Strat-O-Matic Baseball 365

Rosie2167 wrote:Some of the voting is a bit of a head scratcher. I'm contemplating a few different voting structures...

1. Give each manager one vote for each ATG team they've played as listed under the manager records (yes I realize there were many years prior to our current recorded history). Or maybe there's tiers, 1-50 teams X votes, 51-99 1.5X, over 100 teams 2X, over 250 teams 3X...A bit radical for some I admit and probably tough to administer, but what I'm trying to solve for is allocating more votes to our most experienced managers without going completely old boys club on the rest of the community.

2. A weighted vote. Each manager has say 25 votes, so Salty can assign all 25 to Cano if he wanted.

3. Combination of 1 and 2

I recognize I'd probably have to quit my job and get a divorce to pull off the above so just dipping my toes in this for the moment.

BC15NY wrote:

Rosie2167 wrote:Some of the voting is a bit of a head scratcher. I'm contemplating a few different voting structures...

1. Give each manager one vote for each ATG team they've played as listed under the manager records (yes I realize there were many years prior to our current recorded history). Or maybe there's tiers, 1-50 teams X votes, 51-99 1.5X, over 100 teams 2X, over 250 teams 3X...A bit radical for some I admit and probably tough to administer, but what I'm trying to solve for is allocating more votes to our most experienced managers without going completely old boys club on the rest of the community.

2. A weighted vote. Each manager has say 25 votes, so Salty can assign all 25 to Cano if he wanted.

3. Combination of 1 and 2

I recognize I'd probably have to quit my job and get a divorce to pull off the above so just dipping my toes in this for the moment.

I think a simpler idea is worth considering. Just because the top 25 vote getters are being added, doesn't mean we need to get 25 votes. I would suggest that we only get 5 votes a piece. How many votes do you think coo coo ca choo would have gotten if people had to use one of their five votes on him? If we only had 5 votes each I would think they would be used more wisely and the cards people really want would be likelier to get in.

Also, I would establish a 5-years in MLB minimum for any future nominations. Seems reasonable to me.

Thanks,
Bill

STEVE F wrote:

BC15NY wrote:

Rosie2167 wrote:Some of the voting is a bit of a head scratcher. I'm contemplating a few different voting structures...

1. Give each manager one vote for each ATG team they've played as listed under the manager records (yes I realize there were many years prior to our current recorded history). Or maybe there's tiers, 1-50 teams X votes, 51-99 1.5X, over 100 teams 2X, over 250 teams 3X...A bit radical for some I admit and probably tough to administer, but what I'm trying to solve for is allocating more votes to our most experienced managers without going completely old boys club on the rest of the community.

2. A weighted vote. Each manager has say 25 votes, so Salty can assign all 25 to Cano if he wanted.

3. Combination of 1 and 2

I recognize I'd probably have to quit my job and get a divorce to pull off the above so just dipping my toes in this for the moment.

I think a simpler idea is worth considering. Just because the top 25 vote getters are being added, doesn't mean we need to get 25 votes. I would suggest that we only get 5 votes a piece. How many votes do you think coo coo ca choo would have gotten if people had to use one of their five votes on him? If we only had 5 votes each I would think they would be used more wisely and the cards people really want would be likelier to get in.

Also, I would establish a 5-years in MLB minimum for any future nominations. Seems reasonable to me.

Thanks,
Bill

Agreed! We get too many votes and it dilutes the value of each vote