Pecota standings projected

[floplag]

This is the update as of Feb 7.

What I found disappointing is that this isn't a change from where we were in earlier versions if I'm not mistaken.  Maybe a game or two but nothing in the standings. 

In short were projected to have the 4th best AL record and the first wildcard spot.  Houston still projected to win division. 

https://www.baseballprospectus.com/standings/

[Angelsjunky]

Seems about right. The wild card race is going to be tight, with the Rays, Blue Jays, Indians, White Sox, and Angels all within a few projected wins of each other, and the Red Sox and Athletics on the cusp.

[Chuck]

 

[Taylor]

I'm a fan of these projections. I think most of us would be thrilled if the Angels were the fourth or fifth best team in the AL this season, considering where they've been the last several seasons.

[Stradling]

Anyone have the links on how accurate PECOTA was the last five years?

[Taylor]

4 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Anyone have the links on how accurate PECOTA was the last five years?

Apparently they had the Angels at 5th best in the AL before last season, but that was also in February (before we knew the season was shutting down/being delayed).

[Angelsjunky]

25 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Anyone have the links on how accurate PECOTA was the last five years?

PECOTA (and other stat-based projection systems) are useful as a baseline of expected performance based upon a team's on-paper talent. They aren't useful as a prediction of how a team will actually perform, because they don't (cannot) take into account anything unexpected or outside the range of the algorithm, and such things always occur.

For instance, let's say Upton pulls a hammy in ST and is out for the first month. Marsh takes over, does well, keeps his job. Upton comes back, Fowler is benched. Add several such instances--Quintana recapturing his earlier prime form, Ohtani being healthy, Bundy regressing to pre-2020 performance, Trout being fat, Rendon becoming a Scientologist, etc--and the projection falls further and further away from what actually happens.

My point being, PECOTA is useful for one thing, and one thing only: How good is the team based upon the talent on the roster? The answer is (according to PECOTA): "87 wins."

That sounds about right to me. But the team could win anywhere from 77 to 97 games, depending upon a hundred different factors.

Edited February 9, 2021 by Angelsjunky

[Stradling]

10 minutes ago, Randy Gradishar said:

Arte saw that Eppler was building a champion and snuffed that out. 

We'll probably never know why he hates winning. My guess is butthurt Dodger fan.

 

Oh so you are dumb in this forum too, that’s cool

[Stradling]

2 minutes ago, Angelsjunky said:

PECOTA (and other stat-based projection systems) are useful as a baseline of expected performance based upon a team's on-paper talent. They aren't useful as a prediction of how a team will actually perform, because they don't (cannot) take into account anything unexpected or outside the range of the algorithm, and such things always occur.

For instance, let's say Upton pulls a hammy in ST and is out for the first month. Marsh takes over, does well, keeps his job. Upton comes back, Fowler is benched. Add several such instances--Quintana recapturing his earlier prime form, Ohtani being healthy, Bundy regressing to pre-2020 performance, Trout being fat, Rendon becoming a Scientologist, etc--and the projection falls further and further away from what actually happens.

My point being, PECOTA is useful for one thing, and one thing only: How good is the team based upon the talent on the roster? The answer is (according to PECOTA): "87 wins."

That sounds about right to me. But the team could win anywhere from 77 to 97 games, depending upon a hundred different factors.

The reason I ask is it seems to me based off of memory that each year they expect us to be better than we have ended up being.  So if that isn’t true and I am misremembering then I will be happy with the 87 win projection.  If every year the last handful of years they think we suck and we did suck then I would probably be pretty happy with 87 win projection.  

[Angelsjunky]

1 minute ago, Stradling said:

The reason I ask is it seems to me based off of memory that each year they expect us to be better than we have ended up being.  So if that isn’t true and I am misremembering then I will be happy with the 87 win projection.  If every year the last handful of years they think we suck and we did suck then I would probably be pretty happy with 87 win projection.  

