Biz?

[RonCo]

Originally Posted by HonusWagner

I thought TC covered this concept. How is BIZ better or different than TC?

TC = A + PO + E ... which means the fielder gets his hands on the ball.

Balls in Zone are simply balls hit into zones the player is responsible for, even if he never gets to it. So in general, a player with greater range will make more plays on balls in their zones than a player with less range. defense is complicated, though. OOTP uses an edge thing, which also attempts to factor in difficulty factors.

In other words, a ball hit "past a diving Jeter" counts against Jeter in a Zone Rating metric, but not in a traditional metric.

If a SS is responsible for ranges 6, 6S, 6D, 6M, 6MS, 6MD, 56, 56S, and 56D, my pure guess is that OOTP assigns "routine" to plays in 6 and 6S, and moves the difficulty level based on other zones.

[HonusWagner]

Tbh I haven't put the time into fielding stats so likely better off doing that. Maybe find better questions to ask.

[RonCo]

Zones in the above post are listed on OOTP game logs, and loosely defined here > https://www.retrosheet.org/location.htm

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by HonusWagner

I thought TC covered this concept. How is BIZ better or different than TC?

I'm not an expert in this, and have never read a official definition or explanation of the stat. So someone may come along and tell you I am wrong.
But...

To have a chance (TC) the player has to touch the ball.

BIZ-"x" only means a ball was hit into a player's zone. Ie if he doesn't field/touch the ball it doesn't count towards TC.

BIZ-"m" is "plays made", or think of it as the player fielded/touched the ball, and gets a "TC" credited as well as a BIZ-"m".

What about errors? My feeling (ie best guess) would be that you don't get credited with an "m" (made play) if you commit an error. So a ball in your zone gets counted as BIZ-"x" with "x" being the difficulty of the play. Field the ball successfully and you get BIZ-"m". Get to the ball but commit an error you only get BIZ-"x".

The scale to me is similar to the position scale for fielders. IE ss is hardest, 1b is easiest. BIZ gives a scale from "routine" to "impossible" and then the percentage of those plays you have made, ie "m".

Player A is a 2b that has a great fielding pct and long streaks of errorless games. You look at your BIZ table and find he only makes easy and normal plays, but never gets to "unlikely" or "remote" balls.
or..

Player B is a 2b that makes a lot more errors than Player A, but..
he gets to more than 50% of the "even" balls, makes a very high pct of the "routine" and "likely" plays. On top of that he gets to, and more importantly completes plays on a lot of "unlikely" and "remote" balls that Player A never gets to.

Gives you a way to determine for yourself which player is better. Low range, low errors but more balls getting through. Or High range, more errors (maybe occurring because of having to hurry on unlikely/remote balls), less balls getting through.

Or how much fielding am I giving up playing that LF with power over the guy that can hit, all be it with less power, but gets to balls in the alley and down the line.

It's a better tool to evaluate fielding, at least IMHO.

Edit:
And as I typed this long winded post RonCo comes in with not only a shorter but better explanation.

[HonusWagner]

RonCo thanks for the chart!

I just don't have anything intelligent to contribute at this point so.....

Anyone know of a bible of sorts for this (baseball stats) topic? A Bill James? There are a bunch of titles out there.

[findinghomer]

Originally Posted by HonusWagner

And again, I don't understand the talking to someone like they are a child. Do you teach kindergarten, sir? and so this is just habitual.

But I digress.

Anyone who has glanced at fielding stats knows BIZ-related equations dominate.

Half available stats are BIZ.

In fact, when you remove Catcher-related stats then BIZ accounts for virtually all available equations, save a few.

As with A/W, I guarantee hardly anyone who plays OOTP knows anything about BIZ. I seem to see occasional threads concerning what others use for fielding stats. Well, BIZ! BIZ is what everyone uses. Or, they have strong reasons for not using BIZ.

But I tell you hardly anyone knows what BIZ is.

So waddya think about that !?

You have to be joking or are just new to this game everybody knows BIZ Is . it direct correlates to the overall ZR statistic. how exactly its measured I don't know, that's how I found this post. but everybody uses that too gauge a fielder's ability maybe this isn't a game for you.

And for how exactly it's calculated I do not know but I do know that Even balls in zone is heavily weighted. Anything below 50% is not good. Unlikely balls And remote balls should be in the 30 or 20%, impossible balls, im wondering if they bare unique to that players skill because they're impossible for him, or are they saying it's impossible Because it's out of his zone and it doesn't affect ZR? Because it seems like no matter how good the defender is, impossible balls range anywhere between 8- 10% of there chances

[WhiskyTango]

Originally Posted by findinghomer

You have to be joking or are just new to this game everybody knows BIZ Is . it direct correlates to the overall ZR statistic. how exactly its measured I don't know, that's how I found this post. but everybody uses that too gauge a fielder's ability maybe this isn't a game for you.

And for how exactly it's calculated I do not know but I do know that Even balls in zone is heavily weighted. Anything below 50% is not good. Unlikely balls And remote balls should be in the 30 or 20%, impossible balls, im wondering if they bare unique to that players skill because they're impossible for him, or are they saying it's impossible Because it's out of his zone and it doesn't affect ZR? Because it seems like no matter how good the defender is, impossible balls range anywhere between 8- 10% of there chances

I assure you sir this game definitely is _not_ for me and I'm glad someone took the time too call a spade a spade !

I do no how to BIZ are calc'd, so....

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by HonusWagner

RonCo thanks for the chart!

I just don't have anything intelligent to contribute at this point so.....

Anyone know of a bible of sorts for this (baseball stats) topic? A Bill James? There are a bunch of titles out there.

I am almost positive that the “even”, “difficult” and so on metrics are nothing that you’re going to find in a baseball stat book because they’re OOTP based metrics that describe how the fielders play within the context of the game itself. I have no idea of the exact algorithm but there’s some kind of formula when a ball is hit to, say, dead centerfield that some percentage of the time it’ll be automatic, some percentage easy, hard, and so on, and then the fielder’s ratings are used against a die roll to determine if they made it. All those numbers and percentages are basically how often each player makes a play in a given bucket and so on.

I think the “even” one is a good way of eyeballing if a player is average or not at their position - if they make more than 50% of the plays there, they’re probably above average (of course, sample size still matters, and I’ve seen players not be so great at these plays but get to a higher than expected number of unlikely balls, etc). You can also choose to ignore these if you want.

[WhiskyTango]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

I am almost positive that the “even”, “difficult” and so on metrics are nothing that you’re going to find in a baseball stat book because they’re OOTP based metrics that describe how the fielders play within the context of the game itself. I have no idea of the exact algorithm but there’s some kind of formula when a ball is hit to, say, dead centerfield that some percentage of the time it’ll be automatic, some percentage easy, hard, and so on, and then the fielder’s ratings are used against a die roll to determine if they made it. All those numbers and percentages are basically how often each player makes a play in a given bucket and so on.

I think the “even” one is a good way of eyeballing if a player is average or not at their position - if they make more than 50% of the plays there, they’re probably above average (of course, sample size still matters, and I’ve seen players not be so great at these plays but get to a higher than expected number of unlikely balls, etc). You can also choose to ignore these if you want.

Yes, understood thank you. But again perhaps distinction could be made between theory and practice? I haven't looked at RL results to compare to how close the game is, but it stands to reason a guy >50% even, should be relatively stronger with routine and likely and I have players that aren't. And am having trouble imagining how that could play out over time (assuming substantial sample sizes).