overall standings

[E]

just checking the overall standings, seems that classic weekend 2=online league 1, places 5 of the top 62 teams overall.as of this morning. very competitive league.

[Dub]

Originally posted by E:

just checking the overall standings, seems that classic weekend 2=online league 1, places 5 of the top 62 teams overall.as of this morning. very competitive league. ..or ten other really bad teams- just sayin

[JohnZ]

It's too bad the overall standings have never been close to 100% accurate for the entire year.



There are 41 errors in the MAIN ranking in just the Top 100 of BA, ERA and whip. Mostly in BA. And that's just the top 100 in those cats and there are 435 teams. So there are easily well over 100 errors.



I posted this a few months ago and got no response.

[Chest Rockwell]

Originally posted by JohnZ:

It's too bad the overall standings have never been close to 100% accurate for the entire year.



There are 41 errors in the MAIN ranking in just the Top 100 of BA, ERA and whip. Mostly in BA. And that's just the top 100 in those cats and there are 435 teams. So there are easily well over 100 errors.



I posted this a few months ago and got no response. I hope to goodness you are kidding. This year has just been a disaster but I never thought the inegrity of the data needed to be questioned to that level.

[Navel Lint]

Originally posted by Chest Rockwell:

quote:Originally posted by JohnZ:

It's too bad the overall standings have never been close to 100% accurate for the entire year.



There are 41 errors in the MAIN ranking in just the Top 100 of BA, ERA and whip. Mostly in BA. And that's just the top 100 in those cats and there are 435 teams. So there are easily well over 100 errors.



I posted this a few months ago and got no response. I hope to goodness you are kidding. This year has just been a disaster but I never thought the inegrity of the data needed to be questioned to that level. [/QUOTE]If I remember correctly, his issue is that the decimal places don’t go out far enough. So that batting averages of .28644 and .28641 are both treated as .2864 and therefore result in a scoring tie. Same with ERA and Whip.



At least I think that was the issue.

[Gekko]

Originally posted by JohnZ:

It's too bad the overall standings have never been close to 100% accurate for the entire year.



There are 41 errors in the MAIN ranking in just the Top 100 of BA, ERA and whip. Mostly in BA. And that's just the top 100 in those cats and there are 435 teams. So there are easily well over 100 errors.



I posted this a few months ago and got no response. John,

Can you repost what the exact issue is and maybe give an example. IF these are wrong, it's time to rattle Fanball cages again

[Greg Ambrosius]

Originally posted by Gekko:

quote:Originally posted by JohnZ:

It's too bad the overall standings have never been close to 100% accurate for the entire year.



There are 41 errors in the MAIN ranking in just the Top 100 of BA, ERA and whip. Mostly in BA. And that's just the top 100 in those cats and there are 435 teams. So there are easily well over 100 errors.



I posted this a few months ago and got no response. John,

Can you repost what the exact issue is and maybe give an example. IF these are wrong, it's time to rattle Fanball cages again [/QUOTE]John makes a valid point, albeit in a way to get everyone's attention. But he is right, this is something that should be changed to reflect the correct overall standings.



It looks like Batting Average, WHIP and ERA are displaying out four decimal points in the overall categories, just like they always did with STATS. But at least with STATS, they were calculated beyond four decimal points. Here it looks like we are not calculating it beyond four decimal points and thus it may be affecting 1.0 or 0.5 points where ties are showing. In most case, again John is correct, they likely are not tied.



This hasn't affected any prize money or results yet, but it needs to be corrected as we tabulate the overall standings by end of season. These ties shouldn't be giving the same rank points if they aren't ties beyond four decimal points.



I've asked IT to expand this and to still just show four decimal points. The statistics are not the issue; it's the tied categories that need the exact rank points applied to the teams in the overall standings.

[Greg Ambrosius]

Originally posted by Chest Rockwell:

quote:Originally posted by JohnZ:

It's too bad the overall standings have never been close to 100% accurate for the entire year.



There are 41 errors in the MAIN ranking in just the Top 100 of BA, ERA and whip. Mostly in BA. And that's just the top 100 in those cats and there are 435 teams. So there are easily well over 100 errors.



I posted this a few months ago and got no response. I hope to goodness you are kidding. This year has just been a disaster but I never thought the inegrity of the data needed to be questioned to that level. [/QUOTE]If you go to the batting average category for the overall standings, you'll see more ties there than in ERA and WHIP. As a result, we are off 1.0 or 0.5 points one way or the other on some teams, which has to be corrected. That's what John is talking about. That's the disaster we need to correct and it can be corrected. I'm at fault for not seeing that before and apparently nobody but John Zaleski pointed it out either. I'm the disaster for not seeing that and correcting it earlier.



