PECOTA projects Angels to win 78 games

[SlappyUtilityMIF]

19 hours ago, Scotty@AW said:

Decent prediction. I think they undersell the team though. We won 74? games last year, that was with the loss of basically our entire rotation.

You add Richards, Skaggs, and Meyer/Chavez to replace Weaver, Chacin and Lincecum and that's a few more wins alone. Add Street, Bailey and the host of upside arms to the bulllen mix and there's at least a couple more wins. Then replace Nava/Gentry with Maybin, Revere's speed off the bench, Valbuena's bat, replace Giavotella with Espinosa and add Maldonado and there's another few wins. 

I think 85 wins is probably more accurate. 

Not enough to overtake the Astros, but we should be neck and neck with Texas. Seattle will be around 80 wins and everyone will realize what Angel fans already know, which is that Dipoto's hype surpasses his actual ability to build a team. The A's will stink.

In the end, we'll contend for a wild card spot.

Meyer/Chavez have to prove they can do it consistently and not just at Santiago innings! We need 6+ on average not the norm of 3.2 out of Meyer last season.

Street/Bailey must stay healthy the entire season. Not even short lay overs on the DL.

The Bench with either Maybin/Valbuena/Revere will be much better.

LF with Maybin/Revere and their ability to play any OF spot makes us better just for the lack of the former bearded wonders we would run out there as 4th-6th OF'ers.

Valbuena being able to play all over helps our depth in case of injury as well.

Espinosa is far better than anything we've ran out there the last few years and makes our bench better when it keeps Pennington and the likes on it!....

 

81 wins out of the gate is a good starting point. If half of these go positive and we are relatively injury free along the rotation I think we are back to high 80's and then you might steal 5-10 during the season due to over-coaching of the opposition. And you are back to mid 90 wins.

[Ohtaniland]

20 hours ago, Chuckster70 said:

 

To me the entire season comes down to Richards/Shoemaker/Skaggs. If those three can give us 180-200+ innings of quality ball, I'm guessing we'll be in contention to win the AL West or compete all season.

We will be extremely fortunate if all three of these guys are still throwing high velocity pitches by the All Star break. After Madson and Burnett I'm not taking anything for granted. 

[Docwaukee]

29 minutes ago, SlappyUtilityMIF said:

Meyer/Chavez have to prove they can do it consistently and not just at Santiago innings! We need 6+ on average not the norm of 3.2 out of Meyer last season.

Street/Bailey must stay healthy the entire season. Not even short lay overs on the DL.

The Bench with either Maybin/Valbuena/Revere will be much better.

LF with Maybin/Revere and their ability to play any OF spot makes us better just for the lack of the former bearded wonders we would run out there as 4th-6th OF'ers.

Valbuena being able to play all over helps our depth in case of injury as well.

Espinosa is far better than anything we've ran out there the last few years and makes our bench better when it keeps Pennington and the likes on it!....

 

81 wins out of the gate is a good starting point. If half of these go positive and we are relatively injury free along the rotation I think we are back to high 80's and then you might steal 5-10 during the season due to over-coaching of the opposition. And you are back to mid 90 wins.

Granted, 3.2 ip isn't going to get it done, but I just don't see any chance that Meyer or Chavez are going to be 6+ inning pitchers.  As i've stated in the past, I would rather see our pitchers successfully navigate twice through the order and minimize our exposure 3rd time through.  

Yes, that puts more pressure on the pen, but we are better off (statistically proven) going deep into our relief reserve than having most of our starters face a lineup for the third time.  While I don't think the team is ready to fully subscribe to the method I outlined previously, what I think will happen is that we'll see our starters enter the 6th as long as pitch counts are appropriate.  But, with any sign of trouble, we'll move to someone else.  

 

[nando714]

How many did they predict in 2002?

(had to get that obligatory 02 reference out of the way)

[SlappyUtilityMIF]

39 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

Granted, 3.2 ip isn't going to get it done, but I just don't see any chance that Meyer or Chavez are going to be 6+ inning pitchers.  As i've stated in the past, I would rather see our pitchers successfully navigate twice through the order and minimize our exposure 3rd time through.  

Yes, that puts more pressure on the pen, but we are better off (statistically proven) going deep into our relief reserve than having most of our starters face a lineup for the third time.  While I don't think the team is ready to fully subscribe to the method I outlined previously, what I think will happen is that we'll see our starters enter the 6th as long as pitch counts are appropriate.  But, with any sign of trouble, we'll move to someone else.  

