Inside Edge and OOTP

KBLover · 01-29-2020, 12:01 AM

OOTP uses Inside Edge-like categories for the fielding stats.

Are these determined under the hood and our players ratings are compared to an "ideal" ratings set and the league average for that bucket to determine the chances our fielder makes that play?

I'm noticing my SS had an insane season according to these categories.

96% routine, 96% likely, 85% even, 50% unlikely, 23% remote and 111 impossible plays.

His ratings are off the charts defensively (80 Range, 70 Error, 75 Arm, 75 DP) and it looks like his performance rose to the billing.

Of course, I wonder what the average is for those categories in my league. Is there a way I can find out, like I can on Fangraphs? That would not only help me evaluate more deeply, but also get another look at the fielding quality in my universe, both as a benchmark and to see if and how I'd want to adjust.

Argonaut · 01-29-2020, 02:03 AM

I'm guessing something like 95% routine, 75% likely, 50% even, 25% unlikely, 5% remote?

I don't know if you can check the league average anywhere. One idea is to check a guy with around +0.0 ZR and see how he measures up.

But yeah your SS looks like he had a wicked season. +25 ZR?

KBLover · 01-29-2020, 04:01 PM

He checked in at +17.5 ZR and won the Gold Glove.

What's funny is no everyday SS had a 0 ZR. Closest to 0 I could find was a guy with +0.7 ZR. And then the other everyday SS had really negative ZR, including the worst guy in the league at -24 ZR.

Here's 2019 MLB's percentages league-wide for SS:

Routine 97%, Likely 74%, Even 48%, Unlikely 26%, Remote 4%

Ladman, the 0.7 ZR SS had these Inside Edge percents:

Routine 97%, Likely 89%, Even 72%, Unlikely 24%, Remote 14%, 153 impossible plays.

Cervantes, the -24 ZR SS:

Routine: 87%, Likely 76%, Even 57%, Unlikely 23%, Remote 5%, 115 impossible plays.

Cervantes was far worse than Murata (my guy) and Ladman, so it's reflecting something it seems.

Sounds like I might need to lower the range modifier for SS in my league settings if I want them to look like IRL percentages though! Cervantes, aside from the horrible rate on routine plays, looked a lot like the average MLB fielder.

Matt Arnold · 01-29-2020, 05:00 PM

SS fields an awful lot of routine plays, so 87% is actually pretty brutal. No MLB SS with over 200 innings last year was under 90%, and hardly any full-time guys were even under 95%.

KBLover · 01-29-2020, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

SS fields an awful lot of routine plays, so 87% is actually pretty brutal. No MLB SS with over 200 innings last year was under 90%, and hardly any full-time guys were even under 95%.

True - but was average-ish elsewhere - it seems weird.

But very true about the routine plays. But since most do make around 95% at least in routine, what do you think about especially the Even, Unlikely, and Remote plays being so high compared to MLB?

Cervantes was terrible but Ladman was league average-ish in ZR (0.7 runs above) but was way better than average in Likely, Even, and Remote (I could see writing off or not caring too much about Remote due to sample perhaps but Likely being 90% vs 78% seems quite high and it seems persistent across positions, and even with some -ZR players).

I found probably the worst fielder in my league, a -37 ZR center fielder that made just 53% of Likely plays! He made most of the routine plays (95%, somewhat surprisingly, though low for an outfielder) but anything beyond that was a gamble. He has 30 OF Range

But other than Mr. Statue in CF, even the terrible fielders by ZR are average-ish in Likely and Even. I guess that seems odd that a bad fielder who can't make his routine plays is better than average at plays more difficult than routine.

And what my SS did? That's just crazy, even for his ratings?!

KBLover · 02-03-2020, 09:01 PM

Alright, I'm determined to figure out the average fielding in my league. I'm also curious why many fielders have more "Likely" chances than "Routine" ones. That seems weird?

Anyway, I came across this BIZ stats and...iirc BIZ means "Balls in Zone". I don't know what the R, L, U, E, Z mean, but I'm going to guess:

R = Routine, L = Likely, E = Even, U = Unlike, Z = Remote (since R is taken).

So it's like tracking the same sort of thing as the Inside Edge.