[ August 05, 2010, 04:00 PM: Message edited by: Greg Ambrosius ]

[Money]

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

quote:Originally posted by Gekko:

quote:Originally posted by JohnZ:

It's too bad the overall standings have never been close to 100% accurate for the entire year.



There are 41 errors in the MAIN ranking in just the Top 100 of BA, ERA and whip. Mostly in BA. And that's just the top 100 in those cats and there are 435 teams. So there are easily well over 100 errors.



I posted this a few months ago and got no response. John,

Can you repost what the exact issue is and maybe give an example. IF these are wrong, it's time to rattle Fanball cages again [/QUOTE]John makes a valid point, albeit in a way to get everyone's attention. But he is right, this is something that should be changed to reflect the correct overall standings.



It looks like Batting Average, WHIP and ERA are displaying out four decimal points in the overall categories, just like they always did with STATS. But at least with STATS, they were calculated beyond four decimal points. Here it looks like we are not calculating it beyond four decimal points and thus it may be affecting 1.0 or 0.5 points where ties are showing. In most case, again John is correct, they likely are not tied.



This hasn't affected any prize money or results yet, but it needs to be corrected as we tabulate the overall standings by end of season. These ties shouldn't be giving the same rank points if they aren't ties beyond four decimal points.



I've asked IT to expand this and to still just show four decimal points. The statistics are not the issue; it's the tied categories that need the exact rank points applied to the teams in the overall standings. [/QUOTE]Thanks for the clarification Greg. If you take the initial post at face value you are led to believe the stats were incorrect, which would be a nightmare. The fourth decimal does not effect the stats for each team, simply their rankings in a few instances.



Hell, the yahoo leagues only take it to the second decimal.

[Greg Ambrosius]

Originally posted by Fast Money:

quote:Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

[qb] [QUOTE]Thanks for the clarification Greg. If you take the initial post at face value you are led to believe the stats were incorrect, which would be a nightmare. The fourth decimal does not effect the stats for each team, simply their rankings in a few instances.



Hell, the yahoo leagues only take it to the second decimal. [/QUOTE]That was the intent of the post Joe. Look how it elicited a disaster response. But again, I've known John for 20+ years now and he likely told me to correct this in April and I didn't, so it's not his fault for pointing it out to me in public today it's mine for not noticing it. Shoot me, but bottom line is that we might be incorrectly reflecting total rank points today by a point here or there but now we have to get it right before the money is passed out.

[Gekko]

thanks for the quick attention here Greg. if there is any way of having them go out a 5th decimal point AND showing it, it would be good peace of mind for transparency.

[Chest Rockwell]

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

quote:Originally posted by Fast Money:

quote:Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

[qb] [QUOTE]Thanks for the clarification Greg. If you take the initial post at face value you are led to believe the stats were incorrect, which would be a nightmare. The fourth decimal does not effect the stats for each team, simply their rankings in a few instances.



Hell, the yahoo leagues only take it to the second decimal. [/QUOTE]That was the intent of the post Joe. Look how it elicited a disaster response. But again, I've known John for 20+ years now and he likely told me to correct this in April and I didn't, so it's not his fault for pointing it out to me in public today it's mine for not noticing it. Shoot me, but bottom line is that we might be incorrectly reflecting total rank points today by a point here or there but now we have to get it right before the money is passed out. [/QUOTE]Greg please do not put words in to my mouth. I never said this was a disaster. I said the culmination of many of these issues some much bigger that result in this year being a disaster. You can as you have accused me in the past of trying to rile people up. I could not care less if a hundred people agree with me or one but it is my opinion and I feel like I have the facts to support it.I stand by those words. You seem to just want argue and come out swinging at anyone who posts a dissenting opinion. You can do that if you want but I have no interest in arguing with you. I wish you nothing but the best you are a good man we just do not agree on the success of NFBC 2010.

[Greg Ambrosius]

Kent, sorry, I'm not looking for a fight. Heck, I even just said John was right and I was wrong. I guess I miss the comin' out swinging part of my post that you see.



Good luck the rest of the season. Yes, it hasn't been a perfect season for the NFBC and Fanball. I'll just leave it at that and hope we all finish the season strong.

[NorCalAtlFan]

Agree with Chest. This year has been a disappointment to say the least. This latest thing is just laughable.

