LeaderBoards ---> Qualify via ABs or GPs?

[TheLegend]

it should take AT LEAST one full season to qualify for the career leaderboard. I agree with Richard and Peter that 50 is not enough. 100 at-bats seems much more reasonable. I in fact think that the number should be more like 200 or 250 at bats.

Scott, i disagree with your statement that the career leaderboards should not reflect longevity, I think that's the biggest difference between the career leaderboard and the season leaderboard, that the career leaderboard in fact does reflect longevity.

Additionally, I don't think 50 at-bats is enough to thouroughly establish a patern (i.e. a pattern worth recognizing on the career leaderboard). 50 at-bats can be as obtained in as little as one month of participation.

[retep]

it should take AT LEAST one full season to qualify for the career leaderboard. I agree with Richard and Peter that 50 is not enough. 100 at-bats seems much more reasonable. I in fact think that the number should be more like 200 or 250 at bats.

I agree. I was thinking even 100 is far too few

Additionally, I don't think 50 at-bats is enough to thouroughly establish a patern (i.e. a pattern worth recognizing on the career leaderboard). 50 at-bats can be as obtained in as little as one month of participation.

Again, Ken is right. What is the point, otherwise? There would be a situation where it takes less ABs to qualify for career leader than single-season leader. That's not right.

[Baseball=Life]

Hey, lively topic, I really appreciate everyone weighing in on this!

Before I make any changes I need to have the following question answered:

...exactly why is 50 ABs not long enough to establish a trend? What are you [all] wanting to avoid from happening [by using 50 AB as the standard]?

Does everyone agree that

all we have to avoid is a statistical fluke

? That's the purpose of having a standard, a min AB required rule, yes?

50 ABs is a lot of performace to analyze someone on!

I still think this is true, is it not?

I in fact think that the number should be more like 200 or 250 at bats.

This would leave only Scott, Nick, Ken, Paul & Chris. Think of it--AVG, SLG, and APS would only have these 5 guys and nothing more... I'll assume that, now that I've pointed this out, you perhaps agree that that would be lame to have so few eligible.

50 at-bats can be as obtained in as little as one month of participation.

I don't think this is true. 4 games a month X 10 ABs is still only 40. More realistically 4 games a month X 7 ABs is only 28, 4 x 6.5 = 26.

...a situation where it takes less ABs to qualify for career leader than single-season leader.... [is] not right.

I see where you're coming from here.
For Reference: At the end of Season 2, you needed 59 ABs to qualify for the Season 2 LeaderBoards...Paul C. had the most ABs in S-2 with 115. (I was using a 51.3% guide for who qualifies.) At the end of Season 2, you needed 89 ABs to qualify for the Career Record Book...Scott L. had the most ABs (career) at that point with 299. (I was using a 29.8% guide for who qualifies.)

[Baseball=Life]

By the way, Nick W. is running some stats right now to test out some of the above ideas.... I'll re-edit this post with his results in like 15-20 minutes, so by 8:45 PM. He's testing out Scott, Nick, Ken, Peter L., and Richard J.

Edit: actually, since Ken just posted, I put these numbers in a new post down below, underneath his recent post.

[TheLegend]

Before I make any changes I need to have the following question answered:

...exactly why is 50 ABs not long enough to establish a trend? What are you [all] wanting to avoid from happening [by using 50 AB as the standard]?

50 just seems way too small. I don't have any finite reason for thinking this... it just doesn't seem nearly enough to consistantly and accurately represent a players performance. Also, Peter's point that this is less than what it took to qualify for season one, makes that number seem even sillier.

Does everyone agree that

all we have to avoid is a statistical fluke

? That's the purpose of having a standard, a min AB required rule, yes?

50 ABs is a lot of performace to analyze someone on!

I still think this is true, is it not?

I think part of what we're saying is that it might not be enough. I am also saying that you should show steady participation for at least 1 season (let's say 150-250 abs) to qualify for a career leaderboard.

I in fact think that the number should be more like 200 or 250 at bats.

This would leave only Scott, Nick, Ken, Paul & Chris. Think of it--AVG, SLG, and APS would only have these 5 guys and nothing more... I'll assume that, now that I've pointed this out, you perhaps agree that that would be lame to have so few eligible.

what about 150 or 200? While it's unfortunate that few people have been consistantly attending, I think that's motivation to RAISE the standards not lower them. i.e. if it's easy to get on the leaderboard then coming every week isn't important.

50 at-bats can be as obtained in as little as one month of participation.

I don't think this is true. 4 games a month X 10 ABs is still only 40. More realistically 4 games a month X 7 ABs is only 28, 4 x 6.5 = 26.

I'm just saying it's possible. If we play two double headers, someone could potentially get 50 at-bats in one month.

[Baseball=Life]

Ok, Nick just ran the stats and it's quite interesting. We pretty much had to discard Richard J.'s stats because he only has 60 total ABs, thus no overall career numbers to compare that to. But on to the other people......

