2023 Angels ZiPS Projections

[BTH]

“As noted, I’m far less optimistic about Trout and Rendon’s plate appearances than our current depth charts and when you combine that with simulations that occasionally require some pretty bleak fill-ins, you drop from a depth chart tally of about 93 wins to the 85 that ZiPS currently forecasts.”

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/2023-zips-projections-los-angeles-angels/

[Second Base]

85 wins sounds about right. 

[Chuck]

So honest question? I feel like these ZIPS projections and others alike are typically off by + or - 10 points, so really what's really the point in them?

Also, I'd love to see what code was written since I'm a nerd to determine the outcome of these WAR projections. 

[BTH]

6 minutes ago, Chuckster70 said:

So honest question? I feel like these ZIPS projections and others alike are typically off by + or - 10 points, so really what's really the point in them?

Are you talking about individual player projections or team standings projections?

[Second Base]

13 minutes ago, Chuckster70 said:

So honest question? I feel like these ZIPS projections and others alike are typically off by + or - 10 points, so really what's really the point in them?

Also, I'd love to see what code was written since I'm a nerd to determine the outcome of these WAR projections. 

Zips trends toward the pessimistic side in offense, and optimistic in pitching, it has always been that way. It skews everything toward the middle, which makes sense, because predicting outliers is risky business that leads to unreliable data. 

I don't bother looking at individual ZIPS performances anymore, and instead look at the whole. 

[Second Base]

I still think that if the Angels get one more good starting pitcher....good being the key term, and another good reliever... That could get them over the hump and put them in prime position for the playoffs, if Trout and Shohei remain healthy. 

[Pancake Bear]

85 wins is fairly conservative, although if significant injuries or major regression occurs, it could obviously be worse. But 90+ seems within a reasonable probability. 3rd WC was 86 wins last year. 90 wins is pretty much a safe playoff spot, so even a few small moves could potentially improve our chances quite a bit. 

[BTH]

13 minutes ago, Pancake Bear said:

85 wins is fairly conservative, although if significant injuries or major regression occurs, it could obviously be worse. But 90+ seems within a reasonable probability. 3rd WC was 86 wins last year. 90 wins is pretty much a safe playoff spot, so even a few small moves could potentially improve our chances quite a bit. 

Other teams are still gonna make moves though. So a few small moves might just be offset by moves from teams like the Twins, Rays, Red Sox, Mariners, and Rangers— who all seem likely to add another piece or two.

[Docwaukee]

1 hour ago, Trendon said:

“As noted, I’m far less optimistic about Trout and Rendon’s plate appearances than our current depth charts and when you combine that with simulations that occasionally require some pretty bleak fill-ins, you drop from a depth chart tally of about 93 wins to the 85 that ZiPS currently forecasts.”

His overall narrative about the team is sort of antiquated.  Granted they didn't hand out any huge contracts but payroll went up considerably and they might not be done.   They have reasonable depth for Rendon but it's not like they can go out and sign another 3bman to a long term deal.  And who's really gonna replace Trout if he gets injured or any other star on any other team.  I do agree that the OF depth sucks if he goes down and they need a better 4th OFer but there are major expected drops in production for any 6 WAR player should they get injured.  

And while he mentioned the sale of the team he kinda blew past it as if that shouldn't have an impact on spending and long term deals.  In one keystroke he writes about the team being top heavy without any depth and in the next he talks about the how Judge, Nimmo and four top shortstops were available.  Keeping Ohtani and adding another high priced contract would make the Angels the top spenders on their top 4 players in all of baseball when you add Trout and Rendon.  So is he suggesting they rock a payroll at $250m or more and make large commitments for the next owner to deal with?  

The lineup has depth and balance only perhaps being a shade too RHed.  But that's not even too bad with Ohtani, Walsh, and Rengifo.  

So yeah, the offense probably struggles a bit if Trout, Ohtani, and Rendon only gets 300 PA apiece.  Duh. 

I guess they're a 93 win team with reasonable health and an 85 win team without it.  That's actually pretty bullish and substantially improved from last year.  

They actually projected about 81 wins last year which was pretty spot on relative to the base runs the team produced.  And it makes sense we'd be more in line with that model this year considering we likely won't have the worst 6-9 in baseball this year.  

[Hubs]

I don't understand Trout at 6.6 or Ohtani at 8 or Ward at 2.1 with multiple prior seasons (for Trout and Ohtani) and last year for Ward all exceeding that. 

The 80/20 projections are all a bit pessimistic. Ward had the 80th percentile projection last year, with two and a half months at MVP and two months at replacement level. How is that best possible outcome?

The article here goes into health quite a bit, but here's the thing...they're pessimistic that anyone of the Angels including Rendon and Ward and Trout, can stay healthy...but health is completely 100% unpredictable. 

[ettin]

https://www.mlb.com/glossary/projection-systems/szymborski-projection-system

[Docwaukee]

47 minutes ago, Hubs said:

I don't understand Trout at 6.6 or Ohtani at 8 or Ward at 2.1 with multiple prior seasons (for Trout and Ohtani) and last year for Ward all exceeding that. 

The 80/20 projections are all a bit pessimistic. Ward had the 80th percentile projection last year, with two and a half months at MVP and two months at replacement level. How is that best possible outcome?

The article here goes into health quite a bit, but here's the thing...they're pessimistic that anyone of the Angels including Rendon and Ward and Trout, can stay healthy...but health is completely 100% unpredictable. 

projections based on aging curves and other trends relative to players past performance.  

80th percentile is not the best possible outcome.  100th percentile would be.  