 

Well, across a long season Doc. We've seen this when Rasmus would fill in as a starter it ended up taxing our bullpen. Starting pitchers do and need to go at the very minimum 5 innings with 6+ being optimal for not only the benefit of continuity across the bullpen and those pitchers roles as well. As roles change and pitchers are required to do more than they are expected out of the bullpen is when the small bumps and bruises across a 162 game season and the playoffs is when you start to see teams falter. Or change their dynamic overall with the 8-9 out save.

Meyer/Chavez must need to throw at a minimum 5 innings with 6 being ideal to then move into the (at current bullpen state) the Bailey, BEDROCK, Street finish. Overall, though the other parts did decent as a whole that 4th-6th innings killed us most of the time and were sometimes even worse adding in the eventual injuries throughout the rotation.

This last post season was an aberration of what will be happening going forward. The 8-9 out save situation on multiple days will eventually mess up your long term closers health. Should they be able to do this of course! But, due to roles and what the status quo in the building of a bullpen that isn't required.

** Edit** 

Chavez for his career is throwing an avg of 5.79 innings per outing. Though that is only 49 starts which isn't a huge amount. roughly 2 seasons worth.

 

Year	W	L	W-L%	ERA	G	GS	GF	CG	SHO	SV	IP	H	R	ER	HR	BB	IBB	SO	HBP	BK	WP	BF	WHIP	SO9	SO/W
	2012	0	1	.000	10.38	2	2	0	0	0	0	8.2	10	10	10	2	4	0	10	2	0		42	1.615	10.4	2.50
	2014	8	7	.533	3.44	21	21	0	0	0	0	125.2	122	54	48	13	41	2	119	4	0		533	1.297	8.5	2.90
	2015	7	15	.318	4.37	26	26	0	0	0	0	150.1	159	78	73	18	47	2	127	1	0		645	1.370	7.6	2.70
	Career Total	15	23	.395	4.14	49	49	0	0	0	0	284.2	291	142	131	33	92	4	256	7	0		1220	1.345	8.1	2.78

obviously, the numbers on the photo are off he gave up 18 bombs last year not 73.... Hits are innings and move each one to the left one line.

[WeatherWonk]

50 minutes ago, nando714 said:

How many did they predict in 2002?

(had to get that obligatory 02 reference out of the way)

Was PECOTA even in existence in 2002? I think it started in 2003.

[Docwaukee]

2 minutes ago, SlappyUtilityMIF said:

Well, across a long season Doc. We've seen this when Rasmus would fill in as a starter it ended up taxing our bullpen. Starting pitchers do and need to go at the very minimum 5 innings with 6+ being optimal for not only the benefit of continuity across the bullpen and those pitchers roles as well. As roles change and pitchers are required to do more than they are expected out of the bullpen is when the small bumps and bruises across a 162 game season and the playoffs is when you start to see teams falter.

Meyer/Chavez must need to throw at a minimum 5 innings with 6 being ideal to then move into the (at current bullpen state) the Bailey, BEDROCK, Street finish. Overall, though the other parts did decent as a whole that 4th-6th innings killed us most of the time and were sometimes even worse adding in the eventual injuries throughout the rotation.

This last post season was an aberration of what will be happening going forward. The 8-9 out save situation on multiple days will eventually mess up your long term closers health. Should they be able to do this of course! But, due to roles out there that isn't required any longer.

Stats just don't back that up.  

our relievers had a 3.63 era from the 4th-6th innings.  Good for 10th best in baseball.  

our starters had a 4.79 era from the 4th-6th innings.  Good for 22nd best in baseball.  

our starters had a 5.04 era from the 5th-7th innings.  23rd in baseball.  

we had a 5.89 era third time through the order and a 4.06 era the second time through.  

I know it's hard to believe, but a replacement level reliever is better than almost all starters third time through.  

Even 2015 backs that up.  

Our starters had a 5.09 era third time through.  

Relievers who pitched the 4th-6th that year had a 4.14 era.  

BTW, this is not just isolated to the halos.  

here are the league wide era's 3rd time through for the last 5 years.  Followed by the 1st and 2nd time through

2012 - 5.03 era. 3.82 era

2013 - 4.83 era.  3.65 era

2014 - 4.83 era. 3.40 era

2015 - 5.05 era. 3.69 era

2016 - 5.53 era. 3.89 era

Just for kicks, here are a few relievers who performed at replacement level last year (bear in mind, the criteria for a replacement level reliever is different than for starters)

Jason Grilli 4.12 era, Travis Wood 2.95 era, Salas 3.91 era, Soria 4.05 era, Jesse Chavez 4.43 era, Neftali Feliz 3.52 era.  and from the halos Joe Smith 3.82 era.  JC ramirez 2.91 era.  

