So, although no one is listening (from WIS) lets talk more about how broken injuries and recovery currently are.

Vic Shoemaker got injured 3 innings into his first game (probably game 3 of this season). He has been on the DL for over 100 games without a single recovery bump.

Al Valverde went down for 25 games with a minor injury so I put him on the 60 day DL and he will probably get 2 injury bumps, coming back stronger then before.

I know shoulder surgery is a lot worse then a sore shoulder but at 27 this injury probably wrecks Shoemakers career as he will never get those numbers back. Meanwhile at 34 I probably gave Valverde a few more seasons because the gains he makes will offset the losses he has in the offseason.

its wild. A shortish injury (5-30) is a HUGE benefit to a team. Meanwhile anything over 60 days is a death knell. Particularly if it doesn't happen to span the off-season where you could then put a player on the 60 again.

Posted by hockey1984 on 8/2/2022 9:22:00 AM (view original):
So, although no one is listening (from WIS) lets talk more about how broken injuries and recovery currently are.

Vic Shoemaker got injured 3 innings into his first game (probably game 3 of this season). He has been on the DL for over 100 games without a single recovery bump.

Al Valverde went down for 25 games with a minor injury so I put him on the 60 day DL and he will probably get 2 injury bumps, coming back stronger then before.

I know shoulder surgery is a lot worse then a sore shoulder but at 27 this injury probably wrecks Shoemakers career as he will never get those numbers back. Meanwhile at 34 I probably gave Valverde a few more seasons because the gains he makes will offset the losses he has in the offseason.

Yep.
I think I alone have dozens of comments throughout several threads in connection with this subject. Not to mention others and their comments. If more folks could post examples like I have done in the past or hockey has done above, it might help.

Posted by jamier2003 on 8/2/2022 3:17:00 PM (view original):
its wild. A shortish injury (5-30) is a HUGE benefit to a team. Meanwhile anything over 60 days is a death knell. Particularly if it doesn't happen to span the off-season where you could then put a player on the 60 again.

Something has to be done. It's the most broken thing in the game. It is especially impactful when you're a team that builds from within and you have just one major injury a season. The lack of recovery starts to have significant impacts, in the aggregate, to the team wide performance. If you have ten players that have had a significant injury and they are all players that don't fully recover, do you need to have ten more players with minor injuries to where you put them on the 60 day DL to make up for it? That's not a reasonable solution.

A short term injury should have full recovery 100 percent of the time assuming a reasonable medical budget and reasonable player makeup rating. A longer-term more significant injury should allow the player the opportunity to come very close to full recovery if the player has a high makeup rating and the team has a high medical budget.

I have received word that this is something that might get fixed before a major rewrite of the game, but if it doesn't get fixed, I might start running a 0 medical budget as well. No sense in runnung full 20 if players get an injury and by the time they get off the DL, they are 2-4 points off in multiple categories.

Posted by hockey1984 on 8/2/2022 9:22:00 AM (view original):
So, although no one is listening (from WIS) lets talk more about how broken injuries and recovery currently are.

Vic Shoemaker got injured 3 innings into his first game (probably game 3 of this season). He has been on the DL for over 100 games without a single recovery bump.

Al Valverde went down for 25 games with a minor injury so I put him on the 60 day DL and he will probably get 2 injury bumps, coming back stronger then before.

I know shoulder surgery is a lot worse then a sore shoulder but at 27 this injury probably wrecks Shoemakers career as he will never get those numbers back. Meanwhile at 34 I probably gave Valverde a few more seasons because the gains he makes will offset the losses he has in the offseason.

Well, the verdict is in on Vic Shoemaker. You never like to say 'Career ending injury' at the age of 27, but between losing 5 and 7 points in all major categories and getting 1 bump of 1-2 points back this is incredibility discouraging. With 20 million in medical and training I am beyond disappointed. For a 59 makeup its not like I was expecting miracles but this has completely wrecked one of my most intriguing prospects.

Hall of Fame empty ballots need to be addressed in some capacity. How about a system that takes all empty ballots and allocates those votes proportionally to players whom already have votes?

