How to implement Hire/Fire coach?

[Goldberg]

I like the wishlist, I really do. And I feel that all gameplay items on the wishlist should be a priority since EA Sports has always had as objective number one : To be as real as possible.

But when one talks of items that are more conceptual, one thing is always missing. The answer to : How do you implement it.

For example, I love the idea of Hire/Fire Coach. Forget the create-a-coach. With limited time and resources, they would start with a hire/fire coach to test the concept and get a feel for the reaction of the fans (both hardcore and casual). Then one or two years later, they might add the create-a-coach. But lets get real, why would they alocate resources to develop this over something else on the wishlist, when patch makers of www.nba-live.com and other similar sites will make patches and maybe even a create-a-coach software as a add-on to be downloaded from www.nba-live.com?

But lets stay focus. I would like feadback on the implementation of a hire/fire coach.

This is what I think will happen to this concept for the 2006 game. They will have a meeting to discuss the wishlist. The concept of hire/fire a coach will be discussed for about 15 seconds. If discussed longer, then they will add it to a list to be discussed in particular later. If it is added to such a list, then a few days later, the creative team will get together and will discuss this second list. The concept itself might be throwned around, and discussed for less than 3-5 minutes in their busy day, and most likely will be throwned aside, in another list titled "Need more research on the concept - possible new feature for 2007 or 2008." The end of it until a later date.

OR we can do the creative thinking ourselves, right here on this forum, and simply have the www.nba-live.com staff deliver in a month or two, the forum discussion on this topic, and have a very good shot at it being in the 2006 game.

So what do I mean by Implementation? Well lets say there is an option of hire/fire coach. How does it affect the game simulation? How does it affect the gameplay of a team? Most importantly: Why would you fire a coach, and replace it with another one?

I, honestly, can not answer this last question. Does the coach have a rating? Does the rating change? If so why? Why fire Lenny Wilkins and hire Jeff Van Gundy? Is it simply because the team is loosing? Why would it prevent the team from loosing more games? I mean if your team is bad, say like Atlanta this year, why fire the coach in a NBA LIVE dynasty? Its your fault as GM for having a bad team, and unlike real life, you will be the GM for the following year's draft wether you fire the coach or not. Your own job is not on the line.

After being extremely enthousiastic about the idea, I found myself thinking. I would hire the best coach I can find (say a Phil Jackson or Pat Riley), and keep him on for ever. Under what circumstance would I fire him? A team with a good roster and a good coach would have a good year and a team with a bad roster but a good coach would have a average year? Ok. But why would I hire anyone other than the best coach. Unless there is no big difference from one coach to the next. If so, again, why fire the coach if all coaches are somewhat similar? If there is no Michael Jordan of coaches, or at least 5 or 6 coaches that are much better... They are all different from one another? (if so how, and how does it affect your team, and MOST IMPORTANTLY how does it affact your team's winning record)

Anyway, I hope this gets the ball rolling on some creative ideas. Or maybe the concept is so simple that I simply missed it but I doubt it. Anyone that thinks the concept is easy, should check out the online baskeball simdynasty.com and check out their coaching concept. One coach improves the rebounding while another improves the shooting. Who do you hire? Not realistic at all! Firing a coach will not reduce the rebounding skills of a team and hiring another coach to take his place will not make a team shoot better. The difference between one coach and another is not that straightforward.

I guess what I mean is that if you implement hire/fire a coach, you must also implement team moral, team chemestry, and a bunch of other concept not currently in the game. If so, such a concept will probably have to wait, if ever, until it becomes part of the game.

[Andrew]

Your point is well made. If this were implemented in NBA Live 2006, my guess is that it would mostly be a superficial change - another frontend task to add to the atmosphere of Dynasty Mode. That in itself wouldn't be such a terrible idea, and would at least open the door for the coach to play a role in simulation and perhaps even player development.

I would hire the best coach I can find (say a Phil Jackson or Pat Riley), and keep him on for ever. Under what circumstance would I fire him? A team with a good roster and a good coach would have a good year and a team with a bad roster but a good coach would have a average year? Ok. But why would I hire anyone other than the best coach.

If the coach hiring was similar to free agency, it might not be so simple. You might not always be able to sign the best coach searching for a job.

Firing of coaches could take place for four reasons:
1. The team is underachieving
2. It's time to shake things up
3. Pressure from the Owner (similar to asking for training sessions, scouting etc)
4. You just want to make a superficial change

Coaches would also retire, so it would be highly unlikely to sign a coach in his 50s and keep him for the whole 25 year Dynasty.

I believe that could work as a cosmetic detail. It would be even better if the coach's ratings and attributes would have an impact on simulated performance and player development. I'm not sure whether it could have a satisfying impact on the actual gameplay, but perhaps having a good coach could boost your player's Awareness ratings in the final two minutes. It would be more apparent for the CPU team, as at the end of the day it's up to the human player to get things done.

