PECOTA projects Angels to win 78 games

[Jobu]

13 hours ago, Troll Daddy said:

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

 

Why don't you just give him yours? 

[Hubs]

21 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.

Seriously, its because they are not. Their pen is better. Ok. That's fine. Their rotation is not that good. In 2015 Keuchel pushed them way up, but last year they allowed 701 runs to our 727. 

Their starters allowed 469 runs (445 ER) in 917 IP for a 4.37 ERA. Our starters (including Weaver, Chachin, Lincecum, and a bunch of cast offs) allowed 476 runs (448 ER) in 877.1 IP for an ERA of 4.60.

That's not a huge difference. In fact, if you just take out Lincecum, we drop to 435 runs (409 ER) in 839 IP for an ERA of 4.39. 

And I deconstructed the lineup via WAR, but just looking at top 12 returning and new players:

Altuve 7.7 WAR, Correa 5.9 WAR, Springer 5.0 WAR, Gattis 3.0 WAR, Bregman 1.8 WAR, Marisnick 1.7 WAR, Gonzalez 1.2 WAR, Reddick 2.6 WAR, McCann 0.9 WAR, Beltran 2.0 WAR. Hernandez 0.3, Gurriel 0.2. = 32.3 WAR

Trout 10.6 WAR, Simmons 4.2, Calhoun, 3.4, Cron 2.1, Escobar 1.6, Valbuena 2.6, Pujols 1.4, Marte 1.2, Carlos Perez 0.6, Maldonado 0.8, Espinosa 1.9, Maybin 1.9 = 32.3 WAR.

PECOTA is under the impression that all of our guys take a step back and a lot of their young guys take a step forward. Maybe this happens, but I don't see it.

[Docwaukee]

8 minutes ago, Hubs said:

Seriously, its because they are not. Their pen is better. Ok. That's fine. Their rotation is not that good. In 2015 Keuchel pushed them way up, but last year they allowed 701 runs to our 727. 

Their starters allowed 469 runs (445 ER) in 917 IP for a 4.37 ERA. Our starters (including Weaver, Chachin, Lincecum, and a bunch of cast offs) allowed 476 runs (448 ER) in 877.1 IP for an ERA of 4.60.

That's not a huge difference. In fact, if you just take out Lincecum, we drop to 435 runs (409 ER) in 839 IP for an ERA of 4.39. 

And I deconstructed the lineup via WAR, but just looking at top 12 returning and new players:

Altuve 7.7 WAR, Correa 5.9 WAR, Springer 5.0 WAR, Gattis 3.0 WAR, Bregman 1.8 WAR, Marisnick 1.7 WAR, Gonzalez 1.2 WAR, Reddick 2.6 WAR, McCann 0.9 WAR, Beltran 2.0 WAR. Hernandez 0.3, Gurriel 0.2. = 32.3 WAR

Trout 10.6 WAR, Simmons 4.2, Calhoun, 3.4, Cron 2.1, Escobar 1.6, Valbuena 2.6, Pujols 1.4, Marte 1.2, Carlos Perez 0.6, Maldonado 0.8, Espinosa 1.9, Maybin 1.9 = 32.3 WAR.

PECOTA is under the impression that all of our guys take a step back and a lot of their young guys take a step forward. Maybe this happens, but I don't see it.

you can't compare pitching without neutralizing for them being in a hitters park.  

But I agree that their rotation is mediocre.  Ours has more question marks, but they could be pretty even although Houston's has a higher floor.  

I think the two offenses are comparable.  

I think we have the edge on defense.    

There is at least a 5 win difference between the two bullpens.  Probably closer to 7.  To me, that's just a ton of ground to make up

[Hubs]

14 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

you can't compare pitching without neutralizing for them being in a hitters park.  

But I agree that their rotation is mediocre.  Ours has more question marks, but they could be pretty even although Houston's has a higher floor.  

I think the two offenses are comparable.  

I think we have the edge on defense.    

There is at least a 5 win difference between the two bullpens.  Probably closer to 7.  To me, that's just a ton of ground to make up

I understand they are in a hitters park, but their offense gets a boost whereas ours is getting knocked down. Isn't that basically the same?

http://www.espn.com/mlb/stats/parkfactor doesn't support them being in a hitters park. 

