COMMENTS RELATING TO CALCULATING NATSTATS AVERAGES

 

This will be the final follow up to the 8/11/10 CC email concerning Natstats calculations. Yesterday's follow up email sparked a flurry of comments, and I've pasted them below for your review. It seems the overwhelming majority feels that the system, although not perfect, is the best way to calculate natstats.

 

On the forum, "Horshooz" posted this comment about natstats that pretty much sums up the way I feel too:

 

The current method of determining NATSTATS average is a tried and true (25-30 years) method which was debated by the membership at the convention during the early 80's and perfected over the years. It is the best overall method to reduce sandbagging and encourages pitchers to pitch his/her best for each tournament.
For pitchers who are true competitors and those who believe sportsmanship and fairness are important there is no better system. 
Sportsmanship is based on the scenario that each pitcher is trying to perform his/her best. So we must assume that you and your competitors could pitch his/her best at the next tournament. The average of the top three is a very fair assessment of a pitchers potential best.
We should always be trying for our next tournament to me the highest. The pitcher who is having a better day, should have the better chance to win the tournament, right?
The system should not be altered to make it so that pitching below or at your average could sometimes win. To be competitive and sucessful you should have the attitude that your next tournament will be one of your highest.
To be "stuck" at a higher average is something to strive for - not to fear for doom. If you set your goal at mediocrity, you have a good chance of reaching it.

 

After talking to our tourney directors, the unanimous feeling is to leave the Natatats calculations exactly as is. We're also in agreement Rule 11, Section C of the RGS Book and as Dan Sanders stated "now is the time to follow our Rules".

 

As with any issue there is going to be multiple opinions and the persons in opposition make the most noise. In this case I don't believe the squeaky wheel should get the grease.

 

Gonna throw this idea in there for food for thought on figuring averages. I say keep a running tally of your average for the year in which you are pitching. In the beginning of the year use last year's average to begin the new year and then after that figure the average based off total shoes pitched during the entire season. A variation to this would be to use the last five tournament averages to calculate the average. This way it will be current to the skill of the pitcher. Some of my pitchers in Georgia complain that it takes too long to drop that high game off if they have that stellar great tournament. Personally I would not complain about that, but you know we have those that always will complain about just about anything. I compare some of the things we do to other sports and one that comes to mind that uses a last years average for anything  is bowling and they use it long enough to establish that new average and then drop it.

 

One thing you may do to bring down the confusion level is to only keep on record (for people to see on line) the number of tournaments that are used to calculate the average with, not 20 tournaments. If a pitcher is that interested in knowing that information then they need to keep their own ledger. You could have the most perfect way of figuring it all out and you would still have those few that would not be happy. So best thing is figure out and just tell folks this is how we do it. The highlighted three tournaments is a plus for how it is done now.

 I feel that the averaging is just fine the way it is. Why change something that works. 

 

Here is my input regarding ringer percentage.1. Use the last 3 or 6 months of all tournments games played for ringer percentage.                                   

                                                               ( Continued next page )

 

                       COMMENTS RELATING TO CALCULATING NATSTATS AVERAGES

                                                    ( Continued from previous page )

 

2. If wind, cold, or heat, is factor in ringer percentage, either do not use that days percentage, or for example, if a person pitchs 30% and his ringer % is 40%, the average for that day would be 35% for that tournment.  The tournment director will determine if the weather is a factor the

        ringer percentage for that day  Hope this helps-

 

Jerry I think natstats the way they are is as good as it can be done. There will always be sandbaggers but the way the stats are now they are harder for one to manipulate. And for the higher % pitchers like Brian those 60% tournaments are for not anyway the kind of pitchers he is. So gues for me my thoughts are if it is not broke don't try to fix it..

 

My comments as relating to average are as follows:

1.   The current system is far better than when the World Tournament was held at Columbus, Ohio.........

2.   The NHPA Executive Council may want to consider the system used in the Olympics, provided four or more sanctioned events are used, and that is toss out the low ringer per cent and the high ringer per cent

events, total the ringers made and shoes pitched of the remaining averages, and then divide the shoes into the ringers made.

 

Jerry,

Reading the last paragraph a  lot of us think that we should determine the move ups based on the  top 20 or whatever it is at the time. If there is a tie then we have a playoff and the winner moves up. At this point the winner has already made the top twenty. This game should count towards the final calculation of the tournament %, but should not penalize the player in the standings to move up.

    In regards to the high three calculations I have talked to many players on this subject and the concensus is to possible add more games to the calculations. If you were to calculate the average up to ten games we would have a more accurate %.

For the sake of sandbagging we could also remove two possibly three of the lowest games in the ten games.

 

So to wrap this up for now, if there's anybody who wishes to change the way natstats is calculated, a rules change proposal must be made to Dan Sanders, pass through his rules committee, and approved by the NHPA council to be voted on at the 2012 convention. If any changes are made, they would not likely take effect until the NHPA IT system is overhauled.

 

If any of you have topics that you would like this CC platform to deal with, please let me know and we'll tackle them head on

thanks everyone

                                                                                                                                 Jerry LaBrosse

 

 

                           Comments from the Jr. Program Chairperson

 

There are currently five active Florida Juniors: Jordon Peplinski from Melbourne,  Megan Polski-Largo, Austin Hersey-St. Augustine, Dylan Holmberg-Tampa and Justin Maples-Melbourne. Beverly Hills is starting a 4H BHHC. At this time two are playing starting Nov. 20th. With publicity and word of mouth we are hoping this number to grow. It is important to continue supporting the US Family Foundation Scholarship Award Program. Perhaps it is time to think about increasing the award. Cost of education is very high. It is refreshing to know we are getting new junior members from different parts of the state.

 

                                                                                                                                                     Eileen Fox