[Glenneration X]

I think it's fair to say that part of the purpose for having a message board is for feedback, both positive and negative.



Both should be welcomed, even encouraged.



Though I don't always agree with every negative post (or positive for that matter), as long as fair I appreciate all because it gives me better insight and different viewpoints I may not have seen in a contest I've invested in both financially & emotionally.



Glenn



[ August 05, 2010, 09:47 PM: Message edited by: Glenneration X ]

[swampass]

so im sittin here on a friday morning trying to decide who to play and who to sit.



i think.. hey lets look at my team stats for the week and see who is playing best. UMM MAJOR ISSUE HERE. those stats are not correct!!!





i am being shown that justin upton is 1-10 on the week with a run and rbi. he is actually 2-14 with 2 runs and 3rbi. not a huge deal.. but i have multiple players checking in with incorrect stats. but there seems to be a few with correct stats.



this is WELL BEYOND OLD. THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE.

[Tom Kessenich]

Originally posted by swampass:

so im sittin here on a friday morning trying to decide who to play and who to sit.



i think.. hey lets look at my team stats for the week and see who is playing best. UMM MAJOR ISSUE HERE. those stats are not correct!!!





i am being shown that justin upton is 1-10 on the week with a run and rbi. he is actually 2-14 with 2 runs and 3rbi. not a huge deal.. but i have multiple players checking in with incorrect stats. but there seems to be a few with correct stats.



this is WELL BEYOND OLD. THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE. swampass, can you tell me your name and what league this is in? Thank you.

[swampass]

just emailed greg.. LV league 1.. weekend 1. it seems to be a late game thing.. as someone else has posted about not seeing the denofria HR last night.



thanks for the help.. and i as i wrote to greg.. dont know if this is a first time thing. or ongoing as i dont generally check out those stats.



thanks..

Chris

[JohnZ]

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

quote:Originally posted by Fast Money:

quote:Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

[qb] [QUOTE]Thanks for the clarification Greg. If you take the initial post at face value you are led to believe the stats were incorrect, which would be a nightmare. The fourth decimal does not effect the stats for each team, simply their rankings in a few instances.



Hell, the yahoo leagues only take it to the second decimal. [/QUOTE]That was the intent of the post Joe. Look how it elicited a disaster response. But again, I've known John for 20+ years now and he likely told me to correct this in April and I didn't, so it's not his fault for pointing it out to me in public today it's mine for not noticing it. Shoot me, but bottom line is that we might be incorrectly reflecting total rank points today by a point here or there but now we have to get it right before the money is passed out. [/QUOTE]Finally had a chance to get back here after posting yesterday.



Yesterday, there were three artificial "5-way" ties in BA in the BA Top 100 alone.



So in those cases, a team could have their "overall points" wrong by up to four points.



In a few spots in the overall, 4 points can change 2-3 ranking spots up or down. And what happens if one team was affected +4, and another -4? That could be several spots.





80% of the errors are in BA, about 18% in WHIP, and 2% in ERA of the total amount of errors.

Edit: There were 32 such errors in BA Top 100 yesterday.



There are three errors in the top 10 of whip right now.



I mentioned this in a thread about two months ago when my team got into the top 50. I also mentioned the problem with live stats calcs and nothing has been done on that either.



1.1 IP is calculated as 2.0 IP

5.1 IP is calculated as 6.0 IP



After 18 months of programming Fantasy Factor, I certainly understand that there will be errors, but what I don't understand is the lack of quality control before the product goes live to check for 100% accuracy and then you and Tom have to deal with the fall out on all these issues created by programming this year.



Best of luck with it all.



[ August 06, 2010, 05:54 PM: Message edited by: JohnZ ]

[Purple Helmets]

When I was setting my lineups this morning I was looking at my team stats for the week. Went to a different screen, came back and the stats were different...they were updated. Not sure if some of the players remained the same. I just assumed not all of the stats had carried over from yesterday or last night.

[JohnZ]

deleted



[ August 09, 2010, 02:17 PM: Message edited by: JohnZ ]

[Greg Ambrosius]

When standings run tonight, this problem of tied categories in BA, ERA and WHIP in the overall standings should be fixed as categories now go out as far as needed to determine placement in the overalls. Sorry I didn't catch this earlier, but look tomorrow and this should be fixed and the exact overall standings in those categories and overall should be right.



Thanks for pointing this one out to me.

[Greg Ambrosius]

The overall standings are now correct and you can see that BA, ERA and WHIP have been fully calculated beyond the four placements that are showing. Thanks again for the heads up.