Posted by broadwayevns on 10/8/2026 7:37:00 PM (view original):
How would IF and OF Coordinators work if we don’t have defined players being one or the other and set positions based on ratings and handedness? If it is determined by what we set as the primary position seems like there might be unintended consequences. To a lesser degree with the C Coordinator, can anyone be designated as a Catcher?

Yeah, what determines a player's coordinator? His primary position? If so, an owner could spend $0 on the IF Coordinator and $MAX on the OF coordinator and change every position player's prime position to OF.

Suggest one Fielding/BR Coordinator instead of two (OF and IF).

Posted by smackawits on 10/15/2026 12:04:00 PM (view original):
Do not EVER let a trade by the "asst GM" automatically go to pending trades. NEVER! EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If I go out of town for a day, I don't want to see a star player tr5aded to another team in my absence.

It's not going to. They're just suggestions.

no way I want Asst GM's making trades and adding them to pending. Somebody already wrote what I feel. I can do my own trades and promotions. I don't need an assisstant. And get rid off all the stupid pop up ads when we try to communicate with you on the forum page.

Posted by smackawits on 10/15/2026 12:04:00 PM (view original):
Do not EVER let a trade by the "asst GM" automatically go to pending trades. NEVER! EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If I go out of town for a day, I don't want to see a star player tr5aded to another team in my absence.

https://www.whatifsports.com/forums/Posts.aspx?topicID=551109&threadID=13016967#l_13016967

Appreciate the effort. However, this seems to be just as Complicated as the current coach hiring. I don’t think anyone plays this game to get into the weeds on the types of coaches hired. There seems to be a consistent drum beat in the community for making coaching a budget item similar to scouting and to me it makes the most sense

Posted by rdierkers on 10/16/2026 7:31:00 AM (view original):
Appreciate the effort. However, this seems to be just as Complicated as the current coach hiring. I don’t think anyone plays this game to get into the weeds on the types of coaches hired. There seems to be a consistent drum beat in the community for making coaching a budget item similar to scouting and to me it makes the most sense

I disagree with that, at least for myself. I want complexity in the game so I can figure out how to get an edge. There are other, simpler games on the market, but I wouldn't waste my time with them. Real baseball is complex and difficult, so our game should be too.

Posted by rbedwell on 10/16/2026 12:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rdierkers on 10/16/2026 7:31:00 AM (view original):
Appreciate the effort. However, this seems to be just as Complicated as the current coach hiring. I don’t think anyone plays this game to get into the weeds on the types of coaches hired. There seems to be a consistent drum beat in the community for making coaching a budget item similar to scouting and to me it makes the most sense

I disagree with that, at least for myself. I want complexity in the game so I can figure out how to get an edge. There are other, simpler games on the market, but I wouldn't waste my time with them. Real baseball is complex and difficult, so our game should be too.

Agree-- but I think this particular change has the potential to be very bad. On the surface, it looks like player development is going to get WAY more costly.

Right now, there is a feeding frenzy for fielding coaches, because they are the only coaches that affect your entire minor league system. So you can develop players for the coaching cost of $6-7M if your fielding coach returns, or that + ~$3M if you need a new FC.

This is going to add 6 more all-system coaches, and 6 more feeding frenzies. There will be some edge strategies that might cut that cost-- I might decide to always get catchers from Rule 5 or something like that-- but there is the potential for it to start to cost $15-20M in coaching to adequately develop players.

There are 2 significant negative consequences of this, if it turns out to be true.

1. A lot of owners, upon roll over, immediately look to see if their FC has returned; it's that important and that unpredictable. Multiple that by 6 or 7 and there's a lot of just random luck built into the budgeting process.
2. Most importantly, increased coaching cost disincentivizes rebuilding at all, and incentivizes the strategy of playing with a $137M fantasy team. The problem with that is that, while you can't just walk away from a major league franchise when your players get old and feeble, you can do that in HBD. So this change seems likely to increase the number of players who come in, spend like crazy for 6-7 seasons, and leave a charred landscape of a franchise behind them. Which will make it harder to fill worlds.

I might be wrong. If the difference between an 85 in "infield" and a 65 is just a couple of development points, then this is going to lead to some interesting strategic decisions. But if it's the difference between being able to develop a shortstop at all, then I think this may lead to more frustration, and more turnover, not less.