An example would be a world that has 8 users with empty ballots. If the World has one player that already has sixteen votes, two players that have fourteen votes and all others have ten or less, then each player that already has votes gets that same proportion. So the player with 16 votes received votes from half the world so they would get an additional four votes (half of 8). The player that already received fourteen votes would get an additional 3 votes (43 percent of 8). The players that received ten votes would get 2 more votes (31 percent of 8).

In the above example, instead of the World getting zero deserving players in the hall, the world gets three deserving players in the hall.

This would help Worlds get deserving players in the hall despite users not participating in the hall of fame vote.

Posted by tlowster on 11/9/2022 5:50:00 PM (view original):
Hall of Fame empty ballots need to be addressed in some capacity. How about a system that takes all empty ballots and allocates those votes proportionally to players whom already have votes?

An example would be a world that has 8 users with empty ballots. If the World has one player that already has sixteen votes, two players that have fourteen votes and all others have ten or less, then each player that already has votes gets that same proportion. So the player with 16 votes received votes from half the world so they would get an additional four votes (half of 8). The player that already received fourteen votes would get an additional 3 votes (43 percent of 8). The players that received ten votes would get 2 more votes (31 percent of 8).

In the above example, instead of the World getting zero deserving players in the hall, the world gets three deserving players in the hall.

This would help Worlds get deserving players in the hall despite users not participating in the hall of fame vote.

I think this is a great idea. I would prefer a percentage. So 18 votes out of 32 gets you in so 56% of all votes get you in. If an owner feels that no one is deserving of the hall then they would click on a button that says 'voting for no players this season' but they would have to physically do it.

@tlowster, one of the things my Gibson world does well that I really like is a committee decides on which players will get into the hall (everyone can make the case for who they like but then the committee makes the ultimate decision) then about halfway through voting the committee says 'Please vote for the following 5 people'. Making sure deserving players get in.

(Long term solution vs short term solution)

Posted by hockey1984 on 11/10/2022 8:58:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tlowster on 11/9/2022 5:50:00 PM (view original):
Hall of Fame empty ballots need to be addressed in some capacity. How about a system that takes all empty ballots and allocates those votes proportionally to players whom already have votes?

An example would be a world that has 8 users with empty ballots. If the World has one player that already has sixteen votes, two players that have fourteen votes and all others have ten or less, then each player that already has votes gets that same proportion. So the player with 16 votes received votes from half the world so they would get an additional four votes (half of 8). The player that already received fourteen votes would get an additional 3 votes (43 percent of 8). The players that received ten votes would get 2 more votes (31 percent of 8).

In the above example, instead of the World getting zero deserving players in the hall, the world gets three deserving players in the hall.

This would help Worlds get deserving players in the hall despite users not participating in the hall of fame vote.

I think this is a great idea. I would prefer a percentage. So 18 votes out of 32 gets you in so 56% of all votes get you in. If an owner feels that no one is deserving of the hall then they would click on a button that says 'voting for no players this season' but they would have to physically do it.

@tlowster, one of the things my Gibson world does well that I really like is a committee decides on which players will get into the hall (everyone can make the case for who they like but then the committee makes the ultimate decision) then about halfway through voting the committee says 'Please vote for the following 5 people'. Making sure deserving players get in.

(Long term solution vs short term solution)

I really like that checkbox idea where an owner needs to check the box if he feels that no one deserves to be in the Hall.

Also, im in a World with a HoF Committee as well. It has worked pretty well. There are still some players that the Committee has recommend that didnt get in, but it certainly helped with the traffic that we had on the Hall of fame list. We probably had nine deserving players before the Committee but when 8 or more users didn't vote and then the remaining 24 users split the vote, it turned into a situation where many deserving players didn't get in.

Pitcher has 1 day left on an injury. Put pitcher in as next game's starter. Pitcher still gets skipped as though he has an injury even though he is healthy for the next game.

This is a minor thing in my current regular season situation but if I wanted him for a big playoff race or playoff game, I guess I'd have to tandem him?

If he's fully healthy he ought to be able to start.

I've noticed that too. Its a huge pain in the butt.

It's probably a quick order check in the code. Could likely be a quick fix.

Posted by hockey1984 on 11/10/2022 8:58:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tlowster on 11/9/2022 5:50:00 PM (view original):
Hall of Fame empty ballots need to be addressed in some capacity. How about a system that takes all empty ballots and allocates those votes proportionally to players whom already have votes?

