Currently, it is taking along time as I am using an Excel spreadsheet! I know...old format but it still has its uses. So, I am actually going game-by-game and manually entering every stat onto a large spreadsheet. I decided to go with Points, Rebounds, Assists, Steals and Blocks. Eventually I could add those other stats you mentioned. However, it will take considerable time just to catch up this season.
The speed it takes could mean that rather than a 'live' Leaders table this season, I might end up with providing the End Of Season (EOS) Leaders...say, the top 10 players in each of the categories mentioned above.
I keep a lot of stats on my own players and while fouls, turnovers, minutes played, ratings etc is something I do for my own players, I baulked at this knowing how mu8ch more effort and time would be required to produce them for everyone. This is why I settled on the more immediately interesting ones.
It's semi-traditional method, yes, but why change it if it works... :)
And that's correct - it's a significant increase in used time, if you add another statistical categories, when you do it by that method. People who have not created such stats themselves might not have the smallest clue how massive the workload increase actually is..
If someone would like to focus on those 'other' stats, that would be great. My task/goal is to provide everyone with the Leaders (averages) for Pts, Reb, Ast, Stls, Blks as quickly as I can for this season. Then, look at going back and doing past seasons at some stage...maybe..
I agree, it would/could be great if someone wants to take rest of those categories. Personally I've got my hands full with these HGL team stats-categories (45 categories), and I want to break the 2 Season streak of not being able to publish them completely, so I want to concentrate on those (and not creating player stats myself).
As for what players qualify...
...I will look at that once I have all the data up-to-date. I'm thinking that a certain number of games (a percentage of the total) will need to be used.
Yes, I agree that would be the best option... and when shooting percentages aren't involved, it's not necessary to consider minimum shooting amounts (as to who would qualify for the list on the first place, regardless of their PPG average), as point leaders always have lots of shots (as long as they qualify to the list based on enough % of games played)...
Yes, I could really go into significant detail, Wagner; however, not every manager will 'need' all of that. My aim is to provide a relatively a Top 10 Leaders of those main areas where players will have to have played a certain number of games to qualify. Simple. Managers will either like it or not...
Managers will surely like it, there's no question about that. My proposition of top20 or top30 on each of these categories was based on an assumption, that you would automatically have all players listed that have scored (and are able to organize them into from best to worst-order with press of couple of buttons in Excel), and that expanding that list to 20 or 30 per category wouldn't actually cause you much more effort at all. (But I could be mistaken with my belief, and even if I wouldn't it's of course your call - I was just thinking it would be interesting to see "an expanded top10").
Last edited by Wagner at 2/16/2026 8:48:14 AM