Posted by rbedwell on 10/16/2026 12:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rdierkers on 10/16/2026 7:31:00 AM (view original):
Appreciate the effort. However, this seems to be just as Complicated as the current coach hiring. I don’t think anyone plays this game to get into the weeds on the types of coaches hired. There seems to be a consistent drum beat in the community for making coaching a budget item similar to scouting and to me it makes the most sense

I disagree with that, at least for myself. I want complexity in the game so I can figure out how to get an edge. There are other, simpler games on the market, but I wouldn't waste my time with them. Real baseball is complex and difficult, so our game should be too.

+1

I don't want to dumb the game down, either. This new system is way less clicking in and out of negotiation boxes. Add in re-hires and there will be less to do. I get that people dont like it or find it annoying or view it as a chore, but I agree with rbedwell -- if you take it completely out of the game, it dumbs the game down.

Also, if they moved this to just a budget line, then increased transparency and people found out that coaching had more impact than they thought, im nearly certain people would whine, b**ch and moan about it. I think coaching has more impact than they think. If it didn't, WIS SPORTS Admin wouldn't be dying to tell us about coaches impact on development.

Finally, imagine if we had to hire scouts every season, too. I think that would probably be too much. Especially for new users to hbd. I think what they're doing is a happy median between what the current state is and making coaching just a budget line.

Posted by dedelman on 10/16/2026 2:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rbedwell on 10/16/2026 12:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rdierkers on 10/16/2026 7:31:00 AM (view original):
Appreciate the effort. However, this seems to be just as Complicated as the current coach hiring. I don’t think anyone plays this game to get into the weeds on the types of coaches hired. There seems to be a consistent drum beat in the community for making coaching a budget item similar to scouting and to me it makes the most sense

I disagree with that, at least for myself. I want complexity in the game so I can figure out how to get an edge. There are other, simpler games on the market, but I wouldn't waste my time with them. Real baseball is complex and difficult, so our game should be too.

Agree-- but I think this particular change has the potential to be very bad. On the surface, it looks like player development is going to get WAY more costly.

Right now, there is a feeding frenzy for fielding coaches, because they are the only coaches that affect your entire minor league system. So you can develop players for the coaching cost of $6-7M if your fielding coach returns, or that + ~$3M if you need a new FC.

This is going to add 6 more all-system coaches, and 6 more feeding frenzies. There will be some edge strategies that might cut that cost-- I might decide to always get catchers from Rule 5 or something like that-- but there is the potential for it to start to cost $15-20M in coaching to adequately develop players.

There are 2 significant negative consequences of this, if it turns out to be true.

1. A lot of owners, upon roll over, immediately look to see if their FC has returned; it's that important and that unpredictable. Multiple that by 6 or 7 and there's a lot of just random luck built into the budgeting process.
2. Most importantly, increased coaching cost disincentivizes rebuilding at all, and incentivizes the strategy of playing with a $137M fantasy team. The problem with that is that, while you can't just walk away from a major league franchise when your players get old and feeble, you can do that in HBD. So this change seems likely to increase the number of players who come in, spend like crazy for 6-7 seasons, and leave a charred landscape of a franchise behind them. Which will make it harder to fill worlds.

I might be wrong. If the difference between an 85 in "infield" and a 65 is just a couple of development points, then this is going to lead to some interesting strategic decisions. But if it's the difference between being able to develop a shortstop at all, then I think this may lead to more frustration, and more turnover, not less.

+1000

I wholeheartedly agree with this. It definitely needs thoughtful implementation, tracking, feedback and willingness to quickly make balance updates. We dont want to 6x the current fielding instructor problem. Or, even if it is just the infielder coordinator that has the deficit, that is still an issue. The two biggest issues that people have communicated regarding coaching hiring have been the amount of time required and the lack of high quality fielding instructors. Let's try to fix the latter, not multiply it.

1. Generate a boatload of coordinators on day 1 of implementation, each season, be sure plenty more get generated. Better to have a surplus and be left with unsigned coordinators than to have a deficit and a market run on the few high qualities.

2. Regarding the actual time it takes to hire coaches, have you thought about moving the coordinator hiring process up to spring training? There is nothing to do in spring training so moving the coordinator hiring to spring training makes sense to me. Since the players that are playing in spring training are getting coached by the mlb coaches, the coordinator process could be moved to spring training so it lessons the burden of cramming so much into the beginning of season.

Do 1st and 3rd base coaches have any impact on in-game base running or are they development only?

Can we please have a "withdraw and return" button on the coach negotiations pages so we can reduce the amount of clicks?