To me, this is just an opportunity waiting to be vetted in real time.  

[SlappyUtilityMIF]

24 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

Stats just don't back that up.  

our relievers had a 3.63 era from the 4th-6th innings.  Good for 10th best in baseball.  

our starters had a 4.79 era from the 4th-6th innings.  Good for 22nd best in baseball.  

our starters had a 5.04 era from the 5th-7th innings.  23rd in baseball.  

we had a 5.89 era third time through the order and a 4.06 era the second time through.  

I know it's hard to believe, but a replacement level reliever is better than almost all starters third time through.  

Even 2015 backs that up.  

Our starters had a 5.09 era third time through.  

Relievers who pitched the 4th-6th that year had a 4.14 era.  

BTW, this is not just isolated to the halos.  

here are the league wide era's 3rd time through for the last 5 years.  Followed by the 1st and 2nd time through

2012 - 5.03 era. 3.82 era

2013 - 4.83 era.  3.65 era

2014 - 4.83 era. 3.40 era

2015 - 5.05 era. 3.69 era

2016 - 5.53 era. 3.89 era

Just for kicks, here are a few relievers who performed at replacement level last year (bear in mind, the criteria for a replacement level reliever is different than for starters)

Jason Grilli 4.12 era, Travis Wood 2.95 era, Salas 3.91 era, Soria 4.05 era, Jesse Chavez 4.43 era, Neftali Feliz 3.52 era.  and from the halos Joe Smith 3.82 era.  JC ramirez 2.91 era.  

To me, this is just an opportunity waiting to be vetted in real time.  

Or, maybe, our starters just sucked?.... And moving 3 times through the order isn't able to happen due to arm strength?.

Have you ever seen Salas pitch?... Complete and utter NL pitcher! And Jesse is part of this equation. Not a part of the bullpen. Smith wasn't lights out as previous seasons! JC did well. But, also his first time through the AL. And his second half was MUCH better comparing a 2.84 ERA to a 5.75

[WeatherWonk]

I'm blown away that this only projects 90 wins for the Red Sox. And as many as 84 for the Rays. 

I see the Sox winning probably 95+. By far the best lineup in the AL, especially if KF Panda is anything like he was. Same goes for the starters. Bullpen is augmented by the acquisition of Thornburg. Joe Kelly looked real good, down the stretch. And Carson Smith should be back by mid-season. Also, one of the best defensive clubs in the AL. 

This team seems like it is virtually flawless. And, unfortunately, it is pretty young.

[Docwaukee]

15 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

 

BTW, this is not just isolated to the halos.  

here are the league wide era's 3rd time through for the last 5 years.  Followed by the 1st and 2nd time through

2012 - 5.03 era. 3.82 era

2013 - 4.83 era.  3.65 era

2014 - 4.83 era. 3.40 era

2015 - 5.05 era. 3.69 era

2016 - 5.53 era. 3.89 era

11 minutes ago, SlappyUtilityMIF said:

Or, maybe, our starters just sucked?.... And moving 3 times through the order isn't able to happen due to arm strength?.

 

I gave you the numbers.  It's not isolated to the angels. 

[SlappyUtilityMIF]

10 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

I gave you the numbers.  It's not isolated to the angels. 

What's the breakdown between the Have's vs the Have Nots?.... 500+ vs 500 below?...Also, Big Market vs Small Market?

[Hubs]

This is far too negative of a prediction. And the Astros, who last year won 84 games, are far too optimistic. They are projected to be the best record in the entire AL. 

I expect both teams to be between 87-92 games. I do not see the big gap between the two. Especially not 15 games. 

The Astros lineup is going to be different every single day. They have a lot of youth, but used 143 different combos in 2016. The offensive projections are a bit high for the Astros and a bit low for the Angels.

The scored 724 runs and allowed 701 runs in 2016, which was about the same offensively but significantly worse on the pitching side than in their breakout 2015. 

And next year they are expecting the Astros to have the best pitching staff in the majors, while they are significantly worse on ours. I know Doc and others aren't that high on our staff, but I don't think our pen is as bad as they seem to think. And while our rotation does have question marks due to injuries, why doesn't the Astros quintet have poor projections, seeing as only one of them (and it wasn't Keuchel) had an ERA under 4.34?

They are projected to allow 648 runs by PECOTA. We are projected to allow 749. I know they are pessimistic in general, but I'm sorry they are not 100 runs better than the Angels. I'd expect Keuchel to return to 2015 form, but that's it. I also expect Richards to be back, Shoemaker to give us a good season, and Skaggs and Nolasco to be around a 3.90-4.15 ERA. So the rotations are much more comparable, unless you factor in injuries significantly for the Angels and not sub par 4.5 ERA 2016 performances.

