NEW: AnkitDB 5.2 Released!!! - Page 3

Metsui · 01-26-2005, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ankit

I hope to have it done in a month or so, hopefully sooner. What I have changed this time around is this:

Instead of normalizing individual player seasons, I normalize players based on their stats for their entire careers vs. the league average, each season weighted by their Plate Appearances or Innings Pitched in that season. Once I have their ratios, I can now go back apply it for each season relative to today's league averages to get a Normalized DB. For example:

For his career 1901-1919, Player Y hits 1.4 times the league's batting average (.200) for the same time period. His .280 batting average normalized for today, where the league hits .265 would be: .371. I will do this 1.4 times for each individual season to get his hits total each year. I will do this for each of the stats in my batting file.

Hope this has helped.

Yep, that helps though I'm not sure that there was anything wrong with your previous methodology even though I don't know how you did it the first time. How did you do it?

You wouldn't happen to have a version of the old normalized db with stats for 2003 and 2004 would you?

And while I'm on the subject, why do you normalize the stats of current players. Shouldn't theirs stay the same if you're normalizing the db to today's standards?

Ankit · 01-26-2005, 07:07 PM

No, because it will lead to a Lahman DB like ratings assignment which is not very good.

Ankit · 01-26-2005, 07:10 PM

For the most part they do, but I am normalizing for an era, like 1997 to 2004, so today's players will have a slight adjustment. Not something that will be noticeable, i.e, Bonds in 2001 might have 71 or 75 HRs, instead of 73.

Metsui · 01-26-2005, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ankit

For the most part they do, but I am normalizing for an era, like 1997 to 2004, so today's players will have a slight adjustment. Not something that will be noticeable, i.e, Bonds in 2001 might have 71 or 75 HRs, instead of 73.

That's the one I looked at. Saw that Bonds had 71 instead of 73.

Metsui · 01-26-2005, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ankit

No, because it will lead to a Lahman DB like ratings assignment which is not very good.

Which questions is this answering? The one about normalizing current players or the one about having 2003 and 2004 seasons?

Ankit · 01-27-2005, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metsui

Which questions is this answering? The one about normalizing current players or the one about having 2003 and 2004 seasons?

It's answering post #40.

Myghty · 01-28-2005, 11:16 AM

Great job!

Dargone · 01-29-2005, 09:08 PM

Thanks a lot

01-28-2005, 11:16 AM	#47 (permalink)
Myghty Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: City Of Angels Posts: 30 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0x in 0 posts	Great job! __________________ MBL - Cleveland Indians NABL - Jokers Empire NABF - Chicago Dragons

01-29-2005, 09:08 PM	#48 (permalink)
Dargone Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Interwebs Posts: 2,681 Thanks: 0 Thanked 43x in 15 posts	Thanks a lot __________________ I was never one to patiently pick up broken fragments and glue them together again and tell myself that the mended whole was as good as new. What is broken is broken -- and I'd rather remember it as it was at its best than mend it and see the broken places as long as I lived.-Margaret Mitchell

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

01-26-2005, 07:07 PM	#42 (permalink)
Ankit All Star Reserve Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Bangalore, India Posts: 599 Thanks: 1 Thanked 0x in 0 posts	No, because it will lead to a Lahman DB like ratings assignment which is not very good.

01-26-2005, 07:10 PM	#43 (permalink)
Ankit All Star Reserve Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Bangalore, India Posts: 599 Thanks: 1 Thanked 0x in 0 posts	For the most part they do, but I am normalizing for an era, like 1997 to 2004, so today's players will have a slight adjustment. Not something that will be noticeable, i.e, Bonds in 2001 might have 71 or 75 HRs, instead of 73.