[Goldberg]

I agree that you might not be able to hire the best coach but once you have a good coach, you would not fire him. To understand my perspective with hire/fire coaches in cpu games, search the internet and download the demo of the game "GM Hockey." In this game, similar to Baseball Mogul, you can hire the coach, 2 ast. coach, and the minor league coach. All real names too. They have a free agent market for coaches of about 200, if not more.

The coaches affect overall offence, defense, and roughness, with ratings of 1 to 5 (5 being the best). The sum of all three usually equal 7, 8, or 9. So say I start a dynasty game with a coach who is 3,2,2 for a 7 total.

Here is what I do every game I play. I fire the head coach and I hire the same FA head coach every time. Why? Because I am a GM that build teams based on defense. So on this list of 200 names, one coach has a 2,4,3 for 9 total. All the other available are 3's or lower on D. And I keep him on forever, no matter what the owner says. I am the GM, and I build around defense. As a GM, if I build a good defensive team, we win a lot of games, make the playoffs and often go far into it; if I build a poor team, or one that lacks defense, then we do poorly and don't make the playoffs.

Now say you are in my shoes. You build on defense. Thats your style. So you hire the best defensive head coach you can find right? Now say the only head coaches with stronger D ratings (five's), have 1's or 2's as offense and roughness. You don't want a D coach, you want a D minded head coach to match your style as GM (i.e. Pistons players).

So again, why would you fire him?

I will look at your four reasons you gave me. (and BTW, thanks for your response).

1. The team is underachieving.

Why? GM did a bad job? No need to protect your job, the media isn't going to trash you, and tickets sales aren't going to go down either. So simply get better players. Oh, you do have better players and no injuries, yet you are loosing. I see. Well, if you sim the game, that will not happen since its a cpu (unless they bring in moral, team chemistry, etc.) If you play the game, then the human player is the reason. Not the coach.

2. It's time to shake things up

Honestly, I have no idea what this means. I hear it thrown around by columnists who can't figure out why a team is loosing. "Shake things up" refers to human emotions. A cpu team has none. You would need to bring emotions into the game. Again, you would need to first bring moral, team chemistry, etc.

3. Pressure from the Owner

Ok. Good point. But in GM Hockey, you can get fired and only play 3 or 4 seasons. In NBA LIVE, you sim 25 seasons. Pressure from the owner is not real pressure. I never really listen to the owner in this game. I consider him more of an irritating secretary I can't fire.

4. You just want to make a superficial change

That would be like San Antonio trading Tim Duncan to Minessota for Kevin Garnett one-for-one. Now before the fans of each player start's saying this guy is better than the other guy; please understand my point. And my point is that such transaction would be a superficial change. Two PF who can get over 20 points and 10 rebounds a game. If you have either of these guys and aren't winning; look at the other players, and make changes there, not your starting PF.

Wow! long post again. sorry about that. But in conclusion, I'd like to restate that I am in favor of the hire/fire coach concept but to not make it a useless feature, it must be well implemented.

So I ask the member of this forum:

What characteristic would coaches have?
How would the coach affect the game? In what way?
If like GM Hockey, (off, def, and a third characteristic... say "1 star" coach (Lakers) or "team" coach (Memphis), or whatever else. Why would you fire your coach once you have one who matches your style as a GM?

Thinking now... maybe one who is better with younger teams versus veteran teams, could motivate you to change him as you build from a bad team to a good one.

As for your comments of "perhaps having a good coach could boost your player's Awareness ratings in the final two minutes. It would be more apparent for the CPU team, as at the end of the day it's up to the human player to get things done."

I agree.

Any other creative ideas?

[Andrew]

You might not fire a coach, but you couldn't sign him forever. If the coach signing was similar to player free agency, coaches would decline offers and refuse to re-sign the same as the players, thus you might not be able to lock up a coach for a long time...or at all.

1. The team is underachieving.

Why? GM did a bad job? No need to protect your job, the media isn't going to trash you, and tickets sales aren't going to go down either. So simply get better players. Oh, you do have better players and no injuries, yet you are loosing. I see. Well, if you sim the game, that will not happen since its a cpu (unless they bring in moral, team chemistry, etc.) If you play the game, then the human player is the reason. Not the coach.

Absolutely. But in real life, it's not uncommon for the blame to fall on the head coach. Consider Jeff Bzdelik in Denver. The Nuggets have had a bit of shaky season so far with some ups and downs, but Bzdelik felt the blade even though he had a good season last year. You know the old saying - the coach gets too much of the blame when a team loses and too little credit when they win (or words to that effect).

This would of course make a lot more sense in NBA Live if the coach had an impact on the game.

2. It's time to shake things up

Honestly, I have no idea what this means. I hear it thrown around by columnists who can't figure out why a team is loosing. "Shake things up" refers to human emotions. A cpu team has none. You would need to bring emotions into the game. Again, you would need to first bring moral, team chemistry, etc.

That's true. What I meant is, the decision of some owners and GMs that it isn't working, and everything has to be changed, from the starting lineup to the guy who calls the shots. If a team is kind of treading water for a few years, changes generally occur. Consider the Bulls of the late 80s - under Collins, they went to the playoffs but stumbled a couple of times. He was then replaced by Phil Jackson, who within a couple of years was at the helm of a championship team.

