The question is if the process wasn't broken would the response improve? Seems fixing it is worth a try.

Personally, I'd rather have a "veto" type situation.

SIMMY announces who will be in the HOF.    If 10 owners say "No thank you" with a veto, they're removed from the list. 

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/15/2012 9:29:00 AM (view original):
Personally, I'd rather have a "veto" type situation.

SIMMY announces who will be in the HOF.    If 10 owners say "No thank you" with a veto, they're removed from the list. 

That's an excellent suggestion.

http://www.whatifsports.com/forums/Posts.aspx?ForumID=506&TopicID=427486&ThreadID=9331724#l_9331724

Good for you?

Commish should get to see the ballots.  We just had a case in my world this morning -- with seemingly attentive owners, very few zombies -- where the greatest offensive player in the 24 seasons so far just barely squeaked in.  

I'd argue that you can't break the broken vase again but I don't care enough to do so.

HOF = broken

The options:
1.  Leave it be
2.  Do something

Absolutely broken... but I hope the veto idea would be more of a last option. Seems to me fundamentally it's an organization problem. Too many players all put at the same level, with incorrect information (awards, positions, etc.) put out there as filter mechanisms. Shooting for something more like the end-of-season awards should be the goal. Since HOF voting has the six days of ST, why not use three to allow voting to winnow the list down to 10 (or fewer), then the next three to vote on those. That would more closely parallel RL anyway.

IMO, the first step would be to allow voting until the A/S break.   The pre-season can be hectic.   A new owner has no idea of world history and is more focused on his team(I just vote for the top 5 vote-getters from previous seasons).    I actually prefer that new owners work on their team than reseach HOF candidates.   But, if voting is extended, they would have time to do both.

"The pre-season can be hectic." Sarcasm? Nine out of ten would probably call it the slowest, foot-draggingest, waste-of-timeiest part of the three months. (Except for those with no postseason teams.)

Posted by MikeT23 on 8/17/2012 10:59:00 AM (view original):
IMO, the first step would be to allow voting until the A/S break.   The pre-season can be hectic.   A new owner has no idea of world history and is more focused on his team(I just vote for the top 5 vote-getters from previous seasons).    I actually prefer that new owners work on their team than reseach HOF candidates.   But, if voting is extended, they would have time to do both.

This seems to be the easiest fix. There are a lot of other areas that I'd rather see fixed or improved over this. If HOF voting goes on until the AS break or trading deadline, it gives everyone a lot of time to make their case for or against players.  I know I've been too busy & forgotten to vote during preseason. This simple change would have solved that. Good idea, Mike.

Posted by jsturgis5866 on 8/17/2012 11:09:00 AM (view original):
"The pre-season can be hectic." Sarcasm? Nine out of ten would probably call it the slowest, foot-draggingest, waste-of-timeiest part of the three months. (Except for those with no postseason teams.)

It depends.   When you take over a team, you're trying to sort things out.   If you're in the FA market, you're sorting things out on the fly.   If you need coaches, and worry yourself over them, that's time consuming.   I've been a proponent of leaving ST alone.   I like the 6 day break to re-evaluate what I've done and what I still need to do after arb/FA/trading. 

I do, too, for the reasons you suggest and others. But you know as well as I do the "masses" couldn't care less. As with most things, adding more time to voting would change nothing for the 99 percent who either vote on the first or last day.

The basic problem remains that game extras yield to path of least resistance: Rule V -- set numbers, take whoever, even if they're drek ... minor leagues, f*ck 'em, not my concern .. HOF, too much work. Until the organization/simplification problem is addressed, nothing else matters.

You don't like the two-phase plan, Mike? Most owners would ignore the first phase, so essentially you'd have a veterans committee of owners narrowing the list, which is already happening in some worlds. Then what's left is essentially MVP/Cy Young-type voting, which is simple and straightforward.