Targeted coaching/development

[frangipard]

In OOTP, player development is, as far as I can tell, pretty much a function of 1) the players traits, 2) chance, and 3) the overall quality of the coaching/org development budget.

I think it can be better. Development resources should be targetable to specific skills for specific players.

Think of a pitching prospect with good stamina, two plus pitches, and a third thats below average. He's a solid reliever, but he could make the jump to the rotation if that third pitch could come around, and in real life thats likely what a pitching coach would spend his time on.

Or consider a speedy slap hitter with no power and no batting eye on a team that needs a leadoff hitter. You're not going to invest a lot of time trying to develop his 20 power into 30: instead you're going to work on that batting eye and see if he can fill a need.

Im not suggesting a change to how much development takes place - just a suggestion that teams should be able to try to influence how and where.

I see two ways to do this. One would be to have an option on the player strategy screen where players can be assigned to work on specific skills. The other would be on the team strategy screen, where the coaches would be assigned specific tasks: i.e. the pitching coach has been told to work on Johnson's fastball,Smith's control, and Baker's stamina. Again, it doesn't mean those things will be sure to develop, or that nothing and nobody else will. But it does acknowledge that coaching resources are a currency that teams choose how they wish to allocate, and those choices matter.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by frangipard

In OOTP, player development is, as far as I can tell, pretty much a function of 1) the players traits, 2) chance, and 3) the overall quality of the coaching/org development budget.

I think it can be better. Development resources should be targetable to specific skills for specific players.

Think of a pitching prospect with good stamina, two plus pitches, and a third thats below average. He's a solid reliever, but he could make the jump to the rotation if that third pitch could come around, and in real life thats likely what a pitching coach would spend his time on.

Or consider a speedy slap hitter with no power and no batting eye on a team that needs a leadoff hitter. You're not going to invest a lot of time trying to develop his 20 power into 30: instead you're going to work on that batting eye and see if he can fill a need.

Im not suggesting a change to how much development takes place - just a suggestion that teams should be able to try to influence how and where.

I see two ways to do this. One would be to have an option on the player strategy screen where players can be assigned to work on specific skills. The other would be on the team strategy screen, where the coaches would be assigned specific tasks: i.e. the pitching coach has been told to work on Johnson's fastball,Smith's control, and Baker's stamina. Again, it doesn't mean those things will be sure to develop, or that nothing and nobody else will. But it does acknowledge that coaching resources are a currency that teams choose how they wish to allocate, and those choices matter.

First we need a full functioning coaching staff....and there seems to be a lot of resistance for some reason (no idea why)

[RchW]

Originally Posted by frangipard

In OOTP, player development is, as far as I can tell, pretty much a function of 1) the players traits, 2) chance, and 3) the overall quality of the coaching/org development budget.

I think it can be better. Development resources should be targetable to specific skills for specific players.

Think of a pitching prospect with good stamina, two plus pitches, and a third thats below average. He's a solid reliever, but he could make the jump to the rotation if that third pitch could come around, and in real life thats likely what a pitching coach would spend his time on.

Or consider a speedy slap hitter with no power and no batting eye on a team that needs a leadoff hitter. You're not going to invest a lot of time trying to develop his 20 power into 30: instead you're going to work on that batting eye and see if he can fill a need.

Im not suggesting a change to how much development takes place - just a suggestion that teams should be able to try to influence how and where.

I see two ways to do this. One would be to have an option on the player strategy screen where players can be assigned to work on specific skills. The other would be on the team strategy screen, where the coaches would be assigned specific tasks: i.e. the pitching coach has been told to work on Johnson's fastball,Smith's control, and Baker's stamina. Again, it doesn't mean those things will be sure to develop, or that nothing and nobody else will. But it does acknowledge that coaching resources are a currency that teams choose how they wish to allocate, and those choices matter.

I have no problem with this idea but there has to be a corresponding set of failures (most) where players don't improve or get worse. Otherwise it would not be realistic. Consider how many players don't make it even when they get the same coaching.

[Izz]

Originally Posted by RchW

there has to be a corresponding set of failures (most) where players don't improve or get worse.

Agreed!

Plus an option to turn the feature off.

[Leo_The_Lip]

Several versions ago I proposed to make an option for coaching that made it more of a game. A low impact game and one that has as many failures or offsets as needed to keep the overall impact neutral.

