Who says coaches don't affect players development? Topic

MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by new on 12/2/2010 4:10:00 PM (view original):
The reason top FI make more the PC or HC is they have more of an effect.  They coach your entire org where the other two dont.  Also, how often are your developing prospects in the big leagues?  In most situations the big leaguers are at or very near there final level so it doesnt really matter how skilled there coaches is.  For instance my 28 year old slugger doesnt care if his coaches hitting IQ is 60 or 90. 
Many of us believe that good coaching slows the decline of learned skills.
12/2/2010 4:15 PM
firemanrob
Posts: 69 (0)
Hall of Famer
69 39 16
Prospect
Posted by csherwood on 12/2/2010 4:12:00 PM (view original):
Posted by firemanrob on 12/2/2010 4:11:00 PM (view original):
But thats not the debate.  You were debating individual level coaches vs 1 coach for an entire organization. 

And to address your suggestion, it wouldn't be a pitching czar, it would be budgeting for "teams" of coaches.  So you just budget a certain amount that you want to dedicate to pitching, hitting, base coaches, etc. 
ok, then lets make fielding instructors all worth 10 times more...but also make the ones that re-sign with the same team demand the same they made the year before. I should not get to re-sign a guy at a 75% savings.
Thats a flaw in coach hiring across the board, again thats a different topic. 

Individual HC/PC vs fielding czar is where we are currently in HBD.
12/2/2010 4:16 PM
csherwood
Posts: 533 (0)
Hall of Famer
12 116
Prospect
Posted by firemanrob on 12/2/2010 4:14:00 PM (view original):
Posted by csherwood on 12/2/2010 4:06:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 12/2/2010 4:03:00 PM (view original):
Will you appoint many czars?
I will promise to if it will make you vote for me. Then fail to do so and blame it on Congress even though my political party has overwhelming majorities in both houses.
Well...Politics 101 would tell you that laws are made in Congress.  So in that respect, he is justified.  Regardless of who's in political control, if you can't pass legislation in the Senate and HoR, the president might as well be my f-ing dog and he's dumb as sh!t.
I have a degree in political science, I know how laws are passed. As for the relationship between Barry and your dog...well thats personal to the two of them. :)
12/2/2010 4:17 PM
mhulshult
Posts: 982 (0)
Hall of Famer
5 3 63
Prospect
Rather than signing fielding coaches, we should have the option to buy them all Tom Emanski videos and be done with it.
12/2/2010 4:19 PM
csherwood
Posts: 533 (0)
Hall of Famer
12 116
Prospect
Posted by firemanrob on 12/2/2010 4:16:00 PM (view original):
Posted by csherwood on 12/2/2010 4:12:00 PM (view original):
Posted by firemanrob on 12/2/2010 4:11:00 PM (view original):
But thats not the debate.  You were debating individual level coaches vs 1 coach for an entire organization. 

And to address your suggestion, it wouldn't be a pitching czar, it would be budgeting for "teams" of coaches.  So you just budget a certain amount that you want to dedicate to pitching, hitting, base coaches, etc. 
ok, then lets make fielding instructors all worth 10 times more...but also make the ones that re-sign with the same team demand the same they made the year before. I should not get to re-sign a guy at a 75% savings.
Thats a flaw in coach hiring across the board, again thats a different topic. 

Individual HC/PC vs fielding czar is where we are currently in HBD.
It may be a flaw across the board but it is less noticeable at other positions because (1) minimum demands for re-signing PC and HC are much higher if they are top of the line, and (2) there are so many decent mid-level HC and PC available that anyone with experience in the game would rarely spend huge dollars on those positions. The fact that FI is a "czar" position makes it more important to spend big money there if you are inclined to spend big anywhere.
12/2/2010 4:20 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Butt down, hands in front!!!  