I don't think it's 5-7 wins in the pen, but I'm sure the numbers back you up. I think it's closer to 2-3 wins. 

 

 

[Docwaukee]

4 minutes ago, Hubs said:

I understand they are in a hitters park, but their offense gets a boost whereas ours is getting knocked down. Isn't that basically the same?

http://www.espn.com/mlb/stats/parkfactor doesn't support them being in a hitters park. 

I don't think it's 5-7 wins in the pen, but I'm sure the numbers back you up. I think it's closer to 2-3 wins. 

 

 

you were using WAR for the hitters which is park adjusted.  then you used era for the pitchers which isn't.  but your point about the numbers for MM not supporting that it's a hitters park is correct.  Funny that I always just assumed it was and I think a lot of others around here have as well.  thanks for bringing that to my attention.  

So yeah.  I think the teams are pretty even until you look at the bullpens.  We probably have the potential to be better, but it's going to take about half a seasons worth of experimenting and discovery before it comes to fruition.  

[Oz27]

42 minutes ago, Hubs said:

Seriously, its because they are not. Their pen is better. Ok. That's fine. Their rotation is not that good. In 2015 Keuchel pushed them way up, but last year they allowed 701 runs to our 727. 

Their starters allowed 469 runs (445 ER) in 917 IP for a 4.37 ERA. Our starters (including Weaver, Chachin, Lincecum, and a bunch of cast offs) allowed 476 runs (448 ER) in 877.1 IP for an ERA of 4.60.

That's not a huge difference. In fact, if you just take out Lincecum, we drop to 435 runs (409 ER) in 839 IP for an ERA of 4.39. 

And I deconstructed the lineup via WAR, but just looking at top 12 returning and new players:

Altuve 7.7 WAR, Correa 5.9 WAR, Springer 5.0 WAR, Gattis 3.0 WAR, Bregman 1.8 WAR, Marisnick 1.7 WAR, Gonzalez 1.2 WAR, Reddick 2.6 WAR, McCann 0.9 WAR, Beltran 2.0 WAR. Hernandez 0.3, Gurriel 0.2. = 32.3 WAR

Trout 10.6 WAR, Simmons 4.2, Calhoun, 3.4, Cron 2.1, Escobar 1.6, Valbuena 2.6, Pujols 1.4, Marte 1.2, Carlos Perez 0.6, Maldonado 0.8, Espinosa 1.9, Maybin 1.9 = 32.3 WAR

PECOTA is under the impression that all of our guys take a step back and a lot of their young guys take a step forward. Maybe this happens, but I don't see it.

Comparing ERAs between pitching staffs operating in entirely different environments is worthless and no other stat backs up that point. Astros starters were 13th in MLB in fWAR last year, while the Angels were 28th. The Astros' starters were 11th by xFIP, the Angels were 30th.

Also, your claim that PECOTA is saying many of the Astros young players will take a step forward is wrong. It predicts a 3.8 WARP season for Altuve when he was worth 6.1 WARP last year. It also projects Correa, Gattis, Aoki, Reddick, Beltran, McCullers, Keuchel, Fiers and McHugh to be worse than they were last year. It expects a breakout from Bregman and marginal improvement from Springer. When you look at the Altuve, Keuchel and Correa projections in particular, it is actually possible the system is being more pessimistic about the Astros than it should be.

[Oz27]

2 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

you were using WAR for the hitters which is park adjusted.  then you used era for the pitchers which isn't.  but your point about the numbers for MM not supporting that it's a hitters park is correct.  Funny that I always just assumed it was and I think a lot of others around here have as well.  thanks for bringing that to my attention. 

Its park factor has sharply declined over the past four years or so, from strong hitters park to pitcher park. I wish I had a good explanation for that ... but I do not.

[Hubs]

I'll say I was using ERA because I was lazy, and I do value results over statistics in regards to pitching (basically runs allowed is my key stat). Plus the worst offenders in our staff are gone, whereas they return the same basic staff. They are counting on a return to form from Keuchel and marginal improvement in their 2-4 guys. We have Richards coming back and we are counting on marginal improvements or similar results from our 2-4 guys. Look at the staff in 2016 by FIP here http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx/?pos=all&stats=sta&lg=all&qual=0&type=8&season=2016&month=0&season1=2016&ind=0&team=1&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&sort=16,d

What do you notice? 

