Player Coaches?

[Beaviss 4,958]

Hey guys time for another suggestion. Instead of having a player what about a coach?

 

I know it wouldn't be for everyone but some people have expressed interest in playing as a coach instead of a player. The ratings are a little different that the players depending on the STHS version. These are some stats I found for coaches online.

 

Coach Ratings

PH = Physical
DF = Defense
OF = Offense
PD = Player Discipline
EX = Experience
LD = Leadership
PO = Potential *Not needed in the VHL*

 

We would use.

Wouldn't be used.

 

From what I can find online Coaches effect team performance overall. So using the above information this is what I propose.

 

As you all know Coaches exist in the NHL a lot longer than players do and old players in the NHL coach in the NHL.

 

To start

1. Only Retired Ex VHL players can become a coach (Keaton Louth next season could become a coach)

2. Career Length for a coach is 15 seasons (up from 8 for players)

3. Coach TPE progression is tied to team performance (example 1 TPE per win)(cannot earn TPE other than wins)

4. TPE Scale would be the same as players.

5. A Coach would count as an active player (VHL GM's could have 1 Coach 1 Player instead of 2 Players)

6. Coaches would be paid a salary and count against the team cap hit (might have to increase cap)

 

There would have to be special rules regarding Coaches etc.

 

What are your thoughts on this? Ive been thinking about this for a couple days and the above are the first things I could think of. Good idea bad Idea?

 

 

[Fire Tortorella 2,653]

We discussed this a couple of seasons ago...although it may have been closer to 10-15 seasons at this point.

 

At the end of the day, the VHL is a player sim league and the last thing I would want is some other factor heavily determining both team and individual success and statistics.

 

Hard no from me.

[Beaviss 4,958]

16 minutes ago, flyersfan1453 said:

We discussed this a couple of seasons ago...although it may have been closer to 10-15 seasons at this point.

 

At the end of the day, the VHL is a player sim league and the last thing I would want is some other factor heavily determining both team and individual success and statistics.

 

Hard no from me.

 

I get that.

 

But randomness is also what makes the league interesting if its too predictable then its the NBA and everyone knows how boring that is to watch.

[Nykonax 1,566]

37 minutes ago, Beaviss said:

3. Coach TPE progression is tied to team performance (example 1 TPE per win)(cannot earn TPE other than wins) 

Seems like no one would want to be the coach of a rebuilding team like Davos then, when you'll only get like 14 tpe in the season. I don't know why someone would want to just see how their team did, get like 30 tpe a season, and not have any stats to compare themselves with others. It might be interesting if there were actual strategies that you could make/choose like breakouts, powerplay setup, etc. instead of just the PHY-DEF-OFF.

 

I don't think anyone would want to be a coach and not have a player. The only people that would is GM's who would have the GM player and a coach. The coach just seems like a "set and forget" kinda thing.

 

Unless players were chosen, or maybe better hired to make a coach, and would still be able to make a VHL player then it may be a good idea. Until then it's a no from me.

[Stoffiday 127]

I'd love this. Please make this a thing! 

[Tagger 2,722]

Hard no from me as well.

 

1) For the same reason I was against VHLM Ownership, this would require a lot of systems in an effort to appease a handful of people at a time, that's not worth it.

2) It strikes me as the kind of job that a lot of people would say they're interested in, but then realise very quickly that they aren't with no way of telling if they provided any assistance to the result. It's not like real sports where we specifically see the effects of good coaching, it would just be using the same box scores as always.

3) You're suggesting taking presumably active players out of the system to implement this. For a league that revolves around players, that doesn't make sense. 

 

Edited December 31, 2018 by Tagger

[Victor 11,009]

We had coaches back in ancient times circa S20. Not as member managed entities but the key point is that I don't think they impact anything in our version of the sim.

[Beaviss 4,958]

2 minutes ago, Victor said:

We had coaches back in ancient times circa S20. Not as member managed entities but the key point is that I don't think they impact anything in our version of the sim.

