be more of a distraction than a help.

[MrSmooth]

Originally Posted by RchW

Which calls into question the effect of coaching? Put another way is coaching only successful when players are already good? I submit that point to suggest why it doesn't matter what coaches the Houston Astros hire. The team wont get better unless the players get better.

I again disagree. I could talk about how to set up a test using SPSS and inputting all kinds of data to test this..but that'd bore everyone else.

You have to take into account a thousand different things..the schedule..who was playing well during match ups and a great deal of things. The argument that coaches don't really matter is way off. Then there's no reason you nor I shouldn't get a coaching position and the players would play the same.

The younger a player is the more effective coaching is..for example..is someone wanted to set up middle school baseball..the coaching there should be very important as that is some of the first real exposure to actual coaching. But, I doubt anyone will do that. So take a 18 year old Pitcher..give him a pitching coach that wants him to focus on two pitches even though his third and forth have potential to grow..that could effect him years down the road.

I personally want all the coaches and area and international scouts..I enjoy immersion and feel with the scouts it makes the game more challenging as you would get different opinions on players. Would just be nice features to be able to choose to have.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by MrSmooth

I again disagree. I could talk about how to set up a test using SPSS and inputting all kinds of data to test this..but that'd bore everyone else.

So bore me in another thread. We can disagree all we want but you can't prove the effectiveness of coaching or managing in professional baseball. Smarter people than me have written on it extensively.

At the risk of boring you, I'll repeat something posted in another thread. If MLB teams really thought that coaching was absolutely effective why do they treat coaches like backup catchers and change them often just because they can save a few thousand or not give out multi-year contracts? If specific coaches had repeatable positive effects and teams know this then they should be reluctant to let these coaches go to other teams especially other teams in their own division. Yet they don't seem to care. That tells me that MLB teams think that good coaches are a dime a dozen or that non-coaching qualities of coaches (personality, friendships, willing to work for less money) are more important. Since MLB teams are IMO sophisticated organizations, I consider their actions to be a clear indication that coaching is more like your backup catcher. Competent, reliable interchangeable and cheap.

YMMV