Quote:
Originally Posted by kq76
Not really. :P
True, but when they're not 0 (or better yet "-"), they'd stand out better.
True, but I don't really like that section as it's more difficult to wade through than necessary. I mean, if your team only hit 1 home run or 1 double, sure, it's easy, but when there's like 3, 4, 5+ it's not nearly as easy to parse as a table is. I do appreciate the details in the next section, but I definitely prefer the table to get the raw data.
Really? I don't find them telling at all and I don't think it makes sense to record season stats on a page that is to do with 1 specific game. And why AVG and HR and RBI and not OBA and SLG? Wouldn't those be far more telling of their season as a whole?
True, but the purpose of it is to increase the readability of it. I mean, we could turn all the stats from the table into horizontal lists like the next section, but I think most would probably agree that that would seriously suck. I think I'm probably not alone in finding tables a lot easier to process a lot of information from than horizontal lists that sometimes take up multiple lines.
No worries. I was of course JK with my "not really" above.
I thought the main objection, if any, would be, "no, this is how box scores have always looked and it's how they always should look".
|
I appreciate the tone of your post and certainly taking it in a positive light.
No mention of how a proper scoresheet could fix all of this?
Ever play Strat O Matic and use their horizontal scoresheets? The right side of the sheet had a column for almost every basic offensive stat and columns for FA, PO, and Assists IIRC (probably 35 years since I've seen one). I know Markus says a scoresheet is difficult, but so are many things. Let's put pressure there to get an even better stat picture to look at after a game.
With regard to the bold.. The thing about "as is" is any box score you review you get a glimpse of how a team's players are performing over the current season. It is a quick and dirty look, but a look none the less. To me what is not telling me anything is seeing a guy go 3/5 with 2 HR, and it's Sept, he plays every day, is hitting .219, and those are his first two HR of the season. We certainly disagree on this and that is fine.
Now, if you want OBP or Slg in place of RBI, fine by me.
But I would understand historical players that would prefer RBIs (yes RBIs with an "s") because that would better represent the era they were playing in.
Anyway in the spirit of the thread good on uruguru finding not only an issue but also the cause. Well done.