Oakland Park Baseball

There is a situation where only 9 people who play ball with us can qualify for the league lead in hitting. There is currently a minimum of 36 at bats needed to qualify. Each game, the number of needed at bats has been going up by 6. Scott and I came up with this while we were playing at Defremery Park. This was when each person was getting about 7-10 at bats a game.

The goal was to keep the records accessible for the regulars. We didn't want people who only came a played 3 games, and went 12 for 14 would fuck up the stats forever. Like in the MLB, they say 3.1 plate-appearances a game is the minimum.

Then 2 things happened: First, we had so many people, that the number of at-bats received each game went down. Also, the new park is cutting into the number of at-bats we are all getting.

This is my proposed solution: We'll keep the 6-at bat rate for now: this means that after Sunday, the minimum number of at-bats will be 42.

After this next game, we'll start capping the at-bats at 45 at-bats, and we'll stop increasing the minimum.

Thoughts?

Good idea to cap it at 45 after the next game.

And it looks like you don't remember, Peter, but that was what we decided to do at the beginning. Go up by 6 ab's/game until a specified total minimum ABs.

right, but we never made the final descion on when we'd cap it.

Also, I thinbk at some point, we may expand the minimu... like, after most of us have 60 at-bats or so,

I think that the best thing to do is to limit the increase of minumum at bats... that means that the person with the highest number at bats should be the one to use as a guide and the minumum would be like lets say 75% of the highest at bats would be consider minumum... lets say that the highest #at bat is 30 so the minumum would be like 22 or 23 at bats.....

I think what Manuel said is a reasonable approach to determining minimum ABs.

That sounds like a very reasonable idea to me as well.

even at that pace i do not qualify either....but i guess that sort of sound reasonable by elimination that one's that just show up three out of ten times....i think that even 50% might even work so that it can encourage the one's who showed up very late into the season to have a fair change to get something on their belts....50% would be a little more acceptable because there are ppl that just show up like every other week which then in return lowers their at bats compared to others.....i just think that everyone should get a fair share into this.. and this is what i truly propose...

So, after the 2/27 game, the person with the most at-bats (AB's) is Kenyatte with 64.

(then Scott & Chris with 62, Nick with 55, Rich with 51, Cuong with 48, Peter with 46, Michael - 43, Paul - 41, Carlos - 38, Manuel - 37, Rob - 37, Dorian - 31, Daniel - 31, etc.)

So if we went with the 50% guide Manuel proposed, the minimum at-bats necessary to qualify for the leaderboard would be 32, ie half of Kenyatte's. If we went with 75%, the minimum would be 48.

With the 75% minimum, only 6 are eligible. Even Peter is ineligible.

With a 50% minimum, those 6 are eligible, plus 6 more, with Dorian & Daniel each being only 1 at-bat short of the minimum 32 ab's.

I like 55%, because it would include: Kenyatte, Scott, Chris, Nick, Rich, Cuong, Peter, Michael, Paul, Carlos, Manuel, and Rob. Minimum under 55% is 35 ab's, so Dorian & Daniel would still be just a few ab's short.

Batting Average is all about consistency, and you can't demonstrate consistency over a short period of time, hence Kenyatte batting .453 (29/64) is more impressive to me than Anthony having hit .706 in far fewer at-bats (12/17), just to take one example. Again, this is from a batting average, ie consistency, perspective. On that example, slugging would be another story entirely!

NOTE: The stats mentioned above are thru the 2/27 game, but career stats hasn't been updated yet, so don't bother checking this post against the career stats yet (Monday - 12:30 pm).

Sound pretty good because other people can get a shot, too..

I think 50% is adequate.

At Bats are at 42, and they will stay there.

Issue closed.