 

that would change everything @Will whats the scoop?

[ShawnGlade 1,010]

Gonna be a hard no from me as well. Like mentioned above, it'd be a "set and forget" type role where there's no real drive to stay active. If you're coaching a winning team, that's not necessarily on you, it's moreso credited to the GM for lines and rosters. With players, you can upgrade certain areas and watch your players progress through their career and watch them increase in points. IMO there's just no drive for it. A coach sounds like a good idea but it going against the cap and counting as a roster spot isn't enticing. Because as a GM, why would I want to tell a prospect they aren't gonna play because a coach took their spot. Plus 15 seasons? That's gonna handicap a team hardcore, and I feel like people would get bored of it after maybe 3. Sorry, sounds like a good idea but I really hope this isn't implemented

[Banackock 8,123]

I really like the idea, but see it as one that has more work than gain. I'd be totally into coaching any teams - contending or bad and think this is such a neat idea. To be fair though, all it would take is an update scale, a vague build style and you're off to the races. Pay is 1 TPE a week. 

 

I'd imagine there'd be similar or maybe more interest in coaching than there current is/was for VHL GMing. 

[Beaviss 4,958]

1 minute ago, Banackock said:

I really like the idea, but see it as one that has more work than gain. I'd be totally into coaching any teams - contending or bad and think this is such a neat idea. To be fair though, all it would take is an update scale, a vague build style and you're off to the races. Pay is 1 TPE a week. 

 

I'd imagine there'd be similar or maybe more interest in coaching than there current is/was for VHL GMing. 

 

thats what im thinking the amount of new people that want to get into the General manager could try coaching and if the General Manager likes there coach they could handle the lines as well.

[Tagger 2,722]

2 minutes ago, Beaviss said:

 

thats what im thinking the amount of new people that want to get into the General manager could try coaching and if the General Manager likes there coach they could handle the lines as well.

If Coaching was installed, it would be the worst way to get introduced into a General Manager role. VHLM GMing and assistant GMing would introduce them to much more important elements of the role. In addition, you're suggesting that the GM can still set the lines himself if he wants to, so there's a chance that coaches aren't actually going to be doing anything in regards to actually coaching the team.

 

Furthermore, people can do all this stuff without an official title. There's been times where I've recommended lines to hedgehog during my stint in Riga that he's gone on to implement, I didn't have to have an official title to do that. Several other members have also played a part for their team in setting lines despite not being an official authority member of the team. I guess my point is the only actual element of coaching that this role would entail is already available for people to participate in, so I don't see how implementing a role where people can do lines if a GM wants adds anything.

[Banackock 8,123]

I do not mind the idea though.

 

I tried my hardest to be against the idea, but mid-way through trying and writing, I changed my mind a tad at how fun the idea COULD be. You could even go as far as allowing "coaching" to have some form of affect on the simulation and disallowing managers from sending in lines to add realism etc. Coaches coach, GM's manage the organization. 

 

May coaching pay low. 1 TPE a week. Allow anyone to create a coach and keep them in a FA style pool. They can only claim VHL.com (2 TPE), press conference (2 TPE) and job pay (1 TPE) if they're hired by an organization - so a total of 4 TPE earned a week. Easy, P-Z and no work so members aren't getting burnt out over it and it's a fun little thing to do on the side. Maybe add in something else like coach welfare = 2 or 3 TPE for a total of 6-7 a week. 

 

Coaches all start at 50 stats and get a bonus 30 TPE upon creation to apply.

 

50-70 - 1 TPE

70-75 - 2 TPE

75-80 - 3 TPE

80-85- 4 TPE

85-90 - 5 TPE

90-99 - 8 TPE

 

Coaches are able to be created as long as they want. 

 

@Beaviss

[Beaviss 4,958]

12 minutes ago, Banackock said:

I do not mind the idea though.

