Suggestions: Personnel

[Tony M]

Suggestion

Slightly warped brain working here having read the story of the AA coach killed by a line drive.

Coaches/Managers/Scouts to suffer injuries which prevent them from doing their job.

Reason

They're immortal at the moment

Priority

Medium-High

[Geebob]

Suggestion

Bring the Job Center over from FM/WSM. Basically, this lets you advertise for a job opening and negotiate with interested applicants, instead of wandering through a database of every coach from the Yankees to the Waukesha little league system.


Reason

The Job Center is a terrific feature in FM/WSM that is both friendly to use and realistic. Neither is true of the current staff hiring process.

Priority

High (we heard about the "synergies" possible with the link-up between OOTP and SI... this one seems like a no brainer.)

[Rainier 1]

Suggestion
Allow years of experience for personnel to be edited.

Reason
All other info can be changed except experience. Historical players cannot accurately edit team personnel. Not realistic to have a 32 year old coach or GM with 28 years of experience.

Priority
medium - high

[Raidergoo]

Processed.

[cephasjames]

Suggestion
On the managers history and HTML pages, stop giving them a 'year' credit for signing on after the season is over or with multiple teams. Like players, only give them credited for years they manage games in.

Reason:
This makes the 'years managed' stat look stupid. I've had managers credited for 10 years of managing in a league only 5 years old.

Priority
Mediud-high, imo

[cephasjames]

Suggestion:
In Manager's histories when a team that he managed relocates all references to that team then become where the team is currently located.

example:
1979 Baltimore Orioles
1980 Baltimore Orioles (after this season the team moves to South Bend)

As soon as the team moves to South Bend the 'Baltimore Orioles' from 1979 & 1980 become the 'South Bend Orioles' as if Baltimore never existed.

My suggestion... stop this!

Reason:
It doesn't change like that fro players, don't make it change like that for managers.

Priority:
medium-high

[Mr. Capo]

Suggestion:
Give the team owner an identity, and give us the option of role-playing the owner.

Reason:
Historically some team owners have been colorful characters, actively involved in their teams, and strongly identified with their teams' image. As it stands now, the owner is a nameless entity. We can role-play an odd blend of GM, manager, and commissioner, but not owner.

Even the team doctor has an identity, so should the owner.

Priority
Medium-low.
But I bet a lot of people would like it.

[Mr. Capo]

Sugestion:
Create identities for the play-by-play and color announcers.
Better ones would get paid higher salaries, but would contribute to the popularity of the team.

Reason:
It's realistic, it'd be fun, and it would add another user-controlled element to improving the team's finances and forming the team's image.

Priority:
Low,
but it would be fun.

[jarmenia]

Originally Posted by tysok

Don't know if this should go in this section, but managers need to be intelligent with their strategies.

Right now you hire a manager and ask him to set your ingame strategies. He believes in stealing bases so his strategies for the game is to steal like a mad crazy person... all the time. Doesn't matter if it's the 9th inning down by 1 run or if it's the first inning up by 50... he just has runners going like there's no tomorrow. In other words every slider is set the same for every situation. This results in stupidity. If the manager believes in letting his pitcher work out of trouble he sets the slider as such, it'll be the same if he's up by 10 in the 5th or if he's up by 1 in the bottom of the 9th.... that doesn't work.

I don't expect that it would be in depth and exactly what I expect (or what I would do)... but seeing that he does acknowledge that there's a difference between the two situations is important.

Then only problem with this is that the slider settings are already relative. So if a slider is maxed to steal in the first three innings in a tie game if the base "steal chance" is 30%, it may go up to 40%. But in the 9th and a tie game, if the base "steal chance" is 60%, it may go up to 70%.

For this to be implemented, the slider settings would have to be made so they are no longer relative to the average value for that situation. I'd be in favor of this then.

[Raidergoo]

Processed

[tysok]

Originally Posted by jarmenia

Then only problem with this is that the slider settings are already relative. So if a slider is maxed to steal in the first three innings in a tie game if the base "steal chance" is 30%, it may go up to 40%. But in the 9th and a tie game, if the base "steal chance" is 60%, it may go up to 70%.

For this to be implemented, the slider settings would have to be made so they are no longer relative to the average value for that situation. I'd be in favor of this then.

The thing I've seen is that these sliders do make a difference. I saw some real stupid things going on, went and changed the sliders and they stopped. I'm talking about pitchers staying in after 2 walks up by one in the ninth, or a player trying to steal third with 2 outs in the 9th of a tie game. It certainly appears that these sliders make a difference in the game.

If it is relative then the relativity is off. My changes aren't drastic, and I constantly come with equal stats as the other teams. My move down from the managers longer hook in close late games is just like 2 notches, yet my team continues to have normal complete games, my bullpen notches up appropriate appearances. The only thing is I don't blow a lot of games becaus emy idiot manager lets him walk the bases loaded before getting someone up in the pen.

My team is a little skewed for various reasons, but I win over 100 for 29 straight years now. My worst record, 101 wins or so, was the year my manager retired and I got a new one. I didn't bother setting the sliders that year, and it cost me quite a few games with an all-star team... how many would it have cost a mediocre or even pretty good team?

Just as more info on this, not to argue the point here. I'd enjoy hearing from Markus on this so I can try and make some sense out of these moronic managers.

[Dregen]

Suggestion
1st Base Coach

Reason
Realism and helps runners with their base stealing.

Priority
Medium

[OldFatGuy]

Suggestion
Have coaches start out being very good teachers (possibly excelling in one of the 3 teaching areas), and then develop their ability to handle players.

Reason
Realism. Most coaches IRL are initially hired because they are already good at teaching their craft. The ones that then learn to "handle" players are the ones that progress into managers. Managers main job is handling the personalities and issues of the team, teaching is left to others at that point. Also, this allows you to place good teachers in the minors, helping in player development. Right now, the best teachers are also the best hanlders and/or are already in the majors. Sending them down to the minors (where teaching is more important) is like a demotion. And like player development, perhaps some would develop handling abilities well and move into management whereas others never will and remain career coaches.

Priority
Medium
<!-- / message -->

[Raidergoo]

Processed

[Muzamba]

Suggestion:
Have a pool of agents with individual qualities assigned to each player. Each agent would have a rating that indicates how difficult he/she is to negotiate with.

Reason:
Adds a touch of realism by giving contract negotiations a little personality. Plus, it would be easier to predict how difficult it will be to meet a player's demands. No more need for the random "I simply don't like your organization" comments.

Priority:
LOW

[Raidergoo]

All suggestions in the thread have been collected.