All the bad guys are gone.

Also in the pen: While the Angels did have the third worst pen by FIP last year the same thing happens:

http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=rel&lg=all&qual=0&type=8&season=2016&month=0&season1=2016&ind=0&team=1&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=0&sort=16,d

Most of the worst offenders are gone. Street and Greg Mahle are still in the organization and I hope Street's problems were injury related. 

[ten ocho recon scout]

On 2/7/2017 at 8:32 PM, UndertheHalo said:

I don't think this is that surprising.  On paper our rotation is dog shit.  We're hoping some stuff breaks right.   The reason for optimism is because the stuff that we need to go our way.  Those things are not that far fetched.  Like Shoemaker or Skaggs having a good season ? Richards being an ace ?  Neither are crazy ideas.  I just hope that they're competitive and hang around late.  My expectations rise in 2018. 

Just thinking positive (and ive been more negative regarding the team lately), i dont even think those guys need to have "good" years. Solid from those 3 make this a totally different team than last year.

[ten ocho recon scout]

20 minutes ago, Oz27 said:

Its park factor has sharply declined over the past four years or so, from strong hitters park to pitcher park. I wish I had a good explanation for that ... but I do not.

This is why i have become suspicious over park factors over the years. There are some, both in terms of hitting and pitching, that there is no argument. 

But others have changed over the years...not because of reconstrucrion or global warming...but because of personel. To me that negates the argument. Its not like player X will have a harder or easier time hitting somewhere because over the years the home team adjusted their roster and are now better or worse.

Oakland for example is a pitchers park. But when they handed out steroids with shower towels in the giambi era, the overall numbers im sure were effected by what he and tejada and company were doing. But that didnt mean someone else going there was going to have it easier than they did before those guys got there.

[fan_since79]

I just took a look and saw that our farm system is still ranked dead last.

So there's that to add to the mix.

 

 

[AngelsLakersFan]

On 2/8/2017 at 0:19 PM, ukyah said:

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.

Anyone who predicts a range of just 2 games is seriously going out on a limb. Doc is saying what he is confident in, not trying to win a bet. No one really knows much better than +/- 6 games - even these projections have a standard deviation larger than that.

[AngelsLakersFan]

On 2/9/2017 at 2:03 PM, ten ocho recon scout said:

This is why i have become suspicious over park factors over the years. There are some, both in terms of hitting and pitching, that there is no argument. 

But others have changed over the years...not because of reconstrucrion or global warming...but because of personel. To me that negates the argument. Its not like player X will have a harder or easier time hitting somewhere because over the years the home team adjusted their roster and are now better or worse.

Oakland for example is a pitchers park. But when they handed out steroids with shower towels in the giambi era, the overall numbers im sure were effected by what he and tejada and company were doing. But that didnt mean someone else going there was going to have it easier than they did before those guys got there.

There is a whole lot that goes into park factors. If you look at a macro level, across the league there are trends, with significant swings from year to year. These seem to be amplified at the stadium level due to smaller sample sizes. There are huge year to year swings (typically blamed on weather and randomness) and the parks themselves are by no means constant. Consider also that as the data becomes clear, teams themselves are smart to build a roster with that in mind. 

[WeatherWonk]

Has anyone seen a prediction that has us at 80 wins or better? I haven't yet.

Well, except for members of this site.

[Docwaukee]

3 hours ago, WeatherWonk said:

Has anyone seen a prediction that has us at 80 wins or better? I haven't yet.

Well, except for members of this site.

http://www.fangraphs.com/depthcharts.aspx?position=Standings

[tdawg87]

The Angels are going to win somewhere between 58 and 104 games imho

[Docwaukee]

2 minutes ago, tdawg87 said:

The Angels are going to win somewhere between 58 and 104 games imho

Sometimes I like to look at the 2014 team stats and take a viagra.  