That's either a way to field ground balls or gay porn directions.
12/2/2010 4:20 PM
firemanrob
Posts: 69 (0)
Hall of Famer
69 39 16
Prospect
Posted by csherwood on 12/2/2010 4:17:00 PM (view original):
Posted by firemanrob on 12/2/2010 4:14:00 PM (view original):
Posted by csherwood on 12/2/2010 4:06:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 12/2/2010 4:03:00 PM (view original):
Will you appoint many czars?
I will promise to if it will make you vote for me. Then fail to do so and blame it on Congress even though my political party has overwhelming majorities in both houses.
Well...Politics 101 would tell you that laws are made in Congress.  So in that respect, he is justified.  Regardless of who's in political control, if you can't pass legislation in the Senate and HoR, the president might as well be my f-ing dog and he's dumb as sh!t.
I have a degree in political science, I know how laws are passed. As for the relationship between Barry and your dog...well thats personal to the two of them. :)
Just checking because it seemed like your 4:06 post was disregarding that knowledge
12/2/2010 4:22 PM
csherwood
Posts: 533 (0)
Hall of Famer
12 116
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 12/2/2010 4:20:00 PM (view original):
Butt down, hands in front!!!  

That's either a way to field ground balls or gay porn directions.
..or what is normally being heard being yelled from the cellar by passersby in front of MikeT's house.
12/2/2010 4:25 PM
firemanrob
Posts: 69 (0)
Hall of Famer
69 39 16
Prospect
Posted by csherwood on 12/2/2010 4:20:00 PM (view original):
Posted by firemanrob on 12/2/2010 4:16:00 PM (view original):
Posted by csherwood on 12/2/2010 4:12:00 PM (view original):
Posted by firemanrob on 12/2/2010 4:11:00 PM (view original):
But thats not the debate.  You were debating individual level coaches vs 1 coach for an entire organization. 

And to address your suggestion, it wouldn't be a pitching czar, it would be budgeting for "teams" of coaches.  So you just budget a certain amount that you want to dedicate to pitching, hitting, base coaches, etc. 
ok, then lets make fielding instructors all worth 10 times more...but also make the ones that re-sign with the same team demand the same they made the year before. I should not get to re-sign a guy at a 75% savings.
Thats a flaw in coach hiring across the board, again thats a different topic. 

Individual HC/PC vs fielding czar is where we are currently in HBD.
It may be a flaw across the board but it is less noticeable at other positions because (1) minimum demands for re-signing PC and HC are much higher if they are top of the line, and (2) there are so many decent mid-level HC and PC available that anyone with experience in the game would rarely spend huge dollars on those positions. The fact that FI is a "czar" position makes it more important to spend big money there if you are inclined to spend big anywhere.
You made my case for me.  Because FI is an organizational-level position and not a ML/AAA/AA-level position, it should command more money.  I think people sometimes feel like it should be equal to or less than a ML-HC/PC.  And as you just said, there's more of those other coaches available, so spending tons of money doesn't make sense if a close alternate is available for cheaper
12/2/2010 4:28 PM
csherwood
Posts: 533 (0)
Hall of Famer
12 116
Prospect
..and you made my point: If my HC or PC chooses not to re-sign, I can easily get someone of similar ability for the same amount of moeny re-signing my own guy would have cost me. If my FI does not re-sign, I need to pay a huge extra premium to get a similar guy back.
12/2/2010 4:34 PM
firemanrob
Posts: 69 (0)
Hall of Famer
69 39 16
Prospect
and...
12/2/2010 4:43 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
csherwood has already made the irrational argument that, if he can sign a 75 PC/HC for the BL for 1m, he should be able to sign a comparable FI for 1m.
12/2/2010 4:46 PM
firemanrob
Posts: 69 (0)
Hall of Famer
69 39 16
Prospect

I just wanted to see what the actual issue is.  Because he's strayed from the original discussion.  I think Im understanding that he thinks FIs should be available on the cheap and be 68+.  My counter to that is, if in your world there is only a limited amount 68 or better, you can't expect them to sign for the minimum

12/2/2010 4:51 PM
csherwood
Posts: 533 (0)
Hall of Famer
12 116
Prospect
no, my point is that signing HC and PC should be the same as signing FI, but it isnt. And if we are going to say that FI's are worth more than PC and BC, the re-signing FI's should have realistic demands comparable to what they would get on the open market.
12/2/2010 4:53 PM
firemanrob
Posts: 69 (0)
Hall of Famer
69 39 16
Prospect
lol, again, its not the same because FI is for a whole organization and HC/PC is level-specific.

and again, there is a flaw in the demands of returning coaches for all positions because many times coaches re-sign for less than fair market value.
12/2/2010 8:55 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.