Leader Ability in historical?

[SittingDuck]

First I guess this isn't something that a db can really do much about because it's a figurative game concept and not hard data.

So I notice that historical players (on a 2-8 scale) are usually rated '2' with a superstar here and there rated '3'.

Question is, what impact does this have on the game and players, if any?

[swampdragon]

I came to the conclusion that all of the subjective ratings for historical players were random.

[SittingDuck]

Indeed. I'd almost not have them at all.

[No Pepper]

Random, yes. But I have a related question. I'm playing a 1901 historical universe with coaches on. I also have a fictional league built in, with fictional players. All the coaches of course are fictional as well, but I've noticed that at the start of the game, all the historical teams have lousy coaches - not even the best are average on the scale - and the fictional league has all the great ones. Finances of the two leagues are roughly the same and of course after the first year, coaches go through the wash and spin cycle. Has anyone else seen this?

If coaches do have an impact, like personality ratings can, doesn't that give the fictional leaguers (set at an independent lower level) a distinct development (dis)advantage?

[blackrussian]

Originally Posted by No Pepper

If coaches do have an impact, like personality ratings can, doesn't that give the fictional leaguers (set at an independent lower level) a distinct development (dis)advantage?

yes it would, but the game generates staff based on the level of the league. so if you wanted it to function like a truly independent pro league just at a lower quality (lets say AA) you would likely need to manually edit the initial ratings yourself.

fwiw, i ran a small experiment to track if coaches/managers actually improve over time. and the answer is yes. just as with players, its variable. some will improve slightly, others will improve in only particular attributes and some coaches do break through and move into major league jobs. it was a quick and dirty study if you will, so i dont have any particular percentages on how much they improved and how many made the majors but it seemed relatively realistic.

[No Pepper]

Interesting experiment. But I'm not sure why my historical major league would have coaches with ratings no higher than 6 (on a 1-20 scale) and a fictional, AA-level league created at the same time in the same universe would have a plethora of coaches at ratings 15 and above? Ah well.