Changing coach hiring Topic

yoker70
Posts: 68 (0)
Hall of Famer
2 3 245
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By dmurphy104 on 5/17/2010
Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 5/17/2010
Hell, if they want to reduce the length of a HBD season, they should start with Spring Training. That is the biggest waste of 6 days known to man.
true dat
I suggested that they sim spring training games every 4 hrs to cut ST down to 3 days...either that, or allow for split squad games to have more of an impact on development for all players.

The change I wanted to see added was development of a winter league where we could have players work on a specific skill...contact, bunting, adding/dropping a pitch, fielding, etc...
5/17/2010 1:51 PM
nfet
Posts: 204 (0)
Hall of Famer
8 1 44 52
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by bluegreyjay on 5/17/2010I truly hope they do not eliminate individual coaches. Hiring for each level allows you to strategically build to your style of play and to the players currently in your minors. It will be less strategic and far less interesting if you only designate budget to each level or to each aspect of the game. Eliminating coaches oversimplifies and dumbs the game down.

Ideally. However, most worlds Ive been in, owners dont even bother to consider trades. Oversimplifying in the right way might just be a way to make practical the game.
5/17/2010 1:53 PM
toddcommish
Posts: 5100 (0)
Hall of Famer
520 10 1 14 16 90
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By nfet on 5/17/2010
Quote: Originally posted by toddcommish on 5/17/201
The "remove individual coaches" falls under the category of DUMBING THE GAME DOWN.
Not necessarily. If WIS keeps budgets related to what what other owners are doing it is still strategic.

Simplifying and Dumbing Down aren't the same thing
This type of comment shows that you're one of the people that requires "dumbing down".

Deciding between $15M, $14M, down to $8M isn't strategic.

Deciding whether to spend $4M on a pitching coach over $4M on a hitting coach in the majors, while deciding on whether to spend more on AAA hitting vs. AA pitching based on your prospects' development IS strategic.

It's really getting to the point where WIS needs to offer two different HBD games. One is the strategic, time-consuming game with difficult decisions for financial machinations, development issues, and recruiting coaches/free agents. And the other is a simplified, turnkey game that requires no complex thought and no decisions beyond setting a budget and setting a lineup... oh wait, that would make it SLB.
5/17/2010 1:55 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
If I had my way, all coaches would be sent into a pool after the next season. They would take the best offer, largely based on money with a modifier for position/level, including number of years(up to 3). And, the following season, the same thing would happen with any coach not under contract. No random re-hires. No outrageous demands. Let the world place them.

The biggest flaws I've seen with coach hiring are the inability to retain coaches and the fact that the best coaches are in the bigs when the most important coaches would be in the minors.
5/17/2010 2:12 PM
nfet
Posts: 204 (0)
Hall of Famer
8 1 44 52
Prospect
This post could not be converted. To view the original post's thread, click here.
5/17/2010 2:20 PM
toddcommish
Posts: 5100 (0)
Hall of Famer
520 10 1 14 16 90
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 5/17/2010
If I had my way, all coaches would be sent into a pool after the next season. They would take the best offer, largely based on money with a modifier for position/level, including number of years(up to 3). And, the following season, the same thing would happen with any coach not under contract. No random re-hires. No outrageous demands. Let the world place them.

The biggest flaws I've seen with coach hiring are the inability to retain coaches and the fact that the best coaches are in the bigs when the most important coaches would be in the minors.

I've been saying this for a long time. The way to correct coach hiring is a simple two-step process:

1. Make ALL coaches free agents when their contracts expire

2. Allow multi-year deals

The market will sort itself out. But, much like the socialist mentality of Washington, the concept of FREE MARKET seems to have escaped the grasp of WIS.
5/17/2010 2:23 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Well, when something reaches a certain floor of "strategy", it's hardly "strategic".

This is pretty simple(but coach hiring is simple for me anyway). I'm not putting money into 2 coaching levels. Usually rookie and either LoA or HiA. Even though it's very low on the "strategic" level, I have to decide based on coach availability. Now it's as simple as "OK, screw Rookie and HiA. 250k each!" I don't even have to look at the available coaches because, well, there aren't any coaches.
5/17/2010 2:25 PM
nfet
Posts: 204 (0)
Hall of Famer
8 1 44 52
Prospect
If there's ever a situation where promoting a player is bad for his development because of individual coach ratings, then something is wrong. Player development should be tied into a system, not an individual rating. That's for plate appearances.
5/17/2010 2:25 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
So you should have hired a better coach for the level? That seems simple.
5/17/2010 2:26 PM
nfet
Posts: 204 (0)
Hall of Famer
8 1 44 52
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by MikeT23 on 5/17/2010Well, when something reaches a certain floor of "strategy", it's hardly "strategic".This is pretty simple(but coach hiring is simple for me anyway).  I'm not putting money into 2 coaching levels.  Usually rookie and either LoA or HiA.  Even though it's very low on the "strategic" level, I have to decide based on coach availability.  Now it's as simple as "OK, screw Rookie and HiA.  250k each!"  I don't even have to look at the available coaches because, well, there aren't any coaches.

yeah, so simplify it. Not dumb it down, simplify it. Make clear the point of decision.
5/17/2010 2:27 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
You can call it "simplifying" if you want. But it's dumbing down the game because someone didn't get an 80 FI and he declared it unfair. Coaches are like players. Everybody wants the best one but, in order to make that happen, you have to pay for it. Now there is an unlimited supply of great coaches.
5/17/2010 2:30 PM
nfet
Posts: 204 (0)
Hall of Famer
8 1 44 52
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by MikeT23 on 5/17/2010So you should have hired a better coach for the level?   That seems simple.

not in a hierarchy structure. If I want a good coach at the low A level, then it means spending top percentile money at the ML level to trickle down. It's achievable, but not simple.
5/17/2010 2:31 PM
cjlancaster
Posts: 27 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 19 27 66
Prospect
I think that it would be more interesting if they made all coaches like FI coaches. A significant range from 30s to the 90s for all coaches (as opposed to everyone having all 85+ coaches). Currently, the relevance for all but fielding coaches is negligible. That being said, they really need to fix the logic that allows a coach to accept a "better" role for less money. Should a FI coach really turn down $4 mill a year as a FI coach to take a bench job at $650k?
5/17/2010 2:34 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
That's really the problem. I said in Bo WC that I'd pay 4m for a HiA HC if I knew he wouldn't take the ML job for 600k.
5/17/2010 2:36 PM
jwelsh1023
Posts: 2831 (0)
Hall of Famer
4 10 121 7 73
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 5/17/2010
Dumbing it down seems to be the best option. Of those options, this one seems to be the best:

Remove individual coaches and instead break apart the Coaching budget item by level. Each level budget would then drive all coaching effects. There would be a minimum and maxium budget for each level with a total minimum (across all levels) of $7M and a total max of $30M. The effect of the budget would also be relative to the other 31 franchises in the world. This would eliminate the ability to transfer money to/from coaching.



Yes, this is what I voted for.
5/17/2010 2:37 PM
◂ Prev 1|2|3|4|5...7 Next ▸
Changing coach hiring 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.