I took all the infielders, filter by batting qualifiers, in theory giving me the guys with the most chances at all the positions. Exported to browser, cut and paste to Excel. Sum the chances, take the percentages.

I got for infielders:
Routine: 94.8%
Likely: 88.1%
Even: 71.5%
Unlikely: 39.8%
Remote: 18.2%

Fangraphs doesn't have an "all infield" page like they do for OF but these are all high except for Routine, which is on the low side.

And this was after lowering the range modifiers on the Stats and AI page for the ML level. Looks like if I want these to hit close to irl MLB numbers, I got more tinkering to do. Somehow need more routine success with much lower success everywhere else...

There were also a ton more Likely plays compared to the real game. In MLB, there were 78,000 (rounding) routine plays and like 7,000 (rounding) likely plays...and the rest drop of even more until Impossible plays. Even if lowering the range modifiers caused this...the success rate is so high still.

Moving to OFers:
Routine: 92.6% (99.3%)
Likely: 71.9% (82.5%)
Even: 55.9% (56.0%)
Unlikely: 48.4% (32.5%)
Remote: 21.4% (3.8%)

I...don't even. They're making far far too few routine and likely plays but way more unlikely and remote plays...?

Fangraphs does have the "all OF" page so I put that number in the parentheses.

Total League: (Fangraphs total league numbers in parentheses)
Routine: 93.4% (97.8%)
Likely: 81.5% (78.5%)
Even: 65.1% (53.7%)
Unlikely: 43.9% (27.0%)
Remote: 19.9% (3.9%)

I'm at a loss at this point.

I'm getting:

-Too much success from infielders on non-routine plays by a large margin.
-Too low success from infielders on routine plays by a non-trival amount.
-Far too low success on routine and likely plays on outfielders.
-Far too high success on unlikely and remote plays on outfielders.
-Too many non-routine plays by all fielders, especially infielders.

But at least I know what average is in this save so at least I can judge what I am getting in that lens, so it's not all a loss.

Matt Arnold · 02-04-2020, 02:15 PM

The values and breakdown we use won't necessarily line up with what happens in MLB. We're always revisiting things to better match up, but there's a lot of variation, even when looking at the league-wide stats over a season. Especially in the quality of players at each position - if we assume that the average SS is X and your league has everyone running Simmons there, your averages will be higher. Or maybe for whatever reason you ended up with more weaks balls right to the SS than up the middle - even league-wide 50 different balls can have a huge impact if they all end up in the same bucket.

01-29-2020, 12:01 AM	#1
KBLover All Star Reserve Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 580	Inside Edge and OOTP OOTP uses Inside Edge-like categories for the fielding stats. Are these determined under the hood and our players ratings are compared to an "ideal" ratings set and the league average for that bucket to determine the chances our fielder makes that play? I'm noticing my SS had an insane season according to these categories. 96% routine, 96% likely, 85% even, 50% unlikely, 23% remote and 111 impossible plays. His ratings are off the charts defensively (80 Range, 70 Error, 75 Arm, 75 DP) and it looks like his performance rose to the billing. Of course, I wonder what the average is for those categories in my league. Is there a way I can find out, like I can on Fangraphs? That would not only help me evaluate more deeply, but also get another look at the fielding quality in my universe, both as a benchmark and to see if and how I'd want to adjust. Last edited by KBLover; 01-29-2020 at 12:02 AM.

01-29-2020, 02:03 AM	#2
Argonaut All Star Starter Join Date: Apr 2019 Posts: 1,085	I'm guessing something like 95% routine, 75% likely, 50% even, 25% unlikely, 5% remote? I don't know if you can check the league average anywhere. One idea is to check a guy with around +0.0 ZR and see how he measures up. But yeah your SS looks like he had a wicked season. +25 ZR? __________________ Texas Rangers Dynasty (Est. 1972) Hartford Whalers Dynasty: Brass Bonanza Last edited by Argonaut; 01-29-2020 at 02:09 AM.