[WeatherWonk]

6 hours ago, Dochalo said:

http://www.fangraphs.com/depthcharts.aspx?position=Standings

Strange how the internet works. I did a Google search using Fangraphs (not being very familiar with the site) and found this link. Turns out it was old, but still hangin' around on the internet.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/here-are-your-expected-2017-standings/

Thanks for the more current one.

[Blarg]

7 hours ago, Dochalo said:

Sometimes I like to look at the 2014 team stats and take a viagra.  

The payoff games that season lasted more than four hours and you saw what a disaster that turned out to be. 

[Oz27]

Atlantis Casino has set our over/under win total at 76.5. Astros are at 87.5, with the Rangers at 86.5 (the under here is a great bet) and the Mariners at 85.5.

http://www.espn.com.au/chalk/story/_/id/18657559/chicago-cubs-lead-way-first-nevada-sportsbook-releases-2017-mlb-win-totals

[Hubs]

1 hour ago, Oz27 said:

Atlantis Casino has set our over/under win total at 76.5. Astros are at 87.5, with the Rangers at 86.5 (the under here is a great bet) and the Mariners at 85.5.

http://www.espn.com.au/chalk/story/_/id/18657559/chicago-cubs-lead-way-first-nevada-sportsbook-releases-2017-mlb-win-totals

Over 76.5 is a great bet too. Seeing as the Angels rated out at 78 by the numbers last year and were 4 games unlucky. Also this was with a virtual black hole offensively at 2B, LF, C, and bad defense from 2B and LF. Plus losing five starters to injury (actually six if you count losing Skaggs for the majority of the season), and starting Chacin and Lincecum. All of the bad starters from last year are gone, and most of the sub-par bullpen too. But still, 76.5 games is the projection? Please.

[Docwaukee]

1 hour ago, Oz27 said:

Atlantis Casino has set our over/under win total at 76.5. Astros are at 87.5, with the Rangers at 86.5 (the under here is a great bet) and the Mariners at 85.5.

http://www.espn.com.au/chalk/story/_/id/18657559/chicago-cubs-lead-way-first-nevada-sportsbook-releases-2017-mlb-win-totals

so I get that whatever line is set is meant to get an equal amount of money on either side.  

but just doing the math in my head, I find it hard to fathom we could be worse than last year and they are putting at that as our mid point.  

Our offense is good.  we're probably at close to 25 WAR offensively and defensively alone.  That put's us at about 70 wins.  So they are basically giving a 50/50 chance that our pitching is as bad or worse than It was last year.  

[Oz27]

15 minutes ago, Hubs said:

Over 76.5 is a great bet too. Seeing as the Angels rated out at 78 by the numbers last year and were 4 games unlucky. Also this was with a virtual black hole offensively at 2B, LF, C, and bad defense from 2B and LF. Plus losing five starters to injury (actually six if you count losing Skaggs for the majority of the season), and starting Chacin and Lincecum. All of the bad starters from last year are gone, and most of the sub-par bullpen too. But still, 76.5 games is the projection? Please.

By base runs we were a 71 win true talent team last year.

And, simply, every team's fan base thinks their team is much better than it actually is. There are people thinking just like you about their team on every baseball message board on the internet.

[Oz27]

13 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

so I get that whatever line is set is meant to get an equal amount of money on either side.  

but just doing the math in my head, I find it hard to fathom we could be worse than last year and they are putting at that as our mid point.  

Our offense is good.  we're probably at close to 25 WAR offensively and defensively alone.  That put's us at about 70 wins.  So they are basically giving a 50/50 chance that our pitching is as bad or worse than It was last year.  

I'd probably take the over on it too. But it isn't the slam dunk that people here are portraying it to be, mainly because it's not that hard to imagine our pitching being horrific again.

[Hubs]

7 minutes ago, Oz27 said:

By base runs we were a 71 win true talent team last year.

And, simply, every team's fan base thinks their team is much better than it actually is. There are people thinking just like you about their team on every baseball message board on the internet.

Base Runs is an obscure stat. I know what it is, but I have trouble with someone showing me how much a team should've scored, versus how many they did score. The reason behind it is what I want to see. Why were our base runs so much lower than our actual runs?