Thanks admin. For the fielding coaches Topic

firemanrob
Posts: 69 (0)
Hall of Famer
69 39 16
Prospect
Sitestaff has come out and admitted it as being frustrating. Im assuming they base that on the flood of emails from whiners not getting the best coaches for the minimums
2/15/2010 3:39 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Coach hiring is no different than FA/IFA. Except in that you know what you're getting when you sign that ace for 3y/51m. You don't get that feeling when you hire a coach.

And now it's different in another way. Everyone can get that ace because WifS has created more coaches thus ensuring everyone gets quality.
2/15/2010 3:58 PM
cjlancaster
Posts: 27 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 19 27 66
Prospect
When will the whining stop? Not the whining about the coaches, but the whining about the fix. The reason that most of you didn't see the issue is because the problems were occurring in Worlds where the coaches that were originally created had reached retirement age and they did not have a sufficient succession plan to provide more fielding coaches (Season 15).

Try budgeting $6m in a World at Season 15 or more and see how good your coaches turn out. I think its an excellent plan. For your competition.

Yes, if there are 32 fielding coaches with > 75 FI, it seems like too much to me. Of course, i can't really say what the difference is between 95 FI and 75 FI.

A few fixes should be made:

Fielding coaches need to cease accepting BC offers for $600K while turning down $4.5M to be a FC. That's just dumb.

There needs to be a wider spread among the other coaching positions. Making quality FI coaches as plentiful as current PI and HI coaches would suck. Having a spread from around 45-95 available for 32 teams would at least make coach hiring a little more interesting. There is no heated bidding among the last few teams trying to secure a Hitting coach if the worst case scenario is a 75. Make the worse case scenario a 50 and you'll see people care a little more about their coaches.
2/15/2010 4:09 PM
hartjh14
Posts: 468 (0)
Hall of Famer
165 8 1 147
Prospect
Season 15 of OCD we had a 50 FI go unsigned. There are 3-4 coaches with worse ratings being used. Sounds like the problem is somewhat self inflicted in that league at least. I spent $6M on coaches and managed to do okay, though my AAA coaches are better than my ML coaches.
2/15/2010 4:20 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Yeah, I don't have a world in S15. You know, except for MG.

Now, you're already looking for a fix for the fix. Which is standard operating procedure.

Seriously, everyone gets a 75+ FI. Stop with the "fixes". Everyone should be happy. I'll take my 6m, get quality everywhere and prove the coach hiring has now reached a point of pointlessness. The "We need more FI" whiners got what they wanted. Smile, be happy and enjoy.
2/15/2010 4:24 PM
knucklebones
Posts: 741 (0)
Hall of Famer
5 1 18 29 122 11
Prospect
Thanks for this tidbit. I don't believe the hype of any changes. I budget the same regardless just in case something gets "fixed". I learned my lesson when I was one of the few speed teams and they "fixed" speed. Thankfully I had already learned this before the power "fix".

My advice is to run a balanced team as possible. Theres a chance that over-balanced teams might be fixed but probably not.
2/15/2010 4:28 PM
cjlancaster
Posts: 27 (0)
Hall of Famer
1 19 27 66
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By cjlancaster on 2/15/2010
Quote: Originally Posted By cjlancaster on 2/15/2010

Quote: Originally Posted By MikeT23 on 2/15/2010

Yeah, I don't have a world in S15. You know, except for MG.

Now, you're already looking for a fix for the fix. Which is standard operating procedure.

Seriously, everyone gets a 75+ FI. Stop with the "fixes". Everyone should be happy. I'll take my 6m, get quality everywhere and prove the coach hiring has now reached a point of pointlessness. The "We need more FI" whiners got what they wanted. Smile, be happy and enjoy.




Not every owner her has a world in Season 15, Mike. Believe it or not, every post here does not directly refer to you.

This does though: I'll be sure to check your budget in MG next season to see if you've gone 6m for coaches. Really no chance of that, is there?
2/15/2010 4:37 PM
gjello10
Posts: 164 (0)
All Star
6 26
Prospect
Quote: Originally Posted By cjlancaster on 2/15/2010
When will the whining stop? Not the whining about the coaches, but the whining about the fix. The reason that most of you didn't see the issue is because the problems were occurring in Worlds where the coaches that were originally created had reached retirement age and they did not have a sufficient succession plan to provide more fielding coaches (Season 15).

Try budgeting $6m in a World at Season 15 or more and see how good your coaches turn out. I think its an excellent plan. For your competition.