An example would be a world that has 8 users with empty ballots. If the World has one player that already has sixteen votes, two players that have fourteen votes and all others have ten or less, then each player that already has votes gets that same proportion. So the player with 16 votes received votes from half the world so they would get an additional four votes (half of 8). The player that already received fourteen votes would get an additional 3 votes (43 percent of 8). The players that received ten votes would get 2 more votes (31 percent of 8).

In the above example, instead of the World getting zero deserving players in the hall, the world gets three deserving players in the hall.

This would help Worlds get deserving players in the hall despite users not participating in the hall of fame vote.

I think this is a great idea. I would prefer a percentage. So 18 votes out of 32 gets you in so 56% of all votes get you in. If an owner feels that no one is deserving of the hall then they would click on a button that says 'voting for no players this season' but they would have to physically do it.

@tlowster, one of the things my Gibson world does well that I really like is a committee decides on which players will get into the hall (everyone can make the case for who they like but then the committee makes the ultimate decision) then about halfway through voting the committee says 'Please vote for the following 5 people'. Making sure deserving players get in.

(Long term solution vs short term solution)

I don't like the idea of someone telling me who to vote for. Then again, I always vote. I think the question is how do you motivate the owners who never vote to start doing so? I can understand why some folks don't really care what imaginary players get into an imaginary Hall of Fame, but how long does it take to vote?

If an owner plans to be a part of a world long term, he'll likely naturally start to care more about the imaginary players in the world. If an owner has little to no intention of staying in a world long term, he'll likely be an owner that is more difficult to get to vote for Hall of Fame. When I look at the Worlds that are poorly managed, they usually have many things in common and one of them is a Hall of Fame with very little players in it and hall of fame ballots chalk full of hall of fame worthy players.

Posted by wylie715 on 1/17/2023 3:23:00 PM (view original):

Posted by hockey1984 on 11/10/2022 8:58:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tlowster on 11/9/2022 5:50:00 PM (view original):
Hall of Fame empty ballots need to be addressed in some capacity. How about a system that takes all empty ballots and allocates those votes proportionally to players whom already have votes?

An example would be a world that has 8 users with empty ballots. If the World has one player that already has sixteen votes, two players that have fourteen votes and all others have ten or less, then each player that already has votes gets that same proportion. So the player with 16 votes received votes from half the world so they would get an additional four votes (half of 8). The player that already received fourteen votes would get an additional 3 votes (43 percent of 8). The players that received ten votes would get 2 more votes (31 percent of 8).

In the above example, instead of the World getting zero deserving players in the hall, the world gets three deserving players in the hall.

This would help Worlds get deserving players in the hall despite users not participating in the hall of fame vote.

I think this is a great idea. I would prefer a percentage. So 18 votes out of 32 gets you in so 56% of all votes get you in. If an owner feels that no one is deserving of the hall then they would click on a button that says 'voting for no players this season' but they would have to physically do it.

@tlowster, one of the things my Gibson world does well that I really like is a committee decides on which players will get into the hall (everyone can make the case for who they like but then the committee makes the ultimate decision) then about halfway through voting the committee says 'Please vote for the following 5 people'. Making sure deserving players get in.

(Long term solution vs short term solution)

I don't like the idea of someone telling me who to vote for. Then again, I always vote. I think the question is how do you motivate the owners who never vote to start doing so? I can understand why some folks don't really care what imaginary players get into an imaginary Hall of Fame, but how long does it take to vote?

I agree, if the committee comes up with someone I don't think is worthy, I'm still not voting for him. Just my contrarian nature, I guess. But even in worlds I'm only in for a season as a replacement, I vote.

Similar to gridiron -- how about throwing a tiny bone to users that end up with a bag of prospect cash at the end of the season by allowing them to allocate 25 percent of it to the following season. You can even double penalize it by only allowing prospect money to be allocated to the following season. An example would be if you started the season with 20 in prospect cash, you spend 5 on the draft so you have 15. Then you transfer 40 million from player payroll to prospect cash at the fifty percent penalty rate and this gives you 20 more in prospect cash for a total of 35. Now, you allocate that 35 to next season and it's only 8.75. So, if you stay with your team for the next season, you get an extra 8.75.