Bullpens favor the Astros. 

I expect the real result to end up somewhere between Fangraphs and PECOTA.

Fangraphs has the Astros 794 RS, 708 allowed. PECOTA has them at 768 RS, 647 allowed.

Fangraphs has the Angels 739 RS, 714 allowed. PECOTA has them at 720 RS, 749 allowed.

Both teams will score around 750-770 runs. The Astros may allow slightly less runs, but I expect both to be allow 670-700 if they have modestly normal health from their rotations and pens. 

in 2016, the Astros scored 724 runs and allowed 701. Both projections give them a positive increase on runs scored, 44 and 75 but one has them slightly worse +7 and one has them significantly better -54.

In 2016, the Angels scored 717 runs and allowed 727. Fangraphs is +22 for the offense and PECOTA is minus 7. With the additions of Maybin, Revere, Valbuena, Maldonado, and Espinosa instead of Ortega/Nava/Choi/Gentry, Marte, Petit, Bandy, Cowart and Giavotella? The players here were worth 1.0 WAR total. Valbuena alone is projected by ZIPS to have a 2.0 WAR. The total is 6.0 WAR. That's 5 wins better or 50 runs better. That doesn't include an improvement from anyone. 

In 2016, the Angels entire pitching staff was worth 5.1 WAR. Richards and Skaggs gave them 16 starts combined in 2016. I expect to get 50 minimum from these two guys. Hopefully 60. That alone will push the RA to the 675-685 mark. 

In summary, I am having trouble seeing the +150 runs gap between the two teams according to PECOTA. (PECOTA has them +121 and us -29). That's why their rated 15 games better.

 

 

[ukyah]

11 hours ago, Dochalo said:

I like us for 84 wins.  with a range of 6 in either direction.   

 

with all due respect doc, that's not much of a prediction. a +/- of 6 is a huge number in mlb. you're saying the angels are going to finish anywhere between a sub 500 team and a potential division winner, somewhere between 78-90 wins. a huge number of all the possible scenarios are included in that prognostication.

i think the angels are going to be good for about 84-86 wins, assuming reasonable health. good enough to compete for a wild card spot, but not to get one.

[Docwaukee]

6 minutes ago, SlappyUtilityMIF said:

What's the breakdown between the Have's vs the Have Nots?.... 500+ vs 500 below

we're a have not right now so it's moot.  

play to your strengths.  we have a ton of serviceable pen arms to the point that we could essentially replace almost our entire pen with different guys who are likely to start the season at AAA and really not miss a beat.  

If we are intent on having Street, Bailey and Bedrosian at the top that means we have Guerra, Ramirez, Morin, Alvarez, Ege, Campos, De Los Santos, one of Meyer/Chavez, Lamb, Banuelos, Pounders, Yates, Parker, Miller, Middleton, Gagnon, Valdez, and Paredes in the minors.  I have no idea which of those guys is going to be any better than the next.  Most of them can perform at replacement levels I am sure.  Which means you are better off letting them do it than putting the expectation on Skaggs (recent tj surg and limited major league experience), Meyer (shoulder trouble and never tested),  Richards (stem cell), or anyone else in our rotation that they have to get deep into games.  

[SlappyUtilityMIF]

8 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

we're a have not right now so it's moot.  

play to your strengths.  we have a ton of serviceable pen arms to the point that we could essentially replace almost our entire pen with different guys who are likely to start the season at AAA and really not miss a beat.  

If we are intent on having Street, Bailey and Bedrosian at the top that means we have Guerra, Ramirez, Morin, Alvarez, Ege, Campos, De Los Santos, one of Meyer/Chavez, Lamb, Banuelos, Pounders, Yates, Parker, Miller, Middleton, Gagnon, Valdez, and Paredes in the minors.  I have no idea which of those guys is going to be any better than the next.  Most of them can perform at replacement levels I am sure.  Which means you are better off letting them do it than putting the expectation on Skaggs (recent tj surg and limited major league experience), Meyer (shoulder trouble and never tested),  Richards (stem cell), or anyone else in our rotation that they have to get deep into games.  

Actually, due to Market we are a Have! Based on Arte' not spending or going over the Tax we are a Have Not... We are still in a "HAVE" market.

 

LA teams, Chicago teams, NY teams, Boston, Can add in Washington due to their history of paying $$$, Texas teams due to area growth and income, can add in STL due to their attendance. and add in the rest of the 500+ teams.

vs.

everyone else.