Posted by dedelman on 10/16/2026 2:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rbedwell on 10/16/2026 12:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rdierkers on 10/16/2026 7:31:00 AM (view original):
Appreciate the effort. However, this seems to be just as Complicated as the current coach hiring. I don’t think anyone plays this game to get into the weeds on the types of coaches hired. There seems to be a consistent drum beat in the community for making coaching a budget item similar to scouting and to me it makes the most sense

I disagree with that, at least for myself. I want complexity in the game so I can figure out how to get an edge. There are other, simpler games on the market, but I wouldn't waste my time with them. Real baseball is complex and difficult, so our game should be too.

Agree-- but I think this particular change has the potential to be very bad. On the surface, it looks like player development is going to get WAY more costly.

Right now, there is a feeding frenzy for fielding coaches, because they are the only coaches that affect your entire minor league system. So you can develop players for the coaching cost of $6-7M if your fielding coach returns, or that + ~$3M if you need a new FC.

This is going to add 6 more all-system coaches, and 6 more feeding frenzies. There will be some edge strategies that might cut that cost-- I might decide to always get catchers from Rule 5 or something like that-- but there is the potential for it to start to cost $15-20M in coaching to adequately develop players.

There are 2 significant negative consequences of this, if it turns out to be true.

1. A lot of owners, upon roll over, immediately look to see if their FC has returned; it's that important and that unpredictable. Multiple that by 6 or 7 and there's a lot of just random luck built into the budgeting process.
2. Most importantly, increased coaching cost disincentivizes rebuilding at all, and incentivizes the strategy of playing with a $137M fantasy team. The problem with that is that, while you can't just walk away from a major league franchise when your players get old and feeble, you can do that in HBD. So this change seems likely to increase the number of players who come in, spend like crazy for 6-7 seasons, and leave a charred landscape of a franchise behind them. Which will make it harder to fill worlds.

I might be wrong. If the difference between an 85 in "infield" and a 65 is just a couple of development points, then this is going to lead to some interesting strategic decisions. But if it's the difference between being able to develop a shortstop at all, then I think this may lead to more frustration, and more turnover, not less.

Just wanted to reiterate that this is such a good point regarding how this could change strategies. If the transparency turns out to result in everyone knowing that coaching has a high impact on development, people could spend more on coaching and create huge market swoons in the coach hiring economics. This could lead to more people running the high payroll strategy.

WhIle everything dedelman wrote could come to fruition, another thing that people likely don't think about, as much, is the push and pull of different strategies over time. If more and more people start running that high payroll strategy, not only will there be more situations where it will be hard to fill a spot because the team is full of overpaid oldies, it also means less prospects are being developed because those 135+ million payroll teams are not developing talent and less talent development, over time, means less quality mlb players. Then less quality mlb players means more money chasing the good ones.

This could turn into less of a Dynasty game and more of an empire game. I know that is a worst case scenario, but i just want to reiterate how important it is that we get this right.

So, pretty please, with sugar on top, don't turn coach hiring into the end of Trading Places where there is a run on frozen orange juice futures.

tlowster, I completely agree. As a commissioner, the max payroll strategy is the worst because it often results in broken franchises that are hard to fill. Any changes should discourage, not encourage, that strategy.

Please allow us to sign coaches to contracts similar to players so I can sign them all to 5=year deals and forget about it for a while.

What i'd love to see is hiring coaches that stress one particular strategy instead of another. Maybe this exists at the moment, but other than fielding coaches and a few guesses concerning patience and discipline, I don't much see coaching have a huge effect (or maybe i'm just clueless) or differentiating franchises.

I'd love to see coaching decisions that influence an organizational ethos. Coach and trainers that stress max effort 5-and-fly pitchers and deep bullpens versus a staff of horses. Small ball vs three true outcomes. Line drives versus flyballs. Pitchers that focus on pitch quality/movement versus control. Nurturing youngsters vs prolonging veterans. Trainers that make players a bunch of slow, hulking boppers or defensive, speedy athletes.

Some of these would just mean that some coaches impact some stats more than others. I'm sure you guys can come up with more or better stuff, that's not my point. I'm just advocating for a coaching staff that requires a strategic discussion; promoting one organizational ethos over another. Every pro should have a potential con. And then making it such that over the course of a season or three that it becomes evident that your strategy had an observable impact on your franchise.

And then you could tie this into the manager settings too.