On a whole coaching does not matter - but that is because there is little difference in coaches from team to team. However if you hire a coach with a very poor rating in discipline or patience it will make a difference.

WIS has unintentionally created a situation where the impsct of coaching is likely to become apparent and that is in fielding Instructors where the range of signed coaches (top vs bottom) is increasingly intense. I suspect quality of fielding instructor will make a difference long term.

If the other coaches had a similar spread then it would matter for those coaches, but there is not, so it does not. But put a hitting coach with "low A" ratings in the ML and I suspect we could see the difference by the end of the year. Hence the arguement for fewer high rated coaches to make them more valuable and development more coach dependent.

FI will not be a problem. I've shown you this repeatedly. Stop announcing an issue with the sky, chicken little.

Mike, you have a problem differentiating "a fact" from "a problem". I have never catagorized it as "a problem", only that it was going to occur and that therefore it was "a fact" - which you initially denied. The only "problem" is that you did not identify "the fact" first so you feel compelled to belittle those who did identify it. Once again proving your ego is too large and your intelligence too small.

While recognizing that this experiment in fielding instructors was unintended on WIS's part, it will give insight into whether coaches are important. IF they are not important then get rid of the whole charaide of coach hiring. If they are important then decrease the number of high end hitting, pitching, and bench coach so who gets hired actually means something for player development.

When you make statements like "I suspect quality of fielding instructor will make a difference long term", one can only assume you deem this a problem. When you turn almost any discussion into a chat about your perceived shortage of quality FI, one can only assume you deem this a problem.

If it's not a problem, quit implying that it is. If you think it is a potential problem, please refer to our half dozen exchanges on the matter where I've proven it is not.

I know you want props for identifying a fact first. The "problem" is that it's not a fact.

MikeT23

Rage

11/8/2009 9:52 PM

I won't get stuck with a 57 again" did you misunderstand? FWIW, I did another check. Arm accuracy did not appear to develop as well as I would have expected. Each of the half dozen players I checked were 1-2 points off of what I'd expect.

really? - fact - some owners will have to hire FI less than 65 - according to "reliable" sources FI rated 57 hinder fielding development. In the context of "do coaches affect player development" I would consider this a "fact". Whether it is a problem is in the eye of the beholder.

So you're assuming that I know exactly how fielders should develop? Thanks!!

I don't deny that if an owner purposely hired coaches with sub 20 ratings in their primary function for multiple seasons that players wouldn't develop, but it just doesn't happen even with pure neglect. Someone would have to hire hitting coaches as pitching coaches. The difference between the coaches with 77 ratings and 86 rating doesn't amount to much in your players development. The net affect of all the owners hiring similar coaches is they have no affect.

is this post being killed? pretty fascinating stuff if there is any truth to it...

Well long posts usually lose a lot readers, so my fault if this didn't have legs. I just didn't wast to make a post like this that didn't explain the process, so it was long.

As far as the truth to it - all I can see is test it on some vets in a older world that were drafted or signed in the first couple of seasons. You can tell where an older guys ratings have peaked and it's pretty consistently within just a couple of points of this formula.

I haven't seen it on the high side too much (except injuries or abuse) but I have noticed many if the projections on the low side. I've only ran it out for about a dozen guys in my system so it's a small sample size...

I have a couple of guys who gained 0 in a category from S1 to S2 (1st ST to 2nd ST) but ended up gaining around 7 or 8 in that category. Did you see similar things when 'testing on vets' etc?

I guess what I am asking is if you can tell more about the variance you've seen, and if there are any trends in the variance that you've found.

It lost it's legs because of two statements you made(both of which are incorrect):

1. Coaches don't really matter.
2. You can't do much to develop your players.

I agree there's little difference between a 70 and a 73. But run a 50 out there. And, if there's a difference between a 50 and a 70, there's a differnce between a 60 and 70. So coaches actually do matter.

If you don't play/promote your players, you'll kill their development. So, other than playing them, promoting them and providing them with adequate coaching/training, there's not much you can do to develop them.

So, when you make a statement or two that's outstandingly false, the rest of your post gets lost.

There doesn't necessarily have to be a difference between a 60 and a 70 because there is a difference between a 50 and a 60. I've had guys with really high coach ratings and guys with middle of the pack and it hasn't changed much. Its logical to think that an 80 coach will help players more than a 70 coach. Same with 500 ABs instead of 400 ABs. But I really haven't seen anything proving this.

I think its possible that its programmed so it really just uses minimum cutoffs for development. Or that the diminishing returns of increasing in rating and ABs is so great it may only make a 1 point difference in development in 1 rating for every 50 prospects or so.

Maybe he shouldn't have said coaches don't matter, but I think what he means is that if everyone tries to hire the best guy they can than it won't really matter. And I'd say the vast majority coaches are indeed adequate.

I'm sure his misspoke. But, if you don't think there's a difference between 60 and 70, I'm sure I can check your teams and see that you've paid the minimum to everyone. Would I discover that?

No I haven't paid the minimum. But I no longer go after the very top guys. My budget is steady at 11 M now where it used to be at 15 or so. I don't want one of the worst coaches, but I no longer think it's that important to get the best ones.