So doing it the way you suggest places a differnt value on each individual stat (HRs, RBIs, and BA), which changes daily depending on the performance of people that we are not even competing against.

It also forces you, to some extent, to strategize in the "blind" - not know what type of hitter to go for, power or average, on a given day - because of the "world" has a good day for homers and you went for homers, your home runs are worth less, and vice-versa.

I'd rather we decide on one constant value for all of the different stats in relation to each other, and then just compete agianst each other, since in effect we are playing a different game.

We are looking to establish one winner for all three categories cumulatively.

ESPN is just trying to find a separate winner in each category, and possibly one winner for all three.

But they don't care if someone wins two out of the three.

If you want to stick with the "whoever wins 2 out of 3" method, that's OK with me, but the tiebreaker should not be RBIs, since that is the category most dependent on luck.

If you want the most important category, I'd say homers, because each homer is guaranteed to produce at least one run for a team, while a guy can go 4-4 and not help his team at all.

Homers also is probably the category which requires the most skill, since guys get robbed on great fielding plays and get cheap hits every day and no, it doesn't necessarily even out.

Problem with homers is that of all the categories, homers has the best chance for a tie.

I'd vote for the "weighted categories" method that I proposed earlier.

Maybe I like it because it was my idea, but the values seemed about right to me, and the winner would usually seem to be the person who really excelled and had a big margin of victory in one of the 3 categories.

Quote:
Originally posted by plawrence:
How about this:

1 point per one point of batting average.

25 points per HR

10 points per RBI

I figured that based on about 100 ABs, 100 points in batting average was 10 more hits, so I figured 10 more RBIs should be worth about the same, so it's really sort of kind of maybe 1 point per hit when you get to the end of the month and 10 points per RBI.

I figured homers were the hardest to get, so they should be worth the most.

I'm not necessarily saying that this is what we should do, BTW -- just throwing some numbers out there.
So based on the above, so far this month would be as follows:
Code:
       HR  RBI  AVG.
DM     15   46  .431  or  431 + 375 + 460 = 1266
PL     15   33  .455  or  455 + 375 + 330 = 1160  
DJ     13   44  .362  or  362 + 325 + 440 = 1127 
JG     12   29  .293  or  293 + 300 + 290 =  883
I don't know about other months - I suppose we could go back and have a look - but these numbers seem right to me.

DM and I are tied in homers, but his lead of 13 RBIs is worth more than my lead of 24 points in BA - as it should be.

DJ has considerably more RBIs than I do, but my 2 extra homers and 93 point lead in average seem to offset that and give me just enough of a lead over him.

Plug in different numbers and differenent scenarios to my formula, and see what you think.

It's funny.....

If we were talking about an entire baseball season, I'd say that a guy who hit .350 with 100 RBIs was a ton more valuable than a guy who hit .250 with 110 RBIs, and they'd be tied with my formula.

But for only one month, 1 RBI seems to be worth about 10 points of batting average.

"Difficult....not impossible"