I don't mind it so much. Except for the dreaded 1B coach who always wait until the end to sign. You're a freakin' first base coach ;).

The only problem with coach hiring is the "fielding coach as bench coach" bug, which apparently is going to be fixed soon.   Beyond that, it's fine as is.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/20/2010 4:05:00 PM (view original):
The only problem with coach hiring is the "fielding coach as bench coach" bug, which apparently is going to be fixed soon.   Beyond that, it's fine as is.

+1

this needs fixed, soon

Posted by tecwrg on 6/20/2010 4:05:00 PM (view original):
The only problem with coach hiring is the "fielding coach as bench coach" bug, which apparently is going to be fixed soon.   Beyond that, it's fine as is.

It may be changed soon, because enough people complain about it, but I fail to see how this is a bug.

As is, the Bench Coach position is a more prestigious position than a Fielding Coach position, so coaches will take a pay cut to take the former over the latter. The same way they will do so to be the ML pitching coach over the ML Bullpen Coach, the ML Hitting Coach over the ML 3B Coach, the AAA Bench Coach over the AA Bench Coach, etc.

The only bug, as it pertains to hiring fielding coaches as bench coaches, is the one that involves the coach's willingness to re-sign the following season as a fielding coach. With respect to that, I agree it does seem to be a bug that the coach essentially requests a demotion. Hiring someone who initially requests a a fielding coach position as a bench coach shouldn't be changed, IMO, unless they system is changed across the board so that coaches can only be hired for the position they request (a stupid idea, IMO).

Posted by zbrent716 on 6/20/2010 10:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/20/2010 4:05:00 PM (view original):
The only problem with coach hiring is the "fielding coach as bench coach" bug, which apparently is going to be fixed soon.   Beyond that, it's fine as is.

It may be changed soon, because enough people complain about it, but I fail to see how this is a bug.

As is, the Bench Coach position is a more prestigious position than a Fielding Coach position, so coaches will take a pay cut to take the former over the latter. The same way they will do so to be the ML pitching coach over the ML Bullpen Coach, the ML Hitting Coach over the ML 3B Coach, the AAA Bench Coach over the AA Bench Coach, etc.

The only bug, as it pertains to hiring fielding coaches as bench coaches, is the one that involves the coach's willingness to re-sign the following season as a fielding coach. With respect to that, I agree it does seem to be a bug that the coach essentially requests a demotion. Hiring someone who initially requests a a fielding coach position as a bench coach shouldn't be changed, IMO, unless they system is changed across the board so that coaches can only be hired for the position they request (a stupid idea, IMO).

"Show me the money!"

So you see nothing wrong with a FC turning down a $5m+ offer to be a fielding instructor for team A because he'd rather have the "more prestigious" $600k bench coach job for team B?

To make an analogy with players: wouldn't you think it would be odd to see a player refuse a $5m+ contract to be the left fielder for one team because he'd rather make $600k to be the shortstop for another team, because SS is "more prestigious" than LF?

One can argue that ML bench coach is higher on the hierarchy than ML fielding instructor, because that's the way HBD seems to be programmed.  I won't necessarily disagree.  But one can also argue that ML bench coach is probably the least important coaching role in HBD, while fielding instrutor is probably the most important coaching role in HBD.  I would support that argument as well.

So considering the money aspect, and also considering the perceived value of ML bench coach vs ML fielding instructor, I would say that it's absurd that the game allows FC's to preferred to be hired at a deep discount for a less important role.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/20/2010 10:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by zbrent716 on 6/20/2010 10:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/20/2010 4:05:00 PM (view original):
The only problem with coach hiring is the "fielding coach as bench coach" bug, which apparently is going to be fixed soon.   Beyond that, it's fine as is.

It may be changed soon, because enough people complain about it, but I fail to see how this is a bug.

As is, the Bench Coach position is a more prestigious position than a Fielding Coach position, so coaches will take a pay cut to take the former over the latter. The same way they will do so to be the ML pitching coach over the ML Bullpen Coach, the ML Hitting Coach over the ML 3B Coach, the AAA Bench Coach over the AA Bench Coach, etc.