Yes, if there are 32 fielding coaches with > 75 FI, it seems like too much to me. Of course, i can't really say what the difference is between 95 FI and 75 FI.

A few fixes should be made:

Fielding coaches need to cease accepting BC offers for $600K while turning down $4.5M to be a FC. That's just dumb.

There needs to be a wider spread among the other coaching positions. Making quality FI coaches as plentiful as current PI and HI coaches would suck. Having a spread from around 45-95 available for 32 teams would at least make coach hiring a little more interesting. There is no heated bidding among the last few teams trying to secure a Hitting coach if the worst case scenario is a 75. Make the worse case scenario a 50 and you'll see people care a little more about their coaches.

Interesting note about S15. Here are a few #s from my Worlds:

Uecker (S11) FIs: 90+ (1); 80-89 (22); 70-79 (7); 60-69 (2)

Roy Hobbs (S7): 80-89 (15); 70-79 (13); 60-69 (3); 50-59 (1)

Robinson (S15): 80-89 (8); 70-79 (6); 60-69 (7); 50-59 (8); 40-49 (3)

Greennerg (S15): 90+ (1); 80-89 (12); 70-79 (4); 60-69 (3); 50-59 (10); 40-49 (2)

For Reference:

Robinson (S13): 90+ (1); 80-89 (15); 70-79 (7); 60-69 (1); 50-59 (8)

Greenberg (S13): 90+ (1); 80-89 (17); 70-79 (7); 60-69 (4); 50-59 (2); 40-49 (1).

So there does apper to be a statistical event going on in the FI population between S13 and S15. Perhaps WiS has internal data suggestiong that a few seasons down the road this would be a big problem, and so they're stepping in early.

And we need fewer excellent HC and PC.
2/15/2010 4:38 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
No, if we've got 40 FI with 70+, there's a really, really good chance of it. If we've got 60 of 50+, it's a definite.

Check away. I welcome it. In fact, check Hamilton first. We're at game 161. We'll be rolling in about three weeks.

Now, seriously, smile, be happy and enjoy. You got what you wanted. Don't worry about anything else.
2/15/2010 4:39 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Do you suggest ninja assassins to eliminate HC/PC?

I'll hire this one.

2/15/2010 4:40 PM
bigal888
Posts: 390 (0)
Hall of Famer
116 4 3 1 15 77
Prospect
before anything else, I want to see some hard evidence supporting how much effect FI ratings really have. I'm starting to believe that fielding coaches are vastly overvalued because of the perceived difference in value between an 80 rated coach and a 60.
If there really isn't a difference (and WiFs knew there was no difference) then their "fix" was really just a simple appeasement with no realistic affect. On the other hand, if there is a huge difference then they either saturated the market or brought it up to some defined ML minimum level that we can assume is around 70.
2/15/2010 4:59 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
I had a FI with rating of 51. My fielding improved. I felt that some missed on glove and arm accuracy by a point or two over the season. That's just basing it on "normal" development I usually get. For that to mean anything substantial, you'd have to have a 51 FI for a player's entire career.

The development was compared against the 80+ FI I usually sign.
2/15/2010 5:07 PM
bigal888
Posts: 390 (0)
Hall of Famer
116 4 3 1 15 77
Prospect
In GAP, last season I had a 54 and the season before that a 78. One of my best prospects had all of his ratings go up 3 points compared with 4 the season before - his makeup is in the 70's. Another prospect with a makeup in the 30's had his glove and accuracy go up 5 points under the 78 rated guy and 0 points under the 54.
I'd be willing to bet (and I think this point has been made before) that rating increases are directly tied to some sort of combination of makeup and coach rating. If you have high makeup guys, I doubt your coach really matters - but with those low rated guys it might make a huge difference.
2/15/2010 5:17 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Very well could be. I certainly didn't check every player just the players I considered "real" prospects. And, of course, they got the max playing time at 100%.
2/15/2010 5:48 PM
deanod
Posts: 3152 (0)
Hall of Famer
115 18 1 118 1 52
Prospect
Quote: Originally posted by MikeT23 on 2/15/2010If I can get a 75 FI and 80 everything else for the minimum, I don't know why I'd pay more. 

What's wrong with having this as an option? You're still spending $6M more than you are on advance scouting.
2/15/2010 11:29 PM
◂ Prev 1|2|3|4|5...9 Next ▸
Thanks admin. For the fielding coaches 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.