3. Pressure from the Owner

Ok. Good point. But in GM Hockey, you can get fired and only play 3 or 4 seasons. In NBA LIVE, you sim 25 seasons. Pressure from the owner is not real pressure. I never really listen to the owner in this game. I consider him more of an irritating secretary I can't fire.

But your Dynasty game can end early if you mess up. If refusing to heed the requests and suggestions of the owner placed your job in jeopardy, you might have no choice but to fire the coach.

4. You just want to make a superficial change

That would be like San Antonio trading Tim Duncan to Minessota for Kevin Garnett one-for-one. Now before the fans of each player start's saying this guy is better than the other guy; please understand my point. And my point is that such transaction would be a superficial change. Two PF who can get over 20 points and 10 rebounds a game. If you have either of these guys and aren't winning; look at the other players, and make changes there, not your starting PF.

Indeed it is. It isn't the best reason for including the feature in Live, but it is one way that a lot of people would use it - I'm sure I'd have a couple of simulation seasons where I do it just for the fun of it.

But you are right, as long as the coaches and the ability to hire and fire them remained a cosmetic feature, there wouldn't be a whole lot of motivation to take it seriously. But I honestly wouldn't mind that aspect going one step at a time - first adding it as a task that doesn't make or break your team, then implementing the coaches as part of the simulation/development engine.

[Metsis]

The coaches ratings should be something like:

Offensive coaching - Improves offensive awereness of players

Defensive coaching - Improves defensive awereness of players

Motivating - Improves team chemistry and/or improves players day-to-day form (-> This is implemented as sometimes some players have good days and sometimes they have off days. I have this one guy that just exploded for 40 points in one game and he just couldn't miss when I average with him about 15 points or so... He scored 23 in the first quarter and the game was pretty much over from there on... And this guy has an overall of 68)

Personality - Coaches could have personality ratings that would effect how the free agents would like to sign with teams. A good and liked coach would attract more free agents and they would be more inclined to sign with you rather than with a team whose coach isn't as liked.

Training - Some coaches pull harder drills than others and it shows. This would effect how well would the training effect your team and it's members.

And if implemented:

Chemistry - Coach effects the chemistry rating as well as the players

As for you Goldberg... Reasons for changing coaches in this game:

Your team changes and needs a new type of coach... Let's say you are the pistons and coach Larry Brown would have a high score on defense and a lower score on offense... You lose Ben Wallace to free agency and Rasheed Wallace decides to retire from the club. Now you have team that is built around Rip and Billups... You ain't the defensive powerhouse you used to be... Here is another decision to be made here... Would you still like to hold onto that defensive edge you get from mr. Brown or would you be better off with a coach that is more offensive minded and better at coaching the offensive game??? Or you just get a trade offer that you cannot refuse that takes Rasheed away from you and gives you like Zach Randolph in return who is not even close to Rasheed on defense?

If I were the GM of Pistons and would lose the Wallaces I would certainly be considering losing the coach for another as well. I might want to go more offensive than defensive as I would no longer have the defensive pieces left.

It is the age old question of should I try to cover my flaws with this improvement (the coach) or should I try to get my good qualities even better with it. I have a bad defensive team with a good offense -> Should I hire a coach to get that defense a little better or should I hire a coach that would make the offense reach for the sky?

All these ratings that I have mentioned would give room for a whole loft of different choices for teams at different stages in their development... If you are going for the title you would benefit from a good offense/defense coach... You team in rebuild mode would benefit more from a coach that would attract free agents and give better results in training as rebuilding teams usually get quite young before they are through and young guys get more out of training. And a good motivational coach could make your team more consistent through the long NBA schedule if not directly better... No coach should be the master of all. So you'd be more inclined to change when the climate in your team changes.

[A.I.2]

I agree.
A coach should have an impact on the team play, on team chemistry.

Let's say in a game, you're playing with your players and your PG passes the long one to your SF, but because your coach sucks, the players don't communicate well and the result is a turnover.

Those kind of things would lower your chemistry level on the team.
You should be able to raise your coach's rating by winning important games, making the right plays, making the right substitutions, etc.

Coach should have a rating system by something like Metsis wrote above.
With phiolosphy - a defensive coach would not coach someone like the Mavs, but will get offers from someone like the Pistons.

[Metsis]

Another thing... Maybe a coach might leave for a better job at another team?

That's another idea that might go a little over the top. But yeah a defensive minded coach wouldn't want to sign with a team that has all offense mentality and skills.

What I mean by the coach effects... Is that your players would have a little bit better passing, dribbling, offensive awereness and maybe even offensive rebounding with an offensive minded coach. No matter how good or bad you are at anything in basketball nothing is for sure an example like that long pass is a far fetched example. But maybe with a good offensive coach you might complete 7.5 long passes from 10 instead of 7/10... Just little things...

The same as the team chemistry... Just a little effect here and there and it will in the end compile into a bigger effect that might make all the difference in a close game...