The only bug, as it pertains to hiring fielding coaches as bench coaches, is the one that involves the coach's willingness to re-sign the following season as a fielding coach. With respect to that, I agree it does seem to be a bug that the coach essentially requests a demotion. Hiring someone who initially requests a a fielding coach position as a bench coach shouldn't be changed, IMO, unless they system is changed across the board so that coaches can only be hired for the position they request (a stupid idea, IMO).

"Show me the money!"

So you see nothing wrong with a FC turning down a $5m+ offer to be a fielding instructor for team A because he'd rather have the "more prestigious" $600k bench coach job for team B?

To make an analogy with players: wouldn't you think it would be odd to see a player refuse a $5m+ contract to be the left fielder for one team because he'd rather make $600k to be the shortstop for another team, because SS is "more prestigious" than LF?

One can argue that ML bench coach is higher on the hierarchy than ML fielding instructor, because that's the way HBD seems to be programmed.  I won't necessarily disagree.  But one can also argue that ML bench coach is probably the least important coaching role in HBD, while fielding instrutor is probably the most important coaching role in HBD.  I would support that argument as well.

So considering the money aspect, and also considering the perceived value of ML bench coach vs ML fielding instructor, I would say that it's absurd that the game allows FC's to preferred to be hired at a deep discount for a less important role.

And that may be the change that it ultimately made - a simple change of the hierarchy to make Fielding Coach instead of Bench Coach the most-desired position. But that's not the way it is now; the way it is set now, the hiring is working as intended. It is no bug.

For now, career advancement is considered more important than the money, and sitting on the bench with the ML team as the second command is higher on the totem pole than bussing it around the country working with a bunch of wet-behind-the-ears brats who think you could easily be replaced by a Tom Emanski video.

Yah, sure.

I'd prefer to be the millionaire riding the bus

If you want to get rid of people hiring fielding coaches as bench coaches, then eliminate the effect that bench coaches have on fielding improvements, make it all based on your fielding coach, as it should be.  Problem solved.

zb's right, it's not a bug. It's just stupid.

Posted by apollo7 on 6/22/2010 12:06:00 PM (view original):
If you want to get rid of people hiring fielding coaches as bench coaches, then eliminate the effect that bench coaches have on fielding improvements, make it all based on your fielding coach, as it should be.  Problem solved.

the effect bench coaches have on fielding improvements is unverifiable, and it's not why owners hire them to be their bench coaches

bench coaches have very little effect on game play and are thus not important.

if you hire a fielding coach (who will take any ML bench coach position over a fielding one) he will then ask to come back the next year, as a fielding coach and at a very affordable price. (I'm not sure though if they always come back or sometimes test the FC market)

So they basically hire a backup fielding coach on the cheap, which is really advantageous because of the incredible demand for fielding coaches (which is partly fueled by some owners hiring some of the decent crop of FC to be BC every season).  The next season if there regular FC from the year before tests the market they have one in his place.

It's a big loophole and needs closed.

Posted by antonsirius on 6/22/2010 12:10:00 PM (view original):
zb's right, it's not a bug. It's just stupid.

it doesn't matter what we call it, it is stupid, you're right anton

Posted by antonsirius on 6/22/2010 12:10:00 PM (view original):
zb's right, it's not a bug. It's just stupid.

it doesn't matter what we call it, it is stupid, you're right anton

Hey guys,

As most of you know we passed out a survey on 5/17 that involved making changes to the coach hiring process. The overwhelming majority of you wanted to see the loyalty rating significantly increased. With this update we have increased the values so that any coach with a 50 loyalty rating will now stay with your franchise 75% of the time. The percentage increases as the loyalty rating gets higher. 

In addition to making that change (we couldn't just leave it at that!) we have gone ahead and included some significant changes to the process that have been
requested heavily for quite some time.The first is the ability to promote your minor league coaches during the rehiring process. You can now promote any minor league coach that is willing to stay with your franchise. Adding this feature has made the page and the UI a bit more complicated so please take your time with it the first time you experience it.

The other included improvement is that fielding coaches will no longer automatically accept bench coach roles. Both roles are now viewed equally, so it will now come down to the value of the contract.

All of these changes should make the process much better and leave you with only a few coaches to sign each season.