Biz?

[HonusWagner]

What is?

[jcard]

Originally Posted by HonusWagner

What is?

“Balls In Zone”, I believe. Used in defensive metrics as the denominator / chances / opportunities quantity.

https://tht.fangraphs.com/tools/glossary/

[HonusWagner]

Originally Posted by jcard

“Balls In Zone”, I believe. Used in defensive metrics as the denominator / chances / opportunities quantity.

https://tht.fangraphs.com/tools/glossary/

Thanks. Had trouble finding a whisper online, in fact couldn't find anything at all hence the post. And so is odd that OOTP is apparently convinced it's basically the only advanced stat that really matters for fielding.

What say others? Anyone use BIZ?

[RonCo]

OOTP presents several defensive stats. That said, Balls in Zone are an important part of Zone Rating.

[HonusWagner]

Originally Posted by RonCo

OOTP presents several defensive stats. That said, Balls in Zone are an important part of Zone Rating.

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 !?

[Rain King]

What advanced fielding stat would you prefer the game have?

[RonCo]

Originally Posted by HonusWagner

So waddya think about that !?

The game presents all the traditional stats, so I think that if you prefer to avoid BIZ it might be useful to create your own view that includes only those stats you understand and know about.

[Sweed]

I took this as Batted Balls into a Zone (rated as routine to impossible) and percent of Balls Fielded (in those zones)?
ie BIZ"x"= balls in zone, BIZ"xm"= Balls fielded, BIZ%= percent fielded


So instead of having one all encompassing category of Chances on Batted Balls (not total chances), it is broken down to give a more detailed picture of what type of plays a player is being asked to make.

If that's not right, then I've always been wrong.

As for me, I like BIZ and have a fielding stats view built for it along with changing the default view of fielding stats on the player page to a "BIZ" view.
The nice thing about having a "view" built is if you sort your players by position, say SS, you only get their stats from SS. Without a positions sort you get their total fielding stats.

I don't know if there is a right way to look at this row of stats, but I tend to look first at the "even" balls to see if my fielder is getting at least 50% of those. I then tend to look to the left of my view, ie towards the easier plays to make sure he is covering the routine balls too. Then I look right towards the unlikely and remote balls (especially for my "best" fielders) to see if they are making the extraordinary type plays.

[HonusWagner]

Originally Posted by Rain King

What advanced fielding stat would you prefer the game have?

That's not the question. Maybe it's one of those things that are so obvious they appear subtle.

Nowhere does one find BIZ discussed for fielding, or you really have to look for it.

But in OOTP it makes up half of all available fielding stats and clearly the majority of all fielding formulas.

Putting those two observations together one gathers that

• BIZ is so commonplace among OOTP owners it doesn't warrant discussion
  
  <OR>
  
• few use BIZ
  
  <AND/OR>
  
• few pay much attention to fielding stats

To answer the question, am not aware that the game is missing any fielding stat. Am simply curious to what degree people pay attention to BIZ.

This post suggests the answer is no one really pays much attention to BIZ. Nearly 400 views has produced one post containing any indepth discussion.

From that draw your own conclusions. Or not.

I've read in another post from a veteran OOTPer that fielding is very important in OOTP. See why I might bring this up?

Am also willing to ponder if BIZ is in fact a superior fielding formula. It may very well be. But that isn't my question.

[Rain King]

I mean, your initial post wasn't exactly clear nor did it facilitate discussion so I have my doubts that is what you were actually after.

I think most of the OOTP community understands that defensive value is very difficult to quantify in any statistic.

[Syd Thrift]

I didn't take RonCo's initial response as condescending at all to be quite honest. The responses since from everyone, after you behaved like a manchild, yes, I would call those condescending. Generally speaking here, I find that if you treat others with respect they will treat you with respect. There are always people you have to avoid - for all I know I'm one of those people - but RonCo is not one of them.

[Thundercrack]

Originally Posted by syd thrift

i didn't take ronco's initial response as condescending at all to be quite honest. The responses since from everyone, after you behaved like a manchild, yes, i would call those condescending. Generally speaking here, i find that if you treat others with respect they will treat you with respect. There are always people you have to avoid - for all i know i'm one of those people - but ronco is not one of them.

…

[Thundercrack]

…

[HonusWagner]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

I didn't take RonCo's initial response as condescending at all to be quite honest. The responses since from everyone, after you behaved like a manchild, yes, I would call those condescending. Generally speaking here, I find that if you treat others with respect they will treat you with respect. There are always people you have to avoid - for all I know I'm one of those people - but RonCo is not one of them.

I agree it was not condescending.

It's the problem of the written word (importance, permanence) merged with electronic (disposable). People reading something renders it importance. But simultaneously is disposable. The outcome is a forum wherein it's easy to slight someone.

That said, though not condescending, unwarranted. If I know about BIZ then likely I know about fielding stats. Same as if I know about babip I know about average. Likely not the other way around, to be answering questions related to babip but asking about ba.

Finally it's a game forum so there shouldn't really be anything anyone must take too personally.

[HonusWagner]

Originally Posted by Rain King

I mean, your initial post wasn't exactly clear nor did it facilitate discussion so I have my doubts that is what you were actually after.

I think most of the OOTP community understands that defensive value is very difficult to quantify in any statistic.

My op was quite cryptic I agree. I assumed people would recognize the context, which was my error NPI.

[HonusWagner]

But really, does anyone ever walk away from this forum thinking "gee! I can't believe MrBB0255 said that to me!!". ?

I mean if anything, obvious, humorless attempts at obnoxiousness is more just boring, just noise. No? Unless you make it something else.

[HonusWagner]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

I didn't take RonCo's initial response as condescending at all to be quite honest. The responses since from everyone, after you behaved like a manchild, yes, I would call those condescending. Generally speaking here, I find that if you treat others with respect they will treat you with respect. There are always people you have to avoid - for all I know I'm one of those people - but RonCo is not one of them.

I disagree in that I have not found any posts condescending, at least they haven't struck me that way.

But end of Ronco's post seems it should be a beginning - explain what do you think about their importance. But again perhaps that was assumed.

And if so obviously important why is it not discussed anywhere?

[RonCo]

Balls In Zone is important because it is the root of all the various zone rating schemes. It's as simple, and complex, as that. If you value zone rating as a stat, you value BIZ. If you don't you are always free to ignore it and do your own thing.

[HonusWagner]

Originally Posted by Sweed

I took this as Batted Balls into a Zone (rated as routine to impossible) and percent of Balls Fielded (in those zones)?
ie BIZ"x"= balls in zone, BIZ"xm"= Balls fielded, BIZ%= percent fielded


So instead of having one all encompassing category of Chances on Batted Balls (not total chances), it is broken down to give a more detailed picture of what type of plays a player is being asked to make.

If that's not right, then I've always been wrong.

As for me, I like BIZ and have a fielding stats view built for it along with changing the default view of fielding stats on the player page to a "BIZ" view.
The nice thing about having a "view" built is if you sort your players by position, say SS, you only get their stats from SS. Without a positions sort you get their total fielding stats.

I don't know if there is a right way to look at this row of stats, but I tend to look first at the "even" balls to see if my fielder is getting at least 50% of those. I then tend to look to the left of my view, ie towards the easier plays to make sure he is covering the routine balls too. Then I look right towards the unlikely and remote balls (especially for my "best" fielders) to see if they are making the extraordinary type plays.

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

[HonusWagner]

And zone or range? I assumed these were attempts to discover real fielding.