I think another problem is many of those coaches with fielding ratings under 65 or so are coaches who are currently filling Bench, hitting, third base, etc, etc, and many of those positions are more desirable than fielding coaches, so while there might be fielding coaches in the 50's and 60's a good percentage of them will not be hired as fielding coaches.

Quote: Originally Posted By trojan4309 on 9/17/2009minor league fielding coaches would be a nice addition

Hire bench coaches with good fielding IQs for your minor leagues.

Solved!

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

Quote: Originally Posted By plague on 9/17/2009 in the long run the problem is the reason fielding coaches are diminishing is because unlike all other coaching jobs we don't have minor league fielding coaches. While pitching and hitting coaches are working their way through the minors, we don't have that with fielding coaches. Now fielding coaches are retiring with no one to step in and fill the void.

Truth

Quote: Originally Posted By TheJester74 on 9/17/2009

Quote: Originally posted by snake_p on 9/17/2009
So ... Bryant 31 coaches 58 or above, Caray 27 coaches 56 and above, FYC 28 coaches 59 and above. Far more than 3/4 of the teams can have an above-average to well-above-average coach, and the remaining few probably at least average (plague's figures didn't go down that far). As I suspected, that suggests that 50 is used as average for the world, with more above average coaches in the majors and presumably more below average coaches in the minors. There are pretty obviously enough above average coaches ~~ but are there too many?

You seem to be missing the point that this question is about what is going on this season, but what is the future coaching pool going look like?

I don't expect it to be perfect, but some resemblance to a bell curve in ages of fielding coaches would more accurate.

What has obviously happened is owners hire the best fielding coaches available and the best ones available are virtually always older. After a few seasons of not being hired a coach disappears and is replaced by a younger coach. A few get hired, but many just retire. So you get lots of old, a few in the middle, and a number of young coaches.

You can't blame owners because how do you expect an owner to hire younger, but not as qualified coaches just so the pool doesn't become skewed.

Not missing the point at all. Miket stated it well: << These threads are akin to "not enough SS with average fielding ratings" and probably should be dismissed without reply. >>

Why on earth should there be a bell curve of the ages of ML fielding coaches? No reason.

Quote: Originally Posted By plague on 9/17/2009

Quote: Originally posted by snake_p on 9/17/2009
So ... Bryant 31 coaches 58 or above, Caray 27 coaches 56 and above, FYC 28 coaches 59 and above. Far more than 3/4 of the teams can have an above-average to well-above-average coach, and the remaining few probably at least average (plague's figures didn't go down that far). As I suspected, that suggests that 50 is used as average for the world, with more above average coaches in the majors and presumably more below average coaches in the minors. There are pretty obviously enough above average coaches ~~ but are there too many?

I think what they are trying to say is that in Bryant over the course of the next 4 seasons 24ish of those 31 coaches are going to be retiring, meaning that maybe there will only be 15 coaches with a 55 rating or higher. The pool will be emptying faster than it will be filling. Soon for example half the teams will be having fielding coaches that will see their players fielding ratings have a negative impact and not a positive impact.

Yeah, so?

• These things run in cycles. That is not a bug.
• If 32 coaches below the age of 40 had fielding IQ's of 80+, it wouldn't be enough. Kids in a candy store are never happy.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

this has been hashed around in several threads the last 6 months and CS has been alerted for about the same amount of time.

Over the next 3 to 4 seasons the number of quality FI in worlds in years 15 to 17 will allow everyone to assess whether coaching is worth the money. If the fielding coach with an 85 rating and getting 4.5M results in a better ML defense then it will be worth biddding on these coaches and their impending demise will be a real issue. If it does not make a whit of difference then it is 4M wasted and every one will be happy with their 60 rated Fielding instructor with a 500K salary.

If the game were rational the fielding rating would make a difference and a full spread of coaching ability should be available. But there are other parts of the game that are not rational so there is no requirement that this be rational. Time will tell.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

As best I can tell, none of these worlds had to fold because there weren't enough fielding coaches with 67(or whatever arbitrary number has been thrown out) fielding rating.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.

Please see my three posts concerning first year FI coaches.