Ties In Categories Will Be Broken Down

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Tue Mar 02, 2004 11:01 am

Because there is so much on the line in the NFBC, we have asked STATS Inc., to make sure that all points earned in each category are legitimate. So all category ties will be broken down to the final percentage so that every single point is earned. There are some web sites that give .5 points to every team that is tied in a category, even if it's more than two teams. But STATS has said that if three teams are tied in a category, the scoring will be broken down to .33 for that instance, and if it's four teams it will be .25 and so on and so on. I think that's very, very important and I thank STATS for doing this. Hope this solves any concerns you may have on this one.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Mar 02, 2004 5:10 pm

Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

Because there is so much on the line in the NFBC, we have asked STATS Inc., to make sure that all points earned in each category are legitimate. So all category ties will be broken down to the final percentage so that every single point is earned. There are some web sites that give .5 points to every team that is tied in a category, even if it's more than two teams. But STATS has said that if three teams are tied in a category, the scoring will be broken down to .33 for that instance, and if it's four teams it will be .25 and so on and so on. I think that's very, very important and I thank STATS for doing this. Hope this solves any concerns you may have on this one. Sorry Greg, but that makes no sense. Ties in roto by definition are worth .5 points. the following assume 15 team leagues:

Examples:

Two teams are tied for 4th best (4th and 5th) in a category. That would be 12 points and 11 points split in 2, or each gets 11.5. Next best (6th best) gets 10.

Say three teams are tied for 4th best (4th, 5th, 6th). That would be positions worth 12, 11 and 10. Each would get 11. The next team would get 9.

There are never, ever, 1/3 points in roto. Luckily your organization skill is far better than your knowledge of roto games.

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Tue Mar 02, 2004 5:19 pm

Very true, Just Lookin.

However, no need to be a jerk about a harmless error that would never have mattered anyway.

KJ Duke · Post by **KJ Duke** » Tue Mar 02, 2004 6:10 pm

[ March 03, 2004, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Mar 02, 2004 6:38 pm

Originally posted by King of Queens:

Very true, Just Lookin.

However, no need to be a jerk about a harmless error that would never have mattered anyway. Actually King, I was sincere about my compliment to Greg's organizational (and marketing/sales) ability. Just a great job. I point it out because little errors like that can hurt getting the "fence sitters". My recommendation is to delete the whole thread.

viper · Post by **viper** » Wed Mar 03, 2004 1:19 am

Now I can't be sure about this but I suspect that if two teams tie for a 9 or 10 at 120 Runs, they will each get 9.5.

Yahoo actually creates ties in the 3 percentage categories if things are even after 2 or 3 decimal points. I bet that Greg is saying that these percentage categories will have the decimals run out until there is a winner. Sort of like the Florida presidential election was. Every chad counts.

King of Queens · Post by **King of Queens** » Wed Mar 03, 2004 1:23 am

Greg, any thoughts or further comments on this thread?

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Wed Mar 03, 2004 2:27 am

Just Lookin is correct in his assessment of my post as I misinterpreted STATS' e-mail to me yesterday on this request. Their reply was that in the case of a tie the total number of available points will be divided by the number of teams tied in that category and I took it too far in my brain. Obviously, Just Lookin is right that no matter how many teams are tied in a category it still comes down to either a full point awarded or a half point awarded. So we're all square on that.

As for the breakdown in batting average, ERA, WHIP and other statistical categories, there is no question that STATS will go as far as the decimals need to go to determine a leader in each category. Even though it might say both teams have .277 team averages, it's likely that one will earn an extra point because it has a .2774 average and the other team has a .2771 average. Hope that makes sense.

Trust me, this won't be the last time I'll make a mistake by being too overprepared. If that prevents anyone from entering the NFBC then that's fine by me. I can't live up to perfect standards anyway. If you don't believe me, just ask the wife and kids.

Dyv · Post by **Dyv** » Wed Mar 03, 2004 7:27 am

Originally posted by :

quote:Originally posted by Greg Ambrosius:

Because there is so much on the line in the NFBC, we have asked STATS Inc., to make sure that all points earned in each category are legitimate. So all category ties will be broken down to the final percentage so that every single point is earned. There are some web sites that give .5 points to every team that is tied in a category, even if it's more than two teams. But STATS has said that if three teams are tied in a category, the scoring will be broken down to .33 for that instance, and if it's four teams it will be .25 and so on and so on. I think that's very, very important and I thank STATS for doing this. Hope this solves any concerns you may have on this one. Sorry Greg, but that makes no sense. Ties in roto by definition are worth .5 points. the following assume 15 team leagues:

Examples:

Two teams are tied for 4th best (4th and 5th) in a category. That would be 12 points and 11 points split in 2, or each gets 11.5. Next best (6th best) gets 10.

Say three teams are tied for 4th best (4th, 5th, 6th). That would be positions worth 12, 11 and 10. Each would get 11. The next team would get 9.

There are never, ever, 1/3 points in roto. Luckily your organization skill is far better than your knowledge of roto games. [/QUOTE]Just another lesson that being right doesn't make being rude and crude acceptable.

Stop lookin', Biatch.