Pitching coaches would have a preferred pitch that they could teach, much like the days when Roger Craig would try to teach the circle change. The pitch would vary, but would mostly be 'fastball' a pitch most guys already have so that only coaches with a non-standard pitch type would have value. But their overall value would still depend on the existing ratings. So a guy who could teach the knuckleball might not be very good at developing ordinary progression.

Some hitting coaches would prefer slap the ball to the opposite field, much like Charlie Lau back in the day. These guys could increase the contact rating, but at the expense of power. then there would be the opposite, increase power but lower contact.

The effect would be small, but real and would allow you to have some fun in molding a team strategy onto your players much like the 1980's Royals with Lau or the Giants with Craig.

And you could turn it off if it offended your sensibilities.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Leo_The_Lip

And you could turn it off if it offended your sensibilities.

It's not about offended sensibilities, it's about realism. For every player who succeeds via coaching 4-9 fail with the same coaching. A realistic model must include that dynamic, otherwise it is an artificial one-way construct that would be a detriment to the player development and aging that makes up a big part of the genius of the game.

[frangipard]

Originally Posted by Izz

Agreed!

Plus an option to turn the feature off.

Of course. My thinking is that it would be off by default -- the coaching is distributed equally unless you tell them to focus on certain players/skills, at which time those players/skills get a bump up, and the collective "everyone else" gets a corresponding bump down.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by RchW

I have no problem with this idea but there has to be a corresponding set of failures (most) where players don't improve or get worse. Otherwise it would not be realistic. Consider how many players don't make it even when they get the same coaching.

A great area for coaching style and philosophies to enter the Frey.

[PSUColonel]

Guys...not every feature can be an option! Why do people not want a more realistic game? It's as though some people want OOTP to be a bear bones sim...for those who feel this way...there ARE other gaming options

Edit: it causes imbalance when you turn this on, Shut that off, use this feature half arsed etch..coaches are already optional

[Leo_The_Lip]

Originally Posted by RchW

It's not about offended sensibilities, it's about realism. For every player who succeeds via coaching 4-9 fail with the same coaching. A realistic model must include that dynamic, otherwise it is an artificial one-way construct that would be a detriment to the player development and aging that makes up a big part of the genius of the game.

That's what I said, I thought. It doesn't always work, and it should fail enough to off set the benefit. If a pitcher works on adding a circle change and it fails (most of the time!) your other pitches suffer.

Balance.

And as I also said, it is not a 'realism' feature. It is a 'game' feature.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Leo_The_Lip

That's what I said, I thought. It doesn't always work, and it should fail enough to off set the benefit. If a pitcher works on adding a circle change and it fails (most of the time!) your other pitches suffer.

Balance.

And as I also said, it is not a 'realism' feature. It is a 'game' feature.

Not sure I see the distinction. Elaborate please.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

Guys...not every feature can be an option! Why do people not want a more realistic game? It's as though some people want OOTP to be a bear bones sim...for those who feel this way...there ARE other gaming options

Edit: it causes imbalance when you turn this on, Shut that off, use this feature half arsed etch..coaches are already optional

Because I don't want arcade style one way features. A coaching model that only improves is BS and needs to be turned off. Now Leo and I are discussing how it can work both ways. Please add to it.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by RchW

Because I don't want arcade style one way features. A coaching model that only improves is BS and needs to be turned off. Now Leo and I are discussing how it can work both ways. Please add to it.

oh Rich...we are on the same page..make no mistake...I want it done correctly...no arcade style BS..but if it's implemented correctly from the start.....there should be no reason to turn it off....that's my point.

[PSUColonel]

In fact, I feel a lot of the problems that crop up, come from Markus trying to be all things to all people, and trying to make this feature work without this one, while another one is on, is sometimes a/the problem

[RchW]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

In fact, I feel a lot of the problems that crop up, come from Markus trying to be all things to all people, and trying to make this feature work without this one, while another one is on, is sometimes a/the problem

I'm less concerned about Markus and much more concerned that many feature proposals seem to involve making it easy to game the game because they only work one way. I honestly feel that people want coaching to cause only improvements just to stop what they feel is an unfair excess of failure to develop. Excess failure to develop is the key to realism in the game not the other way around. That's why I proposed a coaching rating system that starts at zero on each new job and only moves in response to team success or failure.

