Posted by deathinahole on 10/27/2010 4:02:00 PM (view original):
Yea, I think the two that stick out here;
-limit the amount of noms to smaller than what it is now.
-name recognition. I think the best way to do that is instead of throwing up who's best at RF range 5 games into the season on the main World page, rotate the main stats; batting avg leaders, ERA leaders, HR leaders, strikeout leaders. Every four games, over and over again. Interject with truly noteworthy individual performances (the no no, the cycle, when single game records are broken....oh wait, that's not tracked)

LOOKEE HERE!!!!  death has a decent idea.  If the team leaders can't be listed in the little box with the next pitcher, putting the league leaders(of the "important" stats) up every 24 hours would be nice.

Seriously, the only time the current ones are useful is when someone's 2B has 31 negative plays.  You know he's a lefty and the world can mock them in unison.   Showing us the range factor of LF doesn't do much for anyone.

There's no reason at all to show fielding stats leaders for 1B, which seems to happen with great frequency.

attention people at WHATIFSPORTS....heeeeLLLLO...CAN YA HEAR ME.....WHEN ARE YOU GONNA FIX HALL OF FAME VOTING...DO SOMETHING...anything...NOBODIES MAKIN THE FREAKIN HALL...heeeLLLOOOO anybody out there...just knock if you can hear....is there anyone at home...im in 5 WORLDS...no one made the hall...LAZY OWNERS...TO MANY PLAYERS NOMINATED...WHO KNOWS...IT WOULD BE BETTER IF YOU HAD FICTIONAL SPORTS WRITERS VOTE...BASED ON STATS....is that to much to ask for?????????????????????????

"Have a suggestion to improve the game? Post it here. Site staff will monitor this area on a weekly basis."

Is this actually true?

Good ideas here, I like the one about the autovote (or credit votes, or what ever you want to call it) for accomplishments.  It does seem that general apathy is the biggest drawback, it would be nice to see how many coaches actually voted, or bothered to look.  I don't know if they could handle the data size, but when comparing players for a HOF vote, it would be nice to see a list of leaders for their playing period to see where they compared to the rest of the league.  Perhaps give us the ability to sort from say season 2 to season 14 if that covers the bulk of a guys playing days, or years 4-13 if that covers the bulk of his career so that you could know how they stood up against their peers.

similar question, how do others handle younger worlds where you might have a guy that was 28 when the world started, had 5 or 6 dominant seasons before starting to decline.  If he had another 4+ years of expected stats prior to world creation, he would be a hall of famer for certain, but lossing that stats leaves a guy that's just not good enough from a counting number stats.  I'm inclined to vote a guy like that in, but others seem to indicate unless you have the actual stats during the time that the world played, then you can't assume they'd put up similar numbers in years prior.

If apathy is the problem(and I think it is), there isn't much you can do to fix it other than the autovote or percentage of those who voted. 

Personally, I only count what a player has done not what he might have done.   In HBD, some players get held back for several seasons because a high-priced and similarly talented player is blocking him.   In MLB, a spot on the roster is found.  In HBD, he sits in waiting until a spot opens up.  So you could make the same case for a guy who didn't break in until 26 years old.   He lost 3-4 seasons too.

I think A has some merit. There should be a floor to how few votes can get you in, that way if only 1 person votes all the players he votes for does not make the hall of fame....

Posted by plague on 11/8/2010 5:55:00 PM (view original):
I think A has some merit. There should be a floor to how few votes can get you in, that way if only 1 person votes all the players he votes for does not make the hall of fame....

Exactly.  I think somewhere between 16-20 teams have to vote.

Patrick - any updates to HOF voting anytime soon?

A small HOF thing too- can we list their positions as the position they played the most ML innings at?

A +1 on the fewer nominees, as that can be overwhelming leading to apathy.

Here's a suggestion: Have each league vote for three delegates, and have those people select the HOFers.  If the league is dissatisfied with the selections or the selection process of their delegates, they can be recalled (kinda like California did with Gray Davis).

Clearly, the HOF is "broken".  Mostly through apathy on the part of the alleged voters, but also due to other considerations that have been mentioned in this thread (too many undeserving user-nominated candidates cluttering up the ballot, etc.).

The HOF needs to be either addressed by a new approach to nomination and voting, or just scrapped all together.

bump

FIX THIS

WHY ARE THERE NO UPDATES TO THIS?

My world got a deserving player in this year.  Because he was listed twice, and got double the votes. (He got 36....) His plague also doubles all his stats.

A dozen or so owners posted here in support of fixing the HOF voting. A lot more didn't, maybe because they don't care. 

In my experience if many worlds have trouble getting 10 owners to veto blatantly unfair trades, how are you going to get enough owners to pour over stats of imaginary players that are no longer relevant to their current chances of winning games?

I'd be curious to hear how many HOFers have been elected in the top worlds, Moneyball, MG, etc.?