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
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
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.
Eileen Fox