I'd bet more people leave HBD, or make up their mind to leave & maybe hang out giving it a half effort for a season, during coach hiring than any other time of the season.

It's absolutely no fun. You don't get to see your coaches perform during the season.  You have not idea if it worth the effort, as there's no direct feedback if your prospects progresses above or below normal because of your coaches.  You can try to figure it out after playing a lot of season, but even then it's more of guess than anything else, because WIS thinks it's cool to not share how the game works.

Coach hiring is dominated by tricks that it takes a while to figure out. How to wait for the right cycle to raise (or make) an offer. How to save a lot of money by offering different roles. How to tank coaching at 1 or 2 levels & max it out at others.  All  well designed to drive away new HBD players.

Coaches refusing to take a different role or coach at a different level no matter how much money is offered is silly. Not a realistic simulation. I can't see any benefit to the game by a coach who wants to coach at AAA refusing an offer for his demands at AA or HiA.

Anybody who complains about any aspect of coach hiring is on the right track.  There are too many thing wrong with it to criticize any particular complaint.

I doubt that's why most people give up HBD.  Nonetheless........



1.  Coach hiring.  Savvy owners don't spend 2m on a hitting/pitching/bench coach because they don't have to.  There are 50 of them at any given time of BL-quality.   This creates a disparity between experienced/inexperienced owners that needs to be addressed.   Keep the rehire process as it is but, once that's over, all unhired coaches go into a pool with no positional/level/salary demands.   Let the owners sort out the levels and positions.   Cap salaries at 4m per coach(players have a max so coaches can) and make FI the most sought after job.  That will prevent jerks like me from hiring all the decent FI as BC so no one else gets one. 

Posted by tecwrg on 5/28/2012 9:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by kschoenberg on 5/28/2012 5:06:00 PM (view original):
So, going by your numbers that means 11 teams had FIs with ratings below 65 and this is good? Also, at least one team hired a BC as a FI. Why the short supply to get a reasonable coach?
Are there any other coaching positions where it is so hard to get a mediocre and above coach?

Are you trying to argue that everybody should have a 65+ FI?

If FI coaches below 65 negatively effect prospect development...yes there should be the opportunity for more owners to have better FI coaches. I'm not talking 80+, but in the 65+ range.
A market that causes more to be spent on a coach than some Type A FAs is warped.
I also agree that there are far too many highly rated HC and PC driving their value down.

You have to get into the 20s to negatively impact prospect development.  

But the SS/SP scenario still applies.  A legit SS who hits .218 negatively impacts my chances to win games.   The lack of an ace SP negatively impacts my chance to win games.   I either pay for them or I don't because they are out there.   In a game based on decision-making, I have to make a decision.

Remove coach demands and let the market decide level/job and salary (above minimum), when they decide they don't want to renew with your club.
I'm so fed up of there being literally 50 guys asking for a ML job when there is one open ML coach spot for their coach type and no coaches looking for AA, HiA, AAA.

Posted by Crump123 on 6/7/2012 11:54:00 AM (view original):
Remove coach demands and let the market decide level/job and salary (above minimum), when they decide they don't want to renew with your club.
I'm so fed up of there being literally 50 guys asking for a ML job when there is one open ML coach spot for their coach type and no coaches looking for AA, HiA, AAA.

+1

Even better, make coaching a budget item like Scouting & Training. Keep the strategy of setting a budget.  Or more than one budget.  Remove the drudgery & poor decision making logic.  

Add to the game by subtracting a complex and absolutely no fun part of the game.  When/if an WIS ever invests any money into improving the game, there are other areas they should focus on that would help bring in new players & keep existing players.

Removing coaches would be a backward step, a little streamlining of demands, or removing demands would make things better, but removing them is a step too far. Coach hiring is fine as it is, you only need to bid once or twice for a coach.

I forgot who, but someone once mentioned eliminating coaching demands all together, and just have general supply and demand determine where each coach ends up.  I like this idea.

That was me.   Several times.  Even on this page.

Ah. Look at that.

This was the response so I wouldn't look for much to happen in the near future:

#1

We have definitely made some very significant improvements, however the whole process is still time consuming and just not that fun. We are continually debating what will make it better. We have ideas, you guys have ideas, so when we make some internal decisions we will seek feedback from everyone on the issue. I feel that this is a pretty good start, however, I do not believe that it will relieve the disparity entirely. 

I don't mind coach hiring because I feel like my strategy nets me a fairly consistent (although small) advantage over other players who don't totally understand it. I would honestly say that I spend less than 20 minutes total doing coach hiring. I can't believe everybody thinks it is such a pain.

Yeah, it's not so bad.  What bugs me is the way that the system can be worked by a savvy owner.