Targeted coaching/development

[RchW]

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.

This is essentially a request for custom development/aging at the individual player level. I don't think that is possible to program. At least not in any way to preserve the stat output through ratings. The permutations and combinations of thousands of players interacting with tens and/or hundreds of coaches while changing leagues maybe positions and teams and coaches seems formidable. I could buy this at a team level; not so much each player.

I'm willing to be convinced.

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

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.

Yes, there should be a reason to turn it off. Not everybody wants to micromanage their minors and coaches.

[frangipard]

Originally Posted by jpeters1734

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.

1) If you're suggesting that minor league coaches give the same amount of time and attention to the 33 year old AAAA guy and the 21 year old prospect, I think that's a bit naive. Of course, that focus is presumably already reflected in the game's progression model. What isn't is the specific focus on skills I'm talking about.

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. .... But it does acknowledge that coaching resources are a currency that teams choose how they wish to allocate, and those choices matter.

You won't get through many spring training articles without hearing some specifics about how this or that player is working on this or that skill. This guy is focused on not hanging his curveball, coaches want that guy to be more patient at the plate. It's simply not true that each player works equally hard on each skill.

In some cases, it's a pretty key strategic decision: if a team gives up on developing a third pitch, it's off to the bullpen. If a guy with a weak hit tool can play a decent SS, you might want to focus on getting his defense up to plus instead of working on the hitting.

[jpeters1734]

Originally Posted by frangipard

1) If you're suggesting that minor league coaches give the same amount of time and attention to the 33 year old AAAA guy and the 21 year old prospect, I think that's a bit naive. Of course, that focus is presumably already reflected in the game's progression model. What isn't is the specific focus on skills I'm talking about.

You are talking about targeting certain players for chance development bumps. I shouldn't have to tell my minor league coaches to focus on the 19 year old versus the 33 year old. But that is what you are suggesting. Some things do not need to be told.

[frangipard]

Originally Posted by jpeters1734

You are talking about targeting certain players for chance development bumps. I shouldn't have to tell my minor league coaches to focus on the 19 year old versus the 33 year old. But that is what you are suggesting.

No, that was one way of accomplishing the goal of making intentional player development an active part of the GM's job. The part in boldface is another way.

[Walsh06]

It should be pointed out that this exists in other games. FM being a good example. Your staff can suggest certain training for players to improve skills or a playing position. However sometimes it works, sometimes it doesnt. Also players will become unhappy with the extra training they are being set so you have to be careful. A players acceptance of extra training would tie into their work ethic.

I do think its a good feature to add. There are times where I want a player to develop in a certain way but I have to just sit back and hope that happens. I would like some bit of input that might increase the chances of certain improvement but of course lower other (as explained earlier).