 

I tried my hardest to be against the idea, but mid-way through trying and writing, I changed my mind a tad at how fun the idea COULD be. You could even go as far as allowing "coaching" to have some form of affect on the simulation and disallowing managers from sending in lines to add realism etc. Coaches coach, GM's manage the organization. 

 

May coaching pay low. 1 TPE a week. Allow anyone to create a coach and keep them in a FA style pool. They can only claim VHL.com (2 TPE), press conference (2 TPE) and job pay (1 TPE) if they're hired by an organization - so a total of 4 TPE earned a week. Easy, P-Z and no work so members aren't getting burnt out over it and it's a fun little thing to do on the side. Maybe add in something else like coach welfare = 2 or 3 TPE for a total of 6-7 a week. 

 

Coaches all start at 50 stats and get a bonus 30 TPE upon creation to apply.

 

50-70 - 1 TPE

70-75 - 2 TPE

75-80 - 3 TPE

80-85- 4 TPE

85-90 - 5 TPE

90-99 - 8 TPE

 

Coaches are able to be created as long as they want. 

 

@Beaviss

 

Yeah the biggest complaint I'm hearing is it's taking out of the player pool. We could make it an extra thing similar to PP2 but General Managers can't be them? That would stop the monopoly that some GM's might have on the position. I was interested in making it a different way of earning stats that are tied to performance instead of the norm.

[Banackock 8,123]

Just now, Beaviss said:

 

Yeah the biggest complaint I'm hearing is it's taking out of the player pool. We could make it an extra thing similar to PP2 but General Managers can't be them? That would stop the monopoly that some GM's might have on the position. I was interested in making it a different way of earning stats that are tied to performance instead of the norm.

100% GM's couldn't be the coach, unless say, you fired someone and there's an interim but that's Bullshit too, actually.

 

GM's = 100% can't be coaches. 

[Quik 4,113]

I’ve got a few issues with this. First is that we have no idea what kind of impact coaches make, and whether it’s significant or not, either option presents an issue. If there’s no significant impact, then what’s the point?

 

if there is a significant impact, then that brings up a whole bunch of issues. First being how long until we have actually decent coaches after implementation? You can’t start them close to being really good, or it defeats the purpose. But then how long until we have enough decent coaches for the league, and how long until some of those become “good” coaches? Especially if they’re capping out at 5-8 tpe per week with an update scale that would take roughly 500 tpe to create a good coach. 

 

Then you have to wonder how this will impact an already volatile sim. Do players really want to be on a team where there’s a shit coach? You’ll have players leaving really quick if their “coach” sucks. 

 

obviously, there’s the issue of removing players from the player pool. But also it’d be similar to goalies right now, where there’s only so many spots, and no backup slots to even satisfy it that way. If somehow this did become popular, theres the possibility of coaches not having teams. 

 

—————————————

 

I'm not completely opposed to the idea of implementing coaches, but it would need to be on a team level, rather than members. 

 

Basically, it would need finances for teams, based on performance. Teams can purchase different levels of training camp and different levels of coach, depending on how much they have available. Regular coach + training camp would cost $15M (5/10), and then go up or down from there, with teams receiving a base of $20M, and $12M just for showing up each season, with different bonuses for making the playoffs, winning a round (or having a bye), winning 2 rounds, and winning the Cup. 

 

Something like Ike that would make more sense, if we ever decided to go down this road, IMO 

[Baozi 1,662]

Hasn't Terence Fong been the Davos coach since the beginning of time anyways?

[omgitshim 903]

On 12/31/2018 at 12:09 PM, Beaviss said:

I was interested in making it a different way of earning stats that are tied to performance instead of the norm.

 

The problem with tying it to performance (assuming coaches have a significant impact) means that the better teams get a better coach which makes the team better which makes the coach better and it just ends up being a cycle of the rich getting richer. That's not to say that having performance be a factor (similar to how players earn experience) can't be a thing, just that if it's the primary thing it just makes it harder for the worse coaches/teams to recover from.