Dyv

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Mar 03, 2004 11:41 am

Just another lesson that being right doesn't make being rude and crude acceptable. Dyv, I think your zest for posting and seeing yourself in print has clouded your ability to read and reason.

First of all, there is absolutely nothing crude about any of my comments and I totally resent your accusation. What word or words do you find crude?

As for rude, your skin thickness quotient must be very small. I remind you about the quote posted before YOUR obnoxious post:

Actually King, I was sincere about my compliment to Greg's organizational (and marketing/sales) ability. Just a great job. So Dyv, perhaps you're the one that has turned out to be rude.

Rey · Post by **Rey** » Wed Mar 03, 2004 12:02 pm

Just Lookin, I think the sentence that has people a bit upset was this one:

"Luckily your organization skill is far better than your knowledge of roto games."

I don't know if you meant for it to come out so forcefully, but when I first read it, I have to admit I was taken aback as well. Not only, as you mention, has Greg put together this first rate competition, but he also happens to be an icon in the fantasy sports world. He has forgotten more about fantasy games than most of us will ever know. Hence the reason why people have reacted strongly to you questioning his knowledge of fantasy games. Thats all.

Dyv · Post by **Dyv** » Wed Mar 03, 2004 3:42 pm

Originally posted by :

quote: Just another lesson that being right doesn't make being rude and crude acceptable. Dyv, I think your zest for posting and seeing yourself in print has clouded your ability to read and reason.

First of all, there is absolutely nothing crude about any of my comments and I totally resent your accusation. What word or words do you find crude?

As for rude, your skin thickness quotient must be very small. I remind you about the quote posted before YOUR obnoxious post:

Actually King, I was sincere about my compliment to Greg's organizational (and marketing/sales) ability. Just a great job. So Dyv, perhaps you're the one that has turned out to be rude. [/QUOTE]Hey now, when you're right you're right - and for me to have interpreted your message to be rude and crude must clearly be MY fault. It is, after all, my responsibility to figure out what the hell you meant when you typed what you typed.

The 'rude' part was the insult about Greg's roto baseball knowledge. The 'crude' part was when you applied that insult in a backhanded manner at the tail end of a complimentary statement.

For tomorrow's lesson, we will focus on your attitude which I choose to define as 'Overly full of himself jackass'

Please feel free to disagree at great length and letting me know I'm not entitled to have an opinion about your post. You should feel entirely comfortable stating what you MEANT to say - but you DID insult Greg and you DID do it in a fashion I considered crude. It takes a big man to apologize and recognize a mistake - EVEN an unintentional one. TO continue to defend your innocence is utterly ridiculous.

If I were going to be rude, I'd point out that Greg makes a living in the fantasy games industry and is well known to be a fantasy baseball afficionado. You, on the other hand, apparently can't even figure out how to register your name on these boards. Greg has always been up front and honest - admits mistakes, corrects items, patiently explains any issues - seeks input and makes a sound decision.

You may feel free to disagree - I'd love to read your continued stubbornness and denial that anyone could interpret your post as low-brow.

As for me? I make no pretenses... I'm rude and you can kiss my a$$

Dyv

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Mar 03, 2004 4:08 pm

As for me? I make no pretenses... I'm rude and you can kiss my a$$ That's about all that needs to be said.

Dyv · Post by **Dyv** » Wed Mar 03, 2004 4:09 pm

Originally posted by :

quote: As for me? I make no pretenses... I'm rude and you can kiss my a$$ That's about all that needs to be said. [/QUOTE]Agreed.

SoonerC · Post by **SoonerC** » Wed Mar 03, 2004 4:22 pm

Lot's of classy people hanging around.

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Wed Mar 03, 2004 5:03 pm

Here I'll end this thread by saying that Just Lookin' was wrong with his last sentence about me. My knowledge of Roto games far exceeds my organizational skills, not the other way around. So with that I'm off to Phoenix and the LABR draft, where I plan on witnessing the AL draft on Friday night and participating in the NL draft for the 11th straight year on Saturday night. Only John Hunt and myself remain from that 1994 LABR draft that included Keith Olbermann, Peter Gammons, Bill James and Danny Sheridan. John has about four LABR titles and I have none, so I guess maybe Just Lookin' is right!!!

Everyone behave while I'm gone or I won't buy beers at the Welcome Receptions. And let's keep the signups coming and fill up each draft room in each city. Thanks guys for all the support and your loyalty to the NFBC.

[ March 04, 2004, 06:28 AM: Message edited by: Greg Ambrosius ]

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Wed Mar 03, 2004 5:39 pm

Where will we be able to see the results of the LABR draft?

Greg Ambrosius · Post by **Greg Ambrosius** » Thu Mar 04, 2004 12:23 am

USA Today Sports Weekly doesn't allow web sites to publish any of the results before the Special Fantasy Baseball issue hits newsstands on March 17, so you won't find it anywhere (or at least you shouldn't). Every NFBC owner and co-owner will receive that copy during registration, courtesy of USA Today Sports Weekly. Fortunately, I'll be there and will have all of the numbers scribbled on my trusty May copy of Fantasy Sports Magazine. Maybe I should offer those values as a premium to sign up for the NFBC instead of the Pete Rose autographed photos. Hmmmm, not a bad idea.