Comments another splendid list, but a few minor points:
- The columns are different sizes from AL to NL to major leagues (in my Safari OS X browser)
- No fixed sizes, so I assume they vary slightly based on the longest team name/player name/etc being longer in one than in the other (so stretching that column more).
-
- Whatever works on a low res screen, so something very close to what you have now, but throughout. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you give it a try? All the tables have an identical 70% width setting, doesn't seem to be changing anything though. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, your 70% makes no difference. I think you need to fix each column to either a % or a px. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-
- YAY. Except, per me being an ass, your triple image now leaks over the top right of the table..... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Better now? Problem is multiple image doesn't allow for a % base size parameter, so there will always be some size of monitor that messes this up (currently set table to 50%, so if your monitor is smaller than 960px wide (the multi-image is set to width=160, so it is 480 wide total) it will spill over the table.
- According to my freaky script, you have 19 (nineteen) links to dab pages. (Eddie Robinson, George Scott etc)
- hyphens in the lead separating numbers rather than en-dashes. Another script job.
- "the first to set a single-season RBI record that stood for significant time" what's your definition of "significant time"?
- Check [2] ignoring 71-75 (the NA which is not an official league). Thompson's single season was the first to last more than 3 years, which makes sense since early on the record was being reset basically every year.
- Perhaps you need to state the fact rather than the nebulous "significant time" (to me, that could be "more than a week").... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- single season or single-season?
- " in RBI 4 times" 4->four.
- "bested his total " call me old-fashioned, or even British, but "to best" just sticks in my craw. Can we say something else more appealing to an Imperialist?
- Our own article about being At bat has no hyphen.
- Would you agree that having 175 RBI with 565 AB is better than 175 RBI with 584 AB? If so, I suggest you make the list sort that way.
- Yup, I'll try to fix this.
- Wait, no, the sorting is fine. It just sorts less to more, not neccessarily "better" or "worse". 565 is lower than 584, should come before. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm talking about when RBIs are equal. Then I suggest the RBI with lower AB is "better". Is that right? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I understand that. But the table is just sorting RBI, why is this sorting any less correct?
- It's just that coming from a cricket background, when stats are tied, you then look at the next stat that's relevant, in this case (if I'm not wrong) it's by AB. The lower the AB the better. How would a US publication deal with tied RBI in a table of best RBI? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- They don't, really. Tied is tied. Hence, for example, Prince Fielder and Ryan Howard sharing the NL title last year even though Fielder got there in fewer AB. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How curious. I would have thought it obvious that someone getting, say 100 RBI in 100 AB would be "better" than 100 RBI in 600 AB... still, who am I to argue...? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- People recognize it, but the only thing that controls leading the league/setting a record/etc/etc is the stat at hand. People made a big deal at the time, for example, over Roger Maris breaking Babe Ruth's home run record because while Maris did hit 61 (to Ruth's 60), Maris played on a 162 game schedule (and it took him to the very last day of it to get to 61) while Ruth played on a 154 game schedule. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem. It was a futile attempt at making the sorting even more brilliant. As I said before, our equally statistically-obsessed sport of cricket certainly does take all this into account, but yeah, your schedule argument works for me too (unless you could do an average??!) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then you'd be looking at home run rates. HR/AB is the commonly used one (which Mark McGwire is the all-time leader in, Ruth is 2nd), though I think HR/PA is a more appropriate one (ABs are a traditional tool because early baseball saw walks as a mistake rather than truly a part of the game). Staxringold talkcontribs 20:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My bottom line was an appropriate sorting for those tied but doing it quicker. Like a 2-dimensional graph. If it's irrelevant and the sorting after RBI is irrelevant to readers who know what they're looking for, then fine. Maybe a note that says "Tied on RBI is listed in whatever order the Mediawiki software decides" is appropriate (=bitterness). For a game where statistics is so important, I would think it relevant to list it appropriately. But I watch 22 blokes kicking a pig skin around for 90 minutes (without armour, besides the shins) so what would I know?! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that Baseball-Reference also does not sort by playing time when you sort by a particular stat (in fact their sorting seems quite random, not alphabetical, not playing time, etc, etc). Staxringold talkcontribs 21:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, so maybe I'm being radical and trying to improve the sorting here. The fact that your sources don't bother doing so is fine, but is there a decent argument against it? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 1. It would be an incredibly complicated fix for almost no gain. Honestly I don't even want AB in there, I think it's ugly and extraneous data, but someone in the HR list FLC forced it in. KV hasn't even been using it in the pitching lists and those have gone through fine. 2. It makes the sorting sort two different ways, namely high-low (or vice versa) for RBI while going low-high (or vice versa) for AB. Honestly I would remove the dang AB altogether except Nmajdan and Afaber (the reviewers who asked for it last time) will just oppose here. They're so ugly and have nothing to do with the champions AND require sourcing to the general stats page rather than the yearly leaderboard pages (which makes infinite more sense for a leaderboad list). Staxringold talkcontribs 01:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume Team should be Team(s) in the col heading since you have multiple teams here...
- Ref 14 which you use for all-time RBI seems to relate to home runs. I would (once fixed) also add this to Hank's caption.
- Pity the templates are hideously coloured, and worse, differently so.
- Meh, the Triple Crown template is a recently created one as KV and I work towards the topic. Feel free to re-color. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not my problem really, just seems a shame that they're both hideous and different in colour. I'd have thought you baseball guys would be more organised.............. (!) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
