|
||||
|
|
Earlier versions of OOTP: New to the game? A place for all new Out of the Park Baseball fans to ask questions about the game. |
|
Thread Tools |
11-06-2011, 10:45 AM | #1 |
Minors (Single A)
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 78
|
Coach ratings question please
Hi,
Just a question about coach ratings. I just purchased this and am playing every pitch of every game thus far (7 games in total). My question is as follows...some of the coaches ratings are "unknown" when it comes to various categories. Do these labels change over time..so for example if my handling rookies is labelled as unknown..will it change at some point? Surely it would become known in time. The way I plan on tracking it is simply looking at the player development figures and obviously if they are jumping higher in a particular category i could logically assume he was good in that area..but my point is, will these labels change eventually? or always remain unknown. |
11-06-2011, 10:54 AM | #2 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Yankee Stadium, back in 1998.
Posts: 8,645
|
Here is the scale, and yes, they do improve to some extent with years of experience:
Coach-Scout Ratings Scale The coach-scout ratings range like this from best to worse: Legendary Excellent Good Decent Average OK Fair Inexperienced Unknown |
11-06-2011, 11:01 AM | #3 |
Minors (Single A)
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 78
|
thanks - so sounding stupid..then does this make uknown the worst coach rating or simply "not-known" but could be a "good" be seasons end? in other words is it possible that a coach with "unknown" rating could end up being a superstar quality coach? or must he progress up the scale as per the answer above.
thanks again. |
11-06-2011, 08:32 PM | #4 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Yankee Stadium, back in 1998.
Posts: 8,645
|
You're asking some good questions which started me thinking. First, I think a coach (or scout) who is unknown or inexperienced is not going to be very good at his job. That is, "unknown" does not mean "undiscovered" in that the guy is actually a genius and a wonderful influence on your players. I don't think the game works that way.
Second, I am reasonably sure that the coach (or scout) must work his way up the scale, rating by rating. Maybe skipping a level or two, perhaps. But no, he will not go from unknown to "Excellent" or "Legendary" overnight. Again, the key is experience, working with the ratings that the game gives him to begin with. I took a look at a coach's profile editor tab. You cannot just dial up the years of experience manually and have the ratings change themselves. I gave a hitting coach with a rating of 3 (scale 0-200) for teaching pitching, 30 years experience and nothing changed. Of course, I could put in 200 as a rating for teaching pitching and make him into a legendary pitching coach as well as a hitting coach. My point is that since he is starting with only one year experience and a 3 rating for teaching pitching, he will NEVER be a good pitching coach. But since he is starting with a 60 for teaching hitting (which equals "OK"), with some years experience and the game raising this rating accordingly over time, he may become "Good" someday. Maybe not, because he does need to double his rating to 120 to get there. On the other hand, I took a look at another 1-year experience hitting coach who is already rated "Average" because he is starting with an 85 rating for teaching hitting. This guy could end up "Good" or "Excellent" with some experience, a lot easier than the first coach. Could the game jump up somebody at a faster rate? I think so. The developers try to build randomness into this game to make things (like what I told you above, which is true in general) less predictable. That is why, while it is not likely, I believe your "Unknown" coach could indeed be "Legendary" someday. But probably not. Last edited by 1998 Yankees; 11-06-2011 at 08:38 PM. |
11-06-2011, 09:13 PM | #5 |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Diamond, IL
Posts: 6,339
Infractions: 2/2 (3)
|
Here are the 2003 White Sox coaches. I created them all only by turning the former players into coaches. I edited my trainer only.
Manuel, Nossek, Coop & Joshua all started out as unknown. The Sox have won the division twice 2001-02 lost in ALCS & ALDS respectively. (The GM is an AI invention) |
11-06-2011, 09:42 PM | #6 |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Yankee Stadium, back in 1998.
Posts: 8,645
|
Two responses to that, Cf76. First, the teaching part of coaching ratings are more for young player development and are not as important on the major league level. They do have some impact but I think in the pros the handling portion of coaching ratings are more important. Second, coaching is only an influence on the success of players and teams, not a determinant. If you have good, excellent, great players on your team, you are going to win even if you have Ernest P. Worrell clones coaching them.
|
11-07-2011, 08:15 PM | #7 |
Minors (Single A)
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 78
|
So based on what Im reading, then it might be worth it to just shell out a little dough and hire high quality rated coaches rather than taking on the risk of bringing on "unknown" coaches. Im not sure exactly how this works, but I would assume that coaches have a bigger influence on minor league teams where players are still green and really still developing. Im not sure if this is the case, but it seems like a logical conclusion for one to draw. So whatever the rating influence of the coaches are, I would assume a greater weighting would be given to them with respect to the teams ultimate success for minor league teams.
Personally, I think that if Chicago won the division twice in a short period of time, your coach or coaches should jump a couple of levels...as opposed to a coach who wins the division say, twice over a 10 year period. I also think that for some of these coaches with significant experience ie 10-15 years, they really shouldnt be rated as uknown. I think that only new coaches ie retired players who newly become coachs in the game should be uknown...the rest should have some kind of rating as long as they have at least 1 year experience. Just my two cents. The game is terrific with respect to details, would be nice if the coaches were just as detailed. One last small point given that Im new to this game..but I notice coahes have a historical record associated with them..but for pitching or hitting coaches that would always be 0 wins and 0 losses. But does the game note a coaches association with the team..so if i look at a coaches card who i might want to hire..yes he could be 0-0 in 10 years of being a pitching coach, but at least i could see his year by year breakdown and what position he had with what team. For example, if I knew in 2010 that Coach A was the hitting coach for the ChiSox and I could check their historicals to see the teams batting average and offensive output, I would rather hire him than someone else. My point is, do the other coaches other than the manager, despite not having a win loss record at least show his position, the year, the teams record, and for hitting coaches the teams average, homers for each season? I mean everyone should have a resume..but maybe thats for next years edition or an update or patch. Thanks |
11-08-2011, 08:11 AM | #8 | |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Diamond, IL
Posts: 6,339
Infractions: 2/2 (3)
|
Quote:
When the AI turns former players into coaches they rate them higher then when I turn them into coaches. Ownbey (forgot his 1st name) was made into the CLE mgr by the AI he is rated as outstanding whereas Ozzie Guillen I edited to outstanding and i made Theo Epstein Legendary as a GM. For the Sox HC's Von Joshua and Greg Walker i left them alone, they both sucked IRL they should suck in ootp also. i edit a few coaches each yr. |
|
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
|
|