Ken: last 60 ABs = .385; career = .482 (almost .100 difference)
Peter: last 60 ABs = .356; career = .479 (over .100 difference)
Scott: last 60 ABs = .524; career = .523 (almost exact same)
Nick: last 60 ABs = .443; career = .453 (very close to same)

So, if you look at Nick, and especially at Scott, you can safely say that examining the last 60 ABs are in fact reflective of overall ability. Note how similar the career numbers are to the "last 60 ABs" numbers.

But if you look at Ken and Peter, it suggests that 60 ABs is in fact inadequate... their numbers for last 60 ABs are significantly different than their overall abilities. Note how different the career numbers are to the "last 60 ABs" numbers.

So, back to the drawing board....

[retep]

50 ABs is a lot of performace to analyze someone on!

I still think this is true, is it not?

It is if making a lineup, which is where you're often coming from, Scott, but not when deciding who an all-time leader is. I think what is key is in need of clarification. The top AVG, SLG, etc., are not just to reward good hitters: Coung, Nomar, others, many many good hitters. But for how long is key.

Who gives a fuck that Bob Hamelin hit .282 his rookie season? He could have retired then, and been a KC career leader. Then, he had to hit .234 in the rest of his career. Oops!

A full season is not a sample. It's just a pay raise, at best.

I in fact think that the number should be more like 200 or 250 at bats.

This would leave only Scott, Nick, Ken, Paul & Chris. Think of it--AVG, SLG, and APS would only have these 5 guys and nothing more... I'll assume that, now that I've pointed this out, you perhaps agree that that would be lame to have so few eligible.[/quote]

I would say we should have the minimum be at 100 ABs, and keep in mind that we may need to raise it at some point (I am included in the 200 ABs group, by the way)

...a situation where it takes less ABs to qualify for career leader than single-season leader.... [is] not right.

I see where you're coming from here. [/quote]

You better! Anyway, my other argumets kick ass as well.



In fact, Scott, you're loosing this one, sorry!

[Baseball=Life]

Hey, I'm now convinced 60 ABs probably is inadequate (see the above stats, where only 2/4 people tested had similar stats in "last 60 ABs" to their overall numbers). Since the other 2/4 people did seem to confirm 60 ABs being an accurate point of comparison to overall performance, Nick is running Paul's stats now for "last 60 ABs" to compare to his career numbers.

Paul: last 60 ABs = .444, career .493 (.49 points difference, significant)

I'm comfortable with 100 becoming the new standard minimum AB for the Career Record Books. 150 is too much (we don't have 600 AB seasons like in MLB)..... under 150, very few would qualify---only 12 would be eligible. Under 100, 18 are eligible, including frequent participants Michael P., Carlos E., etc.

[retep]

I second the motion for 100 ABs to rule... but can we leave this flexible for future discussion... in a year, we may wanna revisit this.

[retep]

Oh yeah, thanks for rubbing it in!...

Ken: last 60 ABs = .385; career = .482 (almost .100 difference)
Peter: last 60 ABs = .356; career = .479 (over .100 difference)


But if you look at Ken and Peter, it suggests that 60 ABs is in fact inadequate... their numbers for last 60 ABs are significantly different than their overall abilities. Note how different the career numbers are to the "last 60 ABs" numbers.

...Asshole!

[Southpaw Slim]

You brought it up, Peter. Don't ask questions for which you wouldn't want to know the answers.

Besides, I spent too much time working the numbers! @.@

[TheLegend]

including frequent participants Michael P., Carlos E., etc.

I wouldn't consider either of these people frequent participants, so I will use this same argument to suggest that the bar be set at 150. 150 is still less than 1 full season of consistant participation.

edit: I don't suppose nick would want to run career stats vs last 100 at-bats?

[Baseball=Life]

The above stat analysis goes all the way back to the double header on 10/16. It would take going back far further, ie July probably, to actually compare/contrast 150 ABs vs Career performance. That's a pretty tall order.

Interestingly, if we apply the Season LeaderBoard standard to the Career Record Books (3.1 AB's x Games Played in Season), then we come up with 143 ABs.

46 games played x 3.1 = 142.6

Here's what Nick and I just discussed. Let's go with the 150 AB minimum for Career Records (thanks Ken). HOWEVER...... once the Career AB leader gets to 500 ABs, at that point then let's revisit the issue and specifically apply the 3.1 AB/LGP. [3.1 ABs per League Games Played]

At the current rate (7 ABs per GP) it will take 70 total games for someone to get to 500 ABs, thus the standard at that point will be 217, and will go up each game from there by 3.1. That's estimated to happen at the end of season 3.... ah, the race to 500 ABs.

So, whaddya say?

[retep]

Alright! But let's see if anyone else has anything to say, since this has mainly been Ken, Scott, Nick, and myself.

[Southpaw Slim]

I love the idea, but I think we should be able to grandfather in people who will never meet the requirements after they're raised in the future. For instance, anyone over 100 AB's right now is eligible, and people between 150 and the prospective 217 figure get eligibility when someone gets 500 AB's, but nobody can get in with those low figures from then on.

This way we can sorta commemorate people who played with us in the beginning and could own.