Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

2007 records missing...

Expand Messages
  • hackersdienow
    Hey guys...I don t know if anyone else noticed this since it s not a huge deal 99% of the time, but for some reason in the 2007 season (most recent in the
    Message 1 of 5 , Oct 7 1:51 AM
      Hey guys...I don't know if anyone else noticed this since it's not a
      huge deal 99% of the time, but for some reason in the 2007 season
      (most recent in the database version I have) the convention to include
      all pitching seasons and fielding seasons in the batting table whether
      or not a batting record for that player/season existed seems to have
      stopped and there are missing names. The guy building our search
      feature relies on the batting table as the general player record
      creator (each player has one record per teamID/stint in the batting
      table, which is why he chose to do that), so we were kind of wondering
      if any fixes were planned to fill in those missing records or not.

      Thanks in advance,

      SABR Matt
    • Tangotiger
      We ve longed discussed the idea of an APPEARANCES table, so that it captures exactly what it s supposed to capture, rather than taking over the BATTING table
      Message 2 of 5 , Oct 7 1:26 PM
        We've longed discussed the idea of an APPEARANCES table, so that it
        captures exactly what it's supposed to capture, rather than taking over
        the BATTING table just because the official rules say to use it. (DBAs
        follow the data, not the legal definitions of names.)

        The APPEARANCES table would give us the total number of games played,
        games started, games finished, and potentially further broken down by
        fielding position and lineup position. So, you could have:

        playerID, appearCode, appearSubcode, GS, GP, GF
        raineti01, 0, 0, 141, 147, 142
        raineti01, fld, 7, 141, 141, 140
        raineti01, fld, 8, 0, 8, 2
        raineti01, bat, 1, 140, 140, 139
        raineti01, bat, 3, 1, 1, 1
        raineti01, bat, 7, 0, 6, 2

        Something like that. So, for your purposes, you would select on
        appearCode = 0.

        Or, if that's too complicated, we'd have an APPEARANCES table like this:
        playerID, GS, GP, GF
        raineti01, 141, 147, 142

        And an APPEARANCES_SPLIT table like this:
        playerID, appearCode, appearSubcode, GS, GP, GF
        raineti01, fld, 7, 141, 141, 140
        raineti01, fld, 8, 0, 8, 2
        raineti01, bat, 1, 140, 140, 139
        raineti01, bat, 3, 1, 1, 1
        raineti01, bat, 7, 0, 6, 2

        Regardless, I do not have an answer for your original question.

        Tom
      • hackersdienow
        That s the way I would approach it as well if I were the guy doing the building of the DB...I highly recommend Lahman/Forman work toward that goal. It sounds
        Message 3 of 5 , Oct 7 10:02 PM
          That's the way I would approach it as well if I were the guy doing the
          building of the DB...I highly recommend Lahman/Forman work toward that
          goal. It sounds like you're saying, however, that there are no plans
          to make the batting table rules consistent...which means I should be
          telling our web search/sort builder to prepare other methods for
          fixing the irregularities. Do I have that correct?
        • Tangotiger
          ... There are no current plans, that s correct. How/when this will be rectified is undetermined. Tom ... The Book--Playing The Percentages In Baseball
          Message 4 of 5 , Oct 8 6:57 AM
            > That's the way I would approach it as well if I were the guy doing the
            > building of the DB...I highly recommend Lahman/Forman work toward that
            > goal. It sounds like you're saying, however, that there are no plans
            > to make the batting table rules consistent...which means I should be
            > telling our web search/sort builder to prepare other methods for
            > fixing the irregularities. Do I have that correct?
            >
            >

            There are no current plans, that's correct. How/when this will be
            rectified is undetermined.

            Tom


            ---------------------------------------------
            The Book--Playing The Percentages In Baseball
            http://www.InsideTheBook.com
          • hackersdienow
            OK...thanks Tom. I m going to ask our web coder to McGuyver an appearances table...that s the correct way to normalize the database anyway.
            Message 5 of 5 , Oct 8 11:34 PM
              OK...thanks Tom.

              I'm going to ask our web coder to McGuyver an appearances
              table...that's the correct way to normalize the database anyway.
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.