And are we talking pre- or post-change?  You know, when WIS got tired of the crying and created more FI coaches...

I never saw a world that didn't have 32+ with over 50 FI ratings.   And, thru experience, I know players will still develop with an upper 40s FI.    So that's why I need a definition of "decent".

Otherwise, I'm forced to believe owners want everyone to have an 80 FI.

I define decent as probably 68 or so and higher. I know everyone cant have an 80, bu tI should be able to bid on an 80 and if I dont have enough money sign a guy near 70, not be stuck with a 55. And before you rip that statement apart, I would note that this would just put FI's on bar with PC and HC - you can get a guy near 70 easily but have to bid high on the 80s and 90s guys.

The flaws of HC/PC aren't really relevant to FI.

As I said, fielders progress if you have a FI in the upper 40s.   As best I could tell, they didn't improve as much(1-2 points in glove/arm accuracy) as they would have with a 70+ but they did improve.   Ensuring that everyone gets a 68(or near 70) is just another way of saying "Don't even budget for coaching.  Just go the minimum."   Which is pretty much what I do. 

Posted by firemanrob on 12/2/2010 2:15:00 PM (view original):
And are we talking pre- or post-change?  You know, when WIS got tired of the crying and created more FI coaches...

I am talking about post change, and only had an issue once so far, but I had a world where Ineeded an FI and there were three guys in the 80s available and the next best was in the mid-60s at best . So the 3 80s guys got huge money of course and everyone else settled for trash. If I am wrong and you can have decent success with a 59 or 62 FI, then I will stand corrected, but I have always considered the position one of the most important because of the talent drop-off after the top guys and the large disparity in availability of mid-level guys as compared to PC and HC.

It's the most important because it affects your entire organization not because an 80 is so much better than a 68.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/2/2010 2:33:00 PM (view original):
The flaws of HC/PC aren't really relevant to FI.

As I said, fielders progress if you have a FI in the upper 40s.   As best I could tell, they didn't improve as much(1-2 points in glove/arm accuracy) as they would have with a 70+ but they did improve.   Ensuring that everyone gets a 68(or near 70) is just another way of saying "Don't even budget for coaching.  Just go the minimum."   Which is pretty much what I do. 

I would be perfectly happy if they did it the other way, leave FI the way it is, decrease the number of mid-level PC and HC candidates. I just feel the system should be uniform, across the board. Either a balanced selection of guys at each position, or just a few top guys and a bunch of below-average trash at each position. I don't like that it is the first for PC and HC and the later for FI. If my FI does not re-sign, I know I have to add a few million more to coach budget each season because I want a guy in the 70s at least. I dont want or need the 95 guy, but I should be able to find a 75 guy to make an offer to just like the other positions.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/2/2010 2:37:00 PM (view original):
It's the most important because it affects your entire organization not because an 80 is so much better than a 68.

I agree with that, I meant the most important when budgeting because I personally believe that my big league coaches should have their core ratings in the 70s at least. If you are willing to go lower than that, by all means do. I personally have gravitated my games towards a much stronger focus on defense in recent seasons than I used to.

Let me turn it around then, if FI is so important and so few 80s are available, doesn't it place an emphasis on budgeting and coach signing?  Compare that to the inverse.  If you flood the market and mak high-60s/low-70s the worst you can get, why budget?  Just sign the minimum... Too few people see budgeting as being part of the game's strategy.  That's why you see people trading players with big contracts like a week or two after budgeting ends.

Seems to me that the important thing is your players' development relative to the rest of the world you are in. If three owners had FI in the 80s and the other 29 have FI from the mid-60s down, having one at 62 means your players' defensive development will be significantly better than the league average. If you get that result without spending a ton to get one of the three top coaches, I'd say you've made out quite well. Comparing your coaches in this world to coaches in other worlds might make them seem like trash, how is that relevant? If 29 owners have FI rated 50-65, then 62 is hardly trash.

Do FI's that resign after the 1st season with your team still take big paycuts? I signed one 4 seasons ago at 2 mil and he is resigning for 750K for the 4th season in a row. Hell my 3B coach asked for a raise from 550K to 577K.

Posted by firemanrob on 12/2/2010 2:45:00 PM (view original):
Let me turn it around then, if FI is so important and so few 80s are available, doesn't it place an emphasis on budgeting and coach signing?  Compare that to the inverse.  If you flood the market and mak high-60s/low-70s the worst you can get, why budget?  Just sign the minimum... Too few people see budgeting as being part of the game's strategy.  That's why you see people trading players with big contracts like a week or two after budgeting ends.

I guarantee you the 80s and 90s guys will still get top dollar. Budgetting is part of game startegy, perhaps the most important part if you are looking at a long term commitment to a league. My personal strategy is to get my coaches cheaply because I dont want to pay the premium prices for the top guys, however, I feel forced to pay premium dollar whenever I need a FI.

Posted by crickett13 on 12/2/2010 2:52:00 PM (view original):
Do FI's that resign after the 1st season with your team still take big paycuts? I signed one 4 seasons ago at 2 mil and he is resigning for 750K for the 4th season in a row. Hell my 3B coach asked for a raise from 550K to 577K.

another reason why the system is still broken. You get your guy back sometimes cheaper than you paid to get him, but if my guy doesnt re-sign I need to pay a huge extra premium. Looking at it another way, top "free agent" FI's are still being grossly overpaid compared to their relative worth and compared to the salaries of top PC and HC, which means the system is failing.

I just did a quick check in my worlds that have played a significant amount of games(a couple are 40 games or less into the season).    With one exception, the owners plunking 3-5m into a FI are also losing a ton of games.   While FI has no effect of how your team is playing(and I'm sure someone will say "But they're developing their prospects!!!"), it does affect where you can put your funds.   For the most part, those same owners haven't had a lot of HBD success.  Don't know if there's a correlation but it seems to me that worrying yourself over making sure your FI is comparable to your HC/PC, ratings-wise, might be a strategy for losing.

I've got an 80(630k), 69(750k), 56(500k) and a 63(508k).   I don't feel as if I'm losing a thing by not paying 3m for a FI.

Examples:
In ABU, my FI has re-signed consistently every season for 500k. He is a 77 defense guy. In Jackson, the world I was refrring to with the lack of FI's, I ended up having to settle for a 500k 61 defense guy because the 4.5 million I budgeted to get one of the top few guys wasnt even enough, and the drop off went from 80 to 63 or so. In FYC, two years ago I signed a 77 guy for 3.25 million, he then re-signed the following year for 750k. In Mays I had to spend 3.6 million for a 68 rated guy. while signing an 82 rated HC for under 2 million.