FG% and FT%

okmots · Post by **okmots** » Tue Nov 16, 2010 12:05 pm

Does anyone else think that the percentage categories should be calculated to an infinite amount of decimal places to prevent ties? Might not be an option for this season, but worth a thought for next. Seems like three places is not enough.

Milkman Dead · Post by **Milkman Dead** » Tue Nov 16, 2010 7:36 pm

Thanks for bringing this up okmots, because I brought this up a month ago in an email to Tom. Here is our exchange:

ME: one thing that NEEDS to be fixed from last year is rolling out the FG% and FT% decimals at least 2 more places. Last year it showed up as:

47.1%
46.9%

As you know, especially at the end of the season, there's a HUGE difference between team A being 47.149 and team B being 47.050, but both would have shown up as 47.1% under last year's system. IMO, this is something that NEEDS to be fixed, and it shouldn't be too hard to make that change, right?

TOM: I asked our programmers to do that so let's hope they get it done.

Quite frankly, it's a joke that this hasn't been done yet. We shouldn't have to HOPE Tom, we should EXPECT this to be done.

And it doesn't have to roll out an "infinite" number of decimal places as okmots is suggesting... all we really need is 2 extra digits. Hell, even 1 is acceptable if 2 is too much to ask (it shouldn't be).

BOTTOM LINE: At the end of the season there should never be any ties when it comes to FG% and FT%, but in the current setup there's bound to be at least one, and that's wrong.

[ November 17, 2010, 01:39 AM: Message edited by: Evil E ]

Sebadiah23 · Post by **Sebadiah23** » Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:06 pm

In NFBC baseball, ERA, WHIP, and Batting Average standings are taken out pretty far decimal point-wise, past just the typical precision you read in the newspaper or yahoo, so I agree totally. Ties are for wussies.

Programmatically and design-wise, "sorting" by more precision and "showing" more precision are two different things with varying concerns. But if you don't show the extra precision, then the sorting is questioned. So if you limit showing the extra precision to just the detailed league standings and the overall standings, it doesn't appear on the surface to be that much off a task.

Wussiness or no, the key is that no one wants to lose a league on a cheap tie in a cat.

EricJenike · Post by **EricJenike** » Fri Nov 19, 2010 3:04 am

I would also like to chime and say that this needs to be fixed. I saw Tom in another thread say that the issue was resolved, but the problem is in the overall standings and not in the individual league standings. If I go to my league FG% and FT% are carried out to three decimal places, but if I click over to the overall standings it's still just 1 decimal place. Obviously this has to be changed.

I would even take this a step further and make an additional request re: FG% and FT%. It'd be nice if we could view FGM/FGA and FTM/FTA.

For example, say it's the last scoring period of the season and I'm trying to decide if I'm within striking distance in FG%. I might put in a couple of big men in my utility slot if I did the math and determined that my team had to go a combined 100-200 shooting the ball in the scoring period to put me in a position to move up a roto point.

However, if I did the math and it looked like I'd need my team to go something unrealistic like 200-200 from the field to move up a roto point, I might choose instead to roll out a couple point guards and try to make one final push in assists.

CBS allows you the option to display FGM/FGA and FTM/FTA and it is one of my favorite features of their fantasy game. You guys must have that data since obviously the percentages are calculated from it. I for one would be very appreciative if your programmer made it so that we could see those stats!!

This would also help me in preparing for future NFBBC events so it's data I'd love to have.

Let me know if this is possible!

Thanks,

Eric

Tom Kessenich · Post by **Tom Kessenich** » Fri Nov 19, 2010 3:19 am

I don't believe we'll be able to offer more data than we currently offer but let me contact our programmers about the FG% and FT% questions.

Money · Post by **Money** » Fri Nov 19, 2010 3:56 am

Originally posted by Tom Kessenich:
I don't believe we'll be able to offer more data than we currently offer but let me contact our programmers about the FG% and FT% questions. Tom, we're really not looking for more data, simply that the two % categories be taken out a couple of more places. I know you hate the term quick fix, but I'm not even sure this is a fix. It's a simple move of allowing two more numbers past the decimal. I'd call it a simple numerical format adjustment. Thanks.

[ November 19, 2010, 09:58 AM: Message edited by: FAST MONEY ]

Tom Kessenich · Post by **Tom Kessenich** » Fri Nov 19, 2010 4:04 am

I understand Joe and I don't hate the term quick fix. Eric brought this up to me before the season began and I was under the impression that it had been taken care of. I've contacted our programmers to see if they can extend the decimals out for the overall as well as the individual league standings.

EricJenike · Post by **EricJenike** » Fri Nov 19, 2010 4:17 am

Yeah, I actually misspoke in my first post in this thread as well. BOTH the league standings (which are displayed as a decimal) and the overall standings (which are displayed as a percent) need to be taken out to more decimal player.

.425001 and .425999 are not the same thing, yet currently would be scored as a tie in the NFBBC.

Likewise, in the overall standings 42.5001% and 42.5999% aren't the same, but are scored as ties. Obviously this has tobe fixed!!

Also, at least ask him for the FGM/FGA and FTM/FTA stuff. That data has to be in there, and I don't know much about programming but I wouldn't think it'd be too hard to display numbers that are used to calculate the percentages anyways.

Milkman Dead · Post by **Milkman Dead** » Fri Nov 19, 2010 4:40 am

for what it's worth, I prefer percents to be shown as 48.123 as opposed to .48123. Not sure how others feel. It just makes for easier reading IMO.

Sebadiah23 · Post by **Sebadiah23** » Sun Nov 21, 2010 9:43 am

I agree with every request, but the more things asked, the more of a task it will be perceived to be, so let those extra things be "optional" if the programmer can squeeze them in.

On a serious note, if I pick-up Kurt Rambis or Avery Johnson, which the software bafflingly allows you to do, can they make my lineup decisions for me? Can they also decide how many minutes my players get? I'll take the lack of stats if their expertise helps me.

-Craig, Talenting his takes to South Compton.