Put another way how do you objectively say coach X is great on a bad team and say coach Y is bad on a good team. I've yet to see evidence that a coach in Houston is objectively worse than one in St. Louis. It's pretty obvious that for some period of time St. Louis coaches have better raw material. As the Houston raw material improves the coaching will seem to get better or another coach will get the credit for working with better raw material as the team has success.

[frangipard]

Originally Posted by RchW

Because I don't want arcade style one way features. A coaching model that only improves is BS and needs to be turned off. Now Leo and I are discussing how it can work both ways. Please add to it.

Relax ... there's no reason it has to have a negative effect on anything. All I'm suggesting is that you have the ability to tell the coaches to redistribute some of the development, not increase it.

Put it this way: assume under the current moodel, each player on a 25 man roster has a base 10% chance of improvement (obviously it's way more complicated than that, but bear with me). You could change it so 24 players have a 9% chance of improvement, and one guy now has a 30% chance of improvement. Or perhaps better, if a player has a random 10% chance of improving each of his 10 skills, you tell the coaches what to focus on, and he now has a 50% chance of developing that skill, but only a 5% chance of improving the other 9.

In both of those scenarios, you've actually reduced the total overall potential growth. But it's both more realistic in the sense that coaches and players in real life do indeed focus on specific skills more than others, depending on the player and the team, AND adds to the game because it now gives the player a different set of strategic choices to make.

And it's optional by default; just as the strategy sliders are there for you to tinker with or not, so too would development strategy be something you could play with or not.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by frangipard

Relax ... there's no reason it has to have a negative effect on anything. All I'm suggesting is that you have the ability to tell the coaches to redistribute some of the development, not increase it.

Put it this way: assume under the current moodel, each player on a 25 man roster has a base 10% chance of improvement (obviously it's way more complicated than that, but bear with me). You could change it so 24 players have a 9% chance of improvement, and one guy now has a 30% chance of improvement. Or perhaps better, if a player has a random 10% chance of improving each of his 10 skills, you tell the coaches what to focus on, and he now has a 50% chance of developing that skill, but only a 5% chance of improving the other 9.


In both of those scenarios, you've actually reduced the total overall potential growth. But it's both more realistic in the sense that coaches and players in real life do indeed focus on specific skills more than others, depending on the player and the team, AND adds to the game because it now gives the player a different set of strategic choices to make.

And it's optional by default; just as the strategy sliders are there for you to tinker with or not, so too would development strategy be something you could play with or not.

That sounds like v6 and v6.5 ST points distribution. That model is long out of date. I'd need to see much more evidence that it actually happens in any way close to this IRL. Let's see where this goes.

[jpeters1734]

Originally Posted by frangipard

Relax ... there's no reason it has to have a negative effect on anything. All I'm suggesting is that you have the ability to tell the coaches to redistribute some of the development, not increase it.

Put it this way: assume under the current moodel, each player on a 25 man roster has a base 10% chance of improvement (obviously it's way more complicated than that, but bear with me). You could change it so 24 players have a 9% chance of improvement, and one guy now has a 30% chance of improvement. Or perhaps better, if a player has a random 10% chance of improving each of his 10 skills, you tell the coaches what to focus on, and he now has a 50% chance of developing that skill, but only a 5% chance of improving the other 9.

In both of those scenarios, you've actually reduced the total overall potential growth. But it's both more realistic in the sense that coaches and players in real life do indeed focus on specific skills more than others, depending on the player and the team, AND adds to the game because it now gives the player a different set of strategic choices to make.

And it's optional by default; just as the strategy sliders are there for you to tinker with or not, so too would development strategy be something you could play with or not.

I liked the idea up to this comment. It's just not realistic to think that these players are not already getting the coaches' full attention. It doesn't make sense to have coaches focus on one player to improve his chances of development. Also, in that scenario, it would be way too easy to just allocate all the points to the top prospects. Coaching does need revamped, but not like this.

[PSUColonel]

I do think development can and should be hindered if you have coaches and payers working together who are not on the same page so to speak, it should be positive, negative, and everything in between. The big question we must all get to work on, is figuring out how to model this in a realistic and competent manner.

[jpeters1734]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

I do think development can and should be hindered if you have coaches and payers working together who are not on the same page so to speak, it should be positive, negative, and everything in between. The big question we must all get to work on, is figuring out how to model this in a realistic and competent manner.

But I really think that system is kind of in place now. If you have a player with low work ethic but a great coach, I think they will balance each other out.