Player Set Browser - Stats History - Super Cool but....

The Stats History tab is great but has such a fatal flaw of no sample size. If strat doesn't want to show the raw # of leagues (I'd get why), then can we have some metric or little 1-5 star rating indicating usage?

We can't read into the #s AT ALL when $6.97 Joe Adcock or $6.48 Kevin Mitchell have higher SLGs than any Willie Mays, Mike Trout, Joe Dimaggio or Albert Pujols card. Just a few names, but no sample size gives no insights.

A simple and stylish Hot-Cold or 1-5 spectrum rating to show usage would be sweet!

I see what you mean ... but I think with hundreds of owners playing these games, it's only the most obscure, underused players that may have a really small sample size. No ball park context info added, but it would be nice.

Also, I always wondered, is Stats History only based on 80M, or 100M or beyond leagues?? That context seems a big question, perhaps it's been answered here before, I dunno. I thought it was always based on 80M.

Perhaps the moderator knows. Call to help.

"The stats shown here are how each player performed on average in completed $80,000,000 Auto Leagues he's appeared in."

Yeah Ballpark is huge and I know it's a tool that none of lean too heavily on considering the objective nature of what the cards can do. Frankly I'd read into usage more than average numbers because of my above comment. Kinda disagree about sample size not being a critical difference in numbers. It'd explain why certain guys we may like have more muted numbers. I suspect many players are a small # of seasons.

For ballpark, the could always show the average BP rating like:
9.6- 8.8 - 11.4 - 8.4 That'd be asking alot.

Unless SOM is opposed to it, the usage numbers would be so interesting. This is what DiamondDope actuals used to do and that usage data was amazing.

"The stats shown here are how each player performed on average in completed $80,000,000 Auto Leagues he's appeared in."

Yeah Ballpark is huge and I know it's a tool that none of lean too heavily on considering the objective nature of what the cards can do. Frankly I'd read into usage more than average numbers because of my above comment. Kinda disagree about sample size not being a critical difference in numbers. It'd explain why certain guys we may like have more muted numbers. I suspect many players are a small # of seasons.

For ballpark, the could always show the average BP rating like:
9.6- 8.8 - 11.4 - 8.4 That'd be asking alot.

Unless SOM is opposed to it, the usage numbers would be so interesting. This is what DiamondDope actuals used to do and that usage data was amazing.

you’d think that by ballpark and usage would be an easy thing to include. I rarely look at the stats but I’ll pull that page up to look for players or outliers in the stats. I rarely look at the page for information on a piratical player though. (Meaning I’m not pulling the page up to see how the 99 Pedro Martinez card does) I think using the player and seeing how the card performs a few times is the best way to get a feel for the card.