01-29-2020, 04:01 PM	#3
KBLover All Star Reserve Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 580	He checked in at +17.5 ZR and won the Gold Glove. What's funny is no everyday SS had a 0 ZR. Closest to 0 I could find was a guy with +0.7 ZR. And then the other everyday SS had really negative ZR, including the worst guy in the league at -24 ZR. Here's 2019 MLB's percentages league-wide for SS: Routine 97%, Likely 74%, Even 48%, Unlikely 26%, Remote 4% Ladman, the 0.7 ZR SS had these Inside Edge percents: Routine 97%, Likely 89%, Even 72%, Unlikely 24%, Remote 14%, 153 impossible plays. Cervantes, the -24 ZR SS: Routine: 87%, Likely 76%, Even 57%, Unlikely 23%, Remote 5%, 115 impossible plays. Cervantes was far worse than Murata (my guy) and Ladman, so it's reflecting something it seems. Sounds like I might need to lower the range modifier for SS in my league settings if I want them to look like IRL percentages though! Cervantes, aside from the horrible rate on routine plays, looked a lot like the average MLB fielder. Last edited by KBLover; 01-29-2020 at 04:05 PM.

02-03-2020, 09:01 PM	#6
KBLover All Star Reserve Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 580	Alright, I'm determined to figure out the average fielding in my league. I'm also curious why many fielders have more "Likely" chances than "Routine" ones. That seems weird? Anyway, I came across this BIZ stats and...iirc BIZ means "Balls in Zone". I don't know what the R, L, U, E, Z mean, but I'm going to guess: R = Routine, L = Likely, E = Even, U = Unlike, Z = Remote (since R is taken). So it's like tracking the same sort of thing as the Inside Edge. I took all the infielders, filter by batting qualifiers, in theory giving me the guys with the most chances at all the positions. Exported to browser, cut and paste to Excel. Sum the chances, take the percentages. I got for infielders: Routine: 94.8% Likely: 88.1% Even: 71.5% Unlikely: 39.8% Remote: 18.2% Fangraphs doesn't have an "all infield" page like they do for OF but these are all high except for Routine, which is on the low side. And this was after lowering the range modifiers on the Stats and AI page for the ML level. Looks like if I want these to hit close to irl MLB numbers, I got more tinkering to do. Somehow need more routine success with much lower success everywhere else... There were also a ton more Likely plays compared to the real game. In MLB, there were 78,000 (rounding) routine plays and like 7,000 (rounding) likely plays...and the rest drop of even more until Impossible plays. Even if lowering the range modifiers caused this...the success rate is so high still. Moving to OFers: Routine: 92.6% (99.3%) Likely: 71.9% (82.5%) Even: 55.9% (56.0%) Unlikely: 48.4% (32.5%) Remote: 21.4% (3.8%) I...don't even. They're making far far too few routine and likely plays but way more unlikely and remote plays...? Fangraphs does have the "all OF" page so I put that number in the parentheses. Total League: (Fangraphs total league numbers in parentheses) Routine: 93.4% (97.8%) Likely: 81.5% (78.5%) Even: 65.1% (53.7%) Unlikely: 43.9% (27.0%) Remote: 19.9% (3.9%) I'm at a loss at this point. I'm getting: -Too much success from infielders on non-routine plays by a large margin. -Too low success from infielders on routine plays by a non-trival amount. -Far too low success on routine and likely plays on outfielders. -Far too high success on unlikely and remote plays on outfielders. -Too many non-routine plays by all fielders, especially infielders. But at least I know what average is in this save so at least I can judge what I am getting in that lens, so it's not all a loss. Last edited by KBLover; 02-03-2020 at 09:18 PM.

01-29-2020, 05:00 PM	#4
Matt Arnold OOTP Developer Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Here and there Posts: 14,106	SS fields an awful lot of routine plays, so 87% is actually pretty brutal. No MLB SS with over 200 innings last year was under 90%, and hardly any full-time guys were even under 95%.

02-04-2020, 02:15 PM	#7
Matt Arnold OOTP Developer Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Here and there Posts: 14,106	The values and breakdown we use won't necessarily line up with what happens in MLB. We're always revisiting things to better match up, but there's a lot of variation, even when looking at the league-wide stats over a season. Especially in the quality of players at each position - if we assume that the average SS is X and your league has everyone running Simmons there, your averages will be higher. Or maybe for whatever reason you ended up with more weaks balls right to the SS than up the middle - even league-wide 50 different balls can have a huge impact if they all end up in the same bucket.