Oakland Park Baseball

We now have the career stats to automaticly update stats for total bases and slugging percentage. Those totals have also been added to to record books.

Weeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

I love how Ken and Scott aren't even on the top five in sluggin, even though they are 1 & 2 all-time in total bases. Shows that they aren't as productive as you're lead to belive

Don't Believe the lie!!!

to be fair... I'm .002 behind Nick for 5th best slugger... and now that I'm pulling out of this slump... I expect to pass him shortly 8-p

Yeah, but the point remains that Ken, Scott, and Nick are way behind!

well Peter, you're assuming that slugging percentage is the stat that reflects productivity the best. This is an assumption that has not be recognized by many in the world of baseball stat analysis, only some. So before you state that this shows who's the most productive, take into account that you're emphasizing merely one perspective.

I don't disagree with you. I'm still a big fan off batting average, which seems even less significant to most people.

I don't think slugging is that significant. I just thought that the career leader lists can be misleading, since more games played = more opportunities, which does not imply a more productive player.

Don't get me wrong, I think you're all awesome, even if you‘re not on the top 5!

Peter, you've gone through all these lengths to show total bases, but yet you've left out the all-important APS. What gives?

I'm getting there! One day I will. Be happy I do it at all!

retep wrote:more games played = more opportunities, which does not imply a more productive player.

or, at least in our league the association isn't there. At more organized levels, being willing and able to play a higher % of games is definately an asset (just ask Cal Ripken Jr.)

Well, when Cal was hitting .260 and was still in there everyday, I felt he hurt the team. But overall I agree with your point.

There's a difference between the "best" player and the "most valuble" player. We're not talking about the "best" player. If someone shows up every game and his team always wins, obviously he's worth giving strong consideration to be considered the "most valuble". Someone who is always there impacting every game is "more valuble" though perhaps not "better" than someone who's there sometimes and impacts some games.

Don't forget the difference between "best" and "most valuble"! Focus on cumulative stats, not averages.

Cuong Ha for MVP of Season 1!!!!!!!!! (just kidding obviously)