Who says coaches don't affect players development? Topic

crickett13
Posts: 2396 (0)
Hall of Famer
398 74 25 145
Prospect
Posted by csherwood on 12/2/2010 2:55:00 PM (view original):
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 has several discussions with support about this when they were changing it and yes it is the silliest part of the whole coach hiring game.
12/2/2010 3:01 PM
csherwood
Posts: 533 (0)
Hall of Famer
12 116
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 12/2/2010 2:59:00 PM (view original):
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.
Coaching and immediate success have no relationship - you only spend on coaches to help in the long run. I am not knocking your strategy, I am knocking the inconsistency in HBD from one type of coach to the next.
12/2/2010 3:03 PM
csherwood
Posts: 533 (0)
Hall of Famer
12 116
Prospect
And maybe this si another flaw, maybe there should be a better relationship between coaching and immediate success. Example: pitcher is in trouble, have the PC come out for a mound conference. If his ratings are high enough, the guy settles down and gets a temporary ratings boost, if the PC sucks, his speech is ineffective and the guy gets a temporary ratings decline. Let hitting coaches and base coaches have a greater affect on stuff like hit and run, bunts, sacrifices. If this stuff is already in the game, I have not seen it play out.
12/2/2010 3:07 PM
crickett13
Posts: 2396 (0)
Hall of Famer
398 74 25 145
Prospect
Sign a young one with good loyalty and a rating in the mid 60's to low 70's and reap the rewards for years as he resigns over and over for 750K
12/2/2010 3:08 PM
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Show
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by csherwood on 12/2/2010 3:03:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 12/2/2010 2:59:00 PM (view original):
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.
Coaching and immediate success have no relationship - you only spend on coaches to help in the long run. I am not knocking your strategy, I am knocking the inconsistency in HBD from one type of coach to the next.
OK, you worded "But they're developing prospects!!" differently but the point remains.     Guys who are sweating that 73 FI are throwing budget money into it and losing games.     5 seasons from now, maybe they're big winners.   But they aren't now nor have they been in the past.     I happen to think they are probably the same owners who are afraid to demote a guy hitting .137 because he might lose 2 points off his contact or the same owners who insist of 70 control and spit on the Cy Young candidate with 68 control.    In other words, they are not big picture guys.
12/2/2010 3:20 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect

In truth, WifS should trash the entire coaching system because the current one makes no one happy.    I'm fine dropping 6-7m into coaching while my competitors fight for those extra 6 pts while doubling my budget.   But I've changed my mind as this being the "best" option.

WifS should adopt "teams" of coaches.   Maybe 40 per world.   They'll have unique ratings but, instead of hiring 22 coaches, you'll hire one.  24 hour period, blind bid on up to 3 of them. 

12/2/2010 3:32 PM
firemanrob
Posts: 69 (0)
Hall of Famer
69 39 16
Prospect
Posted by csherwood on 12/2/2010 2:53:00 PM (view original):
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.
Sooo... whats the issue?  If you want a 68+ FI coach, and only 3 exist, then you should budget accordingly, knowing that your target is going to go for 3-4M+.  If you have the mentality that you want to save (be cheap) on coaching and don't budget a lot and cannot sign a FI coach 68+ and have to settle for high-50s or something, the flaw isn't the system, its the strategy.  That was the problem before they flooded the market with the creation of more FI coaches.  There wasn't enough 70+ talent for people who didn't budget a lot for coaching, so they in turn would end up signing 40s and 50s.  They complained enough and coaches were added.  The flaw wasn't coach generation, it was people's strategies.  They wanted a certain "thing", but didnt budget for it and then whined when they didnt get it
12/2/2010 3:34 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
I need a SS who can hit in MG.   WifS should create more.   There just aren't enough.
12/2/2010 3:35 PM
tmantom3285
Posts: 137 (0)
All Star
1 2 46
Prospect
agreed, that could also help to prevent someone from having an awful coach destroy prospects (see orignal post).
12/2/2010 3:37 PM
csherwood
Posts: 533 (0)
Hall of Famer
12 116
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 12/2/2010 3:32:00 PM (view original):

In truth, WifS should trash the entire coaching system because the current one makes no one happy.    I'm fine dropping 6-7m into coaching while my competitors fight for those extra 6 pts while doubling my budget.   But I've changed my mind as this being the "best" option.

WifS should adopt "teams" of coaches.   Maybe 40 per world.   They'll have unique ratings but, instead of hiring 22 coaches, you'll hire one.  24 hour period, blind bid on up to 3 of them. 

+1
12/2/2010 3:38 PM
firemanrob
Posts: 69 (0)
Hall of Famer
69 39 16
Prospect
Yeah and thats a HBD-wide issue, so there should be no shortage of whiners/complainers.  Derek Jeters for everyone!!!
12/2/2010 3:38 PM
firemanrob
Posts: 69 (0)
Hall of Famer
69 39 16
Prospect
Posted by csherwood on 12/2/2010 3:38:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 12/2/2010 3:32:00 PM (view original):

In truth, WifS should trash the entire coaching system because the current one makes no one happy.    I'm fine dropping 6-7m into coaching while my competitors fight for those extra 6 pts while doubling my budget.   But I've changed my mind as this being the "best" option.

WifS should adopt "teams" of coaches.   Maybe 40 per world.   They'll have unique ratings but, instead of hiring 22 coaches, you'll hire one.  24 hour period, blind bid on up to 3 of them. 

+1
Well, I believe there was a poll be conducted (unofficial or official) a few months back addressing that issue and I believe a lot of people defending keeping the current system.  I know I started a thread with that poll as the subject of discussion... just have to find it
12/2/2010 3:41 PM
csherwood
Posts: 533 (0)
Hall of Famer
12 116
Prospect
Posted by firemanrob on 12/2/2010 3:34:00 PM (view original):
Posted by csherwood on 12/2/2010 2:53:00 PM (view original):
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.
Sooo... whats the issue?  If you want a 68+ FI coach, and only 3 exist, then you should budget accordingly, knowing that your target is going to go for 3-4M+.  If you have the mentality that you want to save (be cheap) on coaching and don't budget a lot and cannot sign a FI coach 68+ and have to settle for high-50s or something, the flaw isn't the system, its the strategy.  That was the problem before they flooded the market with the creation of more FI coaches.  There wasn't enough 70+ talent for people who didn't budget a lot for coaching, so they in turn would end up signing 40s and 50s.  They complained enough and coaches were added.  The flaw wasn't coach generation, it was people's strategies.  They wanted a certain "thing", but didnt budget for it and then whined when they didnt get it
again, when the top FI's are getting 5 million a year and the top PC's are getting 3 million, something is wrong. I agree you need to budget for the top of the line if thats what you really want, but I feel that there is a flaw in the system here if a fielding instructor is more valued than a bench coach or a pitching coach. How manyreal MLB pitching coaches can you name? I bet most of us can easily get 5-10. How many real MLB third base coaches can you name? Probably the same at least. Now, how many real MLB fielding instructors can you name? I would be shocked at anyone that knows more than 1, and most of us the number is probably 0.
12/2/2010 3:41 PM
csherwood
Posts: 533 (0)
Hall of Famer
12 116
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 12/2/2010 3:35:00 PM (view original):
I need a SS who can hit in MG.   WifS should create more.   There just aren't enough.
There are plenty of them - you just also want one who can field. :)
12/2/2010 3:45 PM
◂ Prev 123456 Next ▸
Who says coaches don't affect players development? Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.