 

Also, based on all of the names you listed after BEDROCK for bully spots... The guys that did it last year the rest are complete unknowns "peanuts" (short of today's acquisition of Petit) (who has also done it with SF and did it well. You can't place a label of replacement level short of seeing them do it for a season or more. Otherwise, it's a prediction based on hopes and dreams.

[Dick B Back]

8 hours ago, Jobu said:

Fake news! Sad! 

Very very sad with fake news showing 85 wins for Seattle.

[Oz27]

2 hours ago, Hubs said:

In summary, I am having trouble seeing the +150 runs gap between the two teams according to PECOTA. (PECOTA has them +121 and us -29). That's why their rated 15 games better.

Seriously, how do you not look at Houston's lineup, rotation and bullpen and reach the conclusion that they are a hell of a lot better than us? They were 10 games better than the Angels last year in the raw standings and 98 runs (or 11 wins) better than us by base runs. They have plenty of scope to be much better than they were last year, too. They should be one of the best teams in baseball. The Angels, well, not so much.

[VariousCrap]

Didn't the Dodgers show in the regular season last year how you can win with a starting rotation that only goes through the line-up twice before turning it over to the bullpen?  From what I remember, outside of Kershaw, that is how they won games last year.

I'd imagine that is how the Angels will plan to go this year.  Hope your starting pitching gives you five innings and then turn it over to the bullpen.

 

 

 

[SlappyUtilityMIF]

25 minutes ago, VariousCrap said:

Didn't the Dodgers show in the regular season last year how you can win with a starting rotation that only goes through the line-up twice before turning it over to the bullpen?  From what I remember, outside of Kershaw, that is how they won games last year.

I'd imagine that is how the Angels will plan to go this year.  Hope your starting pitching gives you five innings and then turn it over to the bullpen.

 

 

 

And how they self destructed in the Playoffs....Only difference is our closer can't take a prolonged stretch of 8-9 out save opportunities.... maybe 1 a week with 2-3 days off in between.

If we wanted a multiple inning closer we should have invested in Jansen. Not maintaining our aging rapidly Street. 

[beatlesrule]

2 hours ago, SlappyUtilityMIF said:

And how they self destructed in the Playoffs....Only difference is our closer can't take a prolonged stretch of 8-9 out save opportunities.... maybe 1 a week with 2-3 days off in between.

If we wanted a multiple inning closer we should have invested in Jansen. Not maintaining our aging rapidly Street. 

That series against the Nats was awesome as was pretty much the entire playoffs.

[VariousCrap]

5 hours ago, SlappyUtilityMIF said:

And how they self destructed in the Playoffs....Only difference is our closer can't take a prolonged stretch of 8-9 out save opportunities.... maybe 1 a week with 2-3 days off in between.

If we wanted a multiple inning closer we should have invested in Jansen. Not maintaining our aging rapidly Street. 

 

But they did get to the playoffs which is goal number one.  If the Angels use this idea to get to the playoffs, I'll take it.

[Troll Daddy]

6 hours ago, Oz27 said:

Seriously, how do you not look at Houston's lineup, rotation and bullpen and reach the conclusion that they are a hell of a lot better than us? They were 10 games better than the Angels last year in the raw standings and 98 runs (or 11 wins) better than us by base runs. They have plenty of scope to be much better than they were last year, too. They should be one of the best teams in baseball. The Angels, well, not so much.

Here let me buy you a hat ... you're welcome

 

[ukyah]

11 hours ago, VariousCrap said:

Didn't the Dodgers show in the regular season last year how you can win with a starting rotation that only goes through the line-up twice before turning it over to the bullpen?  From what I remember, outside of Kershaw, that is how they won games last year.

I'd imagine that is how the Angels will plan to go this year.  Hope your starting pitching gives you five innings and then turn it over to the bullpen.

 

 

 

my only comment to that is if this was the case, then they should have invested in one of the elite closers.

[Angel Oracle]

17 hours ago, WeatherWonk said:

I'm blown away that this only projects 90 wins for the Red Sox. And as many as 84 for the Rays. 

I see the Sox winning probably 95+. By far the best lineup in the AL, especially if KF Panda is anything like he was. Same goes for the starters. Bullpen is augmented by the acquisition of Thornburg. Joe Kelly looked real good, down the stretch. And Carson Smith should be back by mid-season. Also, one of the best defensive clubs in the AL. 

This team seems like it is virtually flawless. And, unfortunately, it is pretty young.

The AL is clearly Cleveland and then Boston, and then everyone else.   Maybe Houston, if they fix their bullpen issues that cost them in 2016.

[Angel Oracle]

Halos have a wide range of wins potential, because of the pitching uncertainty.   That much is certain.