 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Baseball League Forums » Dynasty Leagues » Ashburn Crawford League » Rule proposal
co_daddy
I propose that a player may only be on the Hall of Fame ballot for 5 consecutive ballots. If a player does not receive at least 75% of the vote after his 5th time on the ballot, he would not be carried over automatically the following ballot. After being off the ballot for at least one vote, an owner may renominate the player if they truly feel he deserves to be in the Hall of Fame.
Please let me know if you are in favor OR against this rule change that I would like to have go into effect immediately.
Rule proposal
January 23, 2017 at 03:09PM View BBCode
I would like to propose a rule regarding the Hall of Fame voting.I propose that a player may only be on the Hall of Fame ballot for 5 consecutive ballots. If a player does not receive at least 75% of the vote after his 5th time on the ballot, he would not be carried over automatically the following ballot. After being off the ballot for at least one vote, an owner may renominate the player if they truly feel he deserves to be in the Hall of Fame.
Please let me know if you are in favor OR against this rule change that I would like to have go into effect immediately.
yuribach77
January 23, 2017 at 04:15PM View BBCode
Yeah, I would think 5 ballots should be enough to get a guy in the HOF...If there could a list of players already ineligible, that may be easy to refer to when considering players.
SIRKERRETH
January 24, 2017 at 01:25PM View BBCode
I'm against it, but not strongly. If an owner can renominate someone, it only makes it more complicated. If the player is getting votes, then he probably deserves to have his name on the nominee list. I won't put up a fight, if the vote goes against me, though. Thanks, KW
lyle
January 25, 2017 at 01:50AM View BBCode
What is the current magic number that a player needs to get carried over. Such as two votes, three votes, 25% of votes....
co_daddy
I'd love to get more owners feedback so we don't make a decision based off of the opinions of a few people.
January 25, 2017 at 02:17AM View BBCode
20% or more of the votes keeps you on the ballot. The past vote we had 16 owners vote, which meant that anyone with 4+ votes stayed on the ballot.I'd love to get more owners feedback so we don't make a decision based off of the opinions of a few people.
Lyrici17
Make it more than 5 years? 7 years? 10 years?
Increasing the % needed in order to be kept on the ballot? 25%? 30%?
I wonder if part of the issue is that we're still dealing with a lot merger players, and maybe they're just a little tougher to evaluate. I know for me, personally, I'm STILL trying to gauge what a Simdynasty HOF is - I find that I am far more liberal with my vote than pretty much anyone in any league that I am in; I'm not sure what my problem is, haha.
However, I do think the backlog is ultimately hurting the process, as every time the vote comes around there are more and more options, good options, and all the owners vote for a few guys, but the votes are spread around because there are so many good options. My interpretation anyway.
January 25, 2017 at 03:34AM View BBCode
Just spit-balling ideas here...Make it more than 5 years? 7 years? 10 years?
Increasing the % needed in order to be kept on the ballot? 25%? 30%?
I wonder if part of the issue is that we're still dealing with a lot merger players, and maybe they're just a little tougher to evaluate. I know for me, personally, I'm STILL trying to gauge what a Simdynasty HOF is - I find that I am far more liberal with my vote than pretty much anyone in any league that I am in; I'm not sure what my problem is, haha.
However, I do think the backlog is ultimately hurting the process, as every time the vote comes around there are more and more options, good options, and all the owners vote for a few guys, but the votes are spread around because there are so many good options. My interpretation anyway.
co_daddy
The negative to that is what happened two ballots ago: Two players received 33% of the vote and would have been left off the last ballot. The last vote, those two players received 43% and 63%.
Based off of what I have seen in the other leagues I'm in that do HOF voting, if a guy doesn't get the 75% vote in 5 tries, he's never going to. One league we have a guy on the ballot for the 20th+ time. No need for that.
Plus we do the vote every 2 seasons. So by leaving him on 5 ballots, it is actually 10 seasons he's eligible.
I am down to do what ever the majority of the voices want though.
January 25, 2017 at 03:29PM View BBCode
Raising the minimum percentage to remain on the ballot is an option, but it would have to be significantly raised. Moving it to 30% would do nothing. All player from the previous ballot would have still been left on this current one. It would have to become 40% or something like that.The negative to that is what happened two ballots ago: Two players received 33% of the vote and would have been left off the last ballot. The last vote, those two players received 43% and 63%.
Based off of what I have seen in the other leagues I'm in that do HOF voting, if a guy doesn't get the 75% vote in 5 tries, he's never going to. One league we have a guy on the ballot for the 20th+ time. No need for that.
Plus we do the vote every 2 seasons. So by leaving him on 5 ballots, it is actually 10 seasons he's eligible.
I am down to do what ever the majority of the voices want though.
CardFan4520
January 27, 2017 at 02:48PM View BBCode
It is tough because of the merger stats. Although I joined after the meager. I'm have thrown this around in my head and the proposal of 5 ballots is good. Usually after 5 they don't get in anyway and if you have a strong feeling for the player you can renominate in a year. CN
lyle
January 27, 2017 at 08:58PM View BBCode
I'm ok with leaving it as is, 5 tries, 25% to carry over. That's about the norm in many leagues anyway...
SIRKERRETH
January 29, 2017 at 02:35PM View BBCode
I vote for raising the carryover Percentage to 40%. If we need to adjust it in a few seasons, then I'll be happy to join that discussion. I'm thinking we need to take small steps in this, so we don't over do it. Thanks, KW
kingofthemountain
January 31, 2017 at 08:29PM View BBCode
40% and 5 year max is fine. limit on number of players you can vote on in each election may help too.
Lyrici17
February 01, 2017 at 02:52AM View BBCode
I say go with the 40% and we'll see how it goes, and then adjust accordingly.Pages: 1