Could be, I don't remember. If so, that itself is useful info: it might simply be a rash of bad luck (see, 2015-18 rotation), or it might indicate another deficiency: poor coaching, problematic team culture, etc.

I tend to think it is mostly bad luck and, in the case of 2020, just a slow start. Let us not forget that the team started 12-22, and then 14-12, which actually projects to 87 wins over a full season. Obviously a team's performance can't be cherrypicked, but I'm guessing that if 102 more games were added to last year, they would have at least reached the .500 mark.

[Angelsjunky]

This is handy:

[Angelsjunky]

4 minutes ago, Randy Gradishar said:

Haven't been following this offseason closely; did we already find out why he hates winning?

I think the most we can say is that Arte likes making money more than winning. The two aren't mutually exclusive, obviously, but if he has to choose, he'll choose the money. 

So yeah, he could have offered Bauer 3/$150M, Realmuto 7/$210M, Hendricks 4/$100M, traded Adell and Detmers for Gray, and Marsh, Rodriguez, Adams, Jackson, Paris, Kochanowicz, and Yan for Luis Castillo. And yes, the Angels would probably win the AL West. But....well, you do the math.

Edited February 9, 2021 by Angelsjunky

[CanadianHalo]

What’s their deal with the White Sox? Would have to think they’re a lock for a WC spot at minimum 

[Angelsjunky]

1 minute ago, CanadianHalo said:

What’s their deal with the White Sox? Would have to think they’re a lock for a WC spot at minimum 

Good point. The White Sox have a good, balanced team with a lot of young talent and obviously acquired some big free agents. Maybe PECOTA is bearish on the young guys.

[Angelsjunky]

Just now, Randy Gradishar said:

He just had to not fire Eppler. Arte is like the cowboy in Casino: he's either in on the take or too stupid for the job. Either way, not great.

I thought he was one year too hasty on firing Eppler, that, at the least, Billy deserved a "Covid pass."

But I'm not bummed about Minasian and am curious about his signings - he may have better evaluators around him.

 

[T.G.]

I'm old...

Every time I see "Pecota" I think of this guy...

[beatlesrule]

White Sox, Blue Jays and Braves seem low. I am pretty sure the A's win more than 79 games. They always seem to win despite losing certain players. I seem to remember the Angels either doing almost exactly or under what they are projected. I have a hard time believing they have a better record than the White Sox.

[floplag]

35 minutes ago, Stradling said:

The reason I ask is it seems to me based off of memory that each year they expect us to be better than we have ended up being.  So if that isn’t true and I am misremembering then I will be happy with the 87 win projection.  If every year the last handful of years they think we suck and we did suck then I would probably be pretty happy with 87 win projection.  

No this is my recollection as well.  WE have underperformed our projections for some time now.   I dont have the data to support that, but i have the same impression.

[floplag]

22 minutes ago, CanadianHalo said:

What’s their deal with the White Sox? Would have to think they’re a lock for a WC spot at minimum 

I wondered this one as well.  I would guess as others said that they are projecting low on the kids and if they develop sooner they could win that division

[Taylor]

10 minutes ago, T.G. said:

I'm old...

We know.

 

But we* still like you.

 

*except for Brandon and CanadianHalo

[T.G.]

15 minutes ago, Taylor said:

We know.

 

But we* still like you.

 

*except for Brandon and CanadianHalo

You left out a couple dozen others.

[CanadianHalo]

16 minutes ago, Taylor said:

We know.

 

But we* still like you.

 

*except for Brandon and CanadianHalo

I have an issue with T.G?

[T.G.]

1 minute ago, CanadianHalo said:

I have an issue with T.G?

If you don't now... you probably will eventually.

Then again, Taylor just likes to stir the pot. 

[Junkballer]

19 minutes ago, Taylor said:

*except for Brandon and CanadianHalo

[Taylor]

3 minutes ago, T.G. said:

If you don't now... you probably will eventually.

Then again, Taylor just likes to stir the pot.