Talk:Kinston Indians

From BR Bullpen

I don't like the format of this results table because, for all its fancyness, it's missing the finish for each year (for example, the 2007 team finished 1st in the Carolina League). I suggest changing it to the standard one unless someone objects. --Philippe 11:55, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Agreed. Records are kind of meaningless without where a club finished. -Chisoxfan 13:39, 11 November 2007 (EST)

The problem with this is that the Carolina League has split seasons. A team could come in second in the first half, third in the second half and have the best overall record for the year in their division. Would you say that they came in first? A casual reader may conclude from that that they won their division when in reality they didn't even qualify for the playoffs. Putting a number for how the team finished for the year is meaningless when the only numbers that really matter is how they finished for the halves as those finishes are the only ones that matter for the postseason. The only way it would make any sense would be if you were able to note their finish in the first half and their finish in the second half. Kinston eagle 16:43, 11 November 2007 (EST)

I looked at the Myrtle Beach Pelicans chart for the first time as they are in the same league. They are listed as coming in 7th and 8th a couple years. This is an impossibility since there are only four teams in their division. Are we combining the records of all the teams in the league? For what purpose? We don't do that for the majors. We say that the Cubs finished in first place for their division in 2007. We don't combine all the AL and NL divisions and say that they finished in 12th place for the year. Kinston eagle 16:56, 11 November 2007 (EST)

I'm personally not a big fan of the 7th, 8th, etc. classifications... I agree that the finish in the division is what matters. As for the halves issue, I think you could put something like "3rd/1st". Check out some of the Pioneer League clubs that I've done that way. I think that satisfies things all around. -Chisoxfan 17:14, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Let me know if there's a problem with how I did that. I debated about putting attendance on the chart as well. Would that be too much info? Kinston eagle 19:02, 11 November 2007 (EST)

In most places in the bullpen, the finish is idnicated as 1st to last in the league by overall record (i.e. the Carolina League would list teams from 1st to 8th, based on overall seasonal record). Playoff participation and results are captured in a separate column. I'll continue to do it this way for consistency's sake. Printed sources like the Sporting News Guides list both first half/second half standings arranged by division, and composite standings at end of the year. Using either is fine, as it is easy to figure out which format is used. However, listing order of finish for the entire season but by division can become confusing, unless it's indicated something like "2nd (west)". --Philippe 11:00, 12 November 2007 (EST)

I've added a footnote concerning this. Kinston eagle 11:50, 12 November 2007 (EST)

Maybe I'm in the minority on this one. The split division thing is a relatively recent introduction. For 100 years, leagues would have 4, 6 , or 8 teams with no divisions. So for 75% of history, giving the finish in the league is the most accurate. So I've been keeping it that way, even for leagues with split divisions. BTW, The Almanacs list the final standings for leagues as a whole irregardless of division for each affiliate on the ML team page. --Jeff 21:42, 12 November 2007 (EST)

I've gotta disagree... I think place in the division is more relevant than league... no one in the long run remembers or cares who has the third best record overall, they care if a team won a division title or not. Saying the 1981 Reds were 1st in the National League, while technically correct, is misleading. They finished 2nd in their division in the first half, and 2ndin the second half... that's what people remember/want to know. Likewise, saying the 2005 Padres finished 6th in the NL, while correct, is misleading... the important fact is that they were 1st in the West. -Chisoxfan 23:07, 17 November 2007 (EST)