Health isn't 100% unpredictable.  

[BTH]

1 hour ago, Docwaukee said:

So is he suggesting they rock a payroll at $250m or more and make large commitments for the next owner to deal with?  

Probably, as the Angels are a big market team.

But yeah, some of the things about position player depth didn’t make much sense. I still think they could use another position player, but they’re in way better shape than they were last season.

[BTH]

Something interesting in these projections is how high they are on Silseth and Bush.

I’d still look to add another SP, but it’d be of less importance if Silseth and Bush pitched similar to their projections.

[Warfarin]

23 minutes ago, Trendon said:

Something interesting in these projections is how high they are on Silseth and Bush.

I’d still look to add another SP, but it’d be of less importance if Silseth and Bush pitched similar to their projections.

What caught my eye is that our 5th and 6th best pitchers, in terms of ERA+, according to the projections are Eric Torres and Jacob Webb.  I had no idea Webb projected that well.

[Second Base]

According the Fa graphs depth chart and ZIPS projections, here's a brief history for the Angels

2016 Projected 79 wins, actual 74 wins

2017 Projected 79 wins, actual 80 wins

2018 Projected 84 wins actual 80 wins

2019 Projected 81 wins, actual 72 wins

2020 Projected 30 wins, actual 26 wins

2021 Projected 84 wins, actual 77 wins

2022 Projected 81 wins, actual 73 wins.

If we could all take off our Homer glasses for just one second, we could see that the Angels underperform their projection, pretty much every single season. If FG projects 85 wins, it's more likely going to be 80. If they project 90, it's more like 85. 

You can call me a pessimist all you want, but me saying 85 wins sounds about right, is even too optimistic given recent history.

The Angels have some bright spots right now, and I like what Perry is trying in his effort to build a winner, retain Ohtani and keep his job.... But realistically, there's nothing that sets this team apart as a surefire playoff team. There isn't, and that's just the truth. 

Can they make the playoffs with this roster? Yes. Will they? Maybe. I'd say it's a toss up. But all these posters predicted 90 wins or whatever else. It's just nonsense. 

[Pancake Bear]

Most of the time we fall short of our projections it's been due to injuries. First it was the rotation, then Trout. Mostly, management taking chances on high-ceiling, high-risk players. And we've never had the depth in the last decade to cover the injuries. Injuries are still very possible, but we actually have more depth than we've had at any point before in the Trout era to cover them, so being bullish this season on the team's chances has at least a level of reasonability to it.

[Second Base]

2 minutes ago, Pancake Bear said:

Most of the time we fall short of our projections it's been due to injuries. First it was the rotation, then Trout. Mostly, management taking chances on high-ceiling, high-risk players. And we've never had the depth in the last decade to cover the injuries. Injuries are still very possible, but we actually have more depth than we've had at any point before in the Trout era to cover them, so being bullish this season on the team's chances has at least a level of reasonability to it.

So we were unlucky before but now we won't be unlucky, and we didn't have all the answers before when everyone thought we were going to win 90 games, but this time we totally do. 

[Pancake Bear]

6 minutes ago, Second Base said:

So we were unlucky before but now we won't be unlucky, and we didn't have all the answers before when everyone thought we were going to win 90 games, but this time we totally do. 

Do projections account for your whole pitching staff getting TJS or the best player in baseball missing over half the season? If so, I stand corrected. Otherwise, your response is just self-important dumbassery.

[Second Base]

4 minutes ago, Pancake Bear said:

Do projections account for your whole pitching staff getting TJS or the best player in baseball missing over half the season? If so, I stand corrected. Otherwise, your response is just self-important dumbassery.

2016 Projected 79 wins, actual 74 wins

2017 Projected 79 wins, actual 80 wins

2018 Projected 84 wins actual 80 wins

2019 Projected 81 wins, actual 72 wins

2020 Projected 30 wins, actual 26 wins

2021 Projected 84 wins, actual 77 wins

2022 Projected 81 wins, actual 73 wins.

Don't worry guys, it'll be totes different this time.

[Pancake Bear]

6 minutes ago, Second Base said:

2016 Projected 79 wins, actual 74 wins

2017 Projected 79 wins, actual 80 wins

2018 Projected 84 wins actual 80 wins

2019 Projected 81 wins, actual 72 wins

2020 Projected 30 wins, actual 26 wins

2021 Projected 84 wins, actual 77 wins

2022 Projected 81 wins, actual 73 wins.

Don't worry guys, it'll be totes different this time.

So you ignore what I said. Mark Twain would've had a blast with you. 

[Lazorko Saves]

Great, two more jerseys I'm going to have to waste money on.  And what am I going to do with my Wadifoquez jersey from last year?

[Lazorko Saves]

One wonders why didn't Fangraphs lay these monstrosities on us?

[BTH]

1 hour ago, Warfarin said:

What caught my eye is that our 5th and 6th best pitchers, in terms of ERA+, according to the projections are Eric Torres and Jacob Webb.  I had no idea Webb projected that well.

With Torres, I just don’t know how his stuff would play in the majors. His fastball sits around 91 mph. It helps that it’s from a sort of funky slot, but it’s still 91 mph.

Webb has had pretty decent MLB numbers, but I guess he just got buried behind a deep Braves bullpen? I can easily see him making the team and being a dependable 6th inning guy.

[beatlesrule]

1 hour ago, Second Base said:

According the Fa graphs depth chart and ZIPS projections, here's a brief history for the Angels

2016 Projected 79 wins, actual 74 wins

2017 Projected 79 wins, actual 80 wins

2018 Projected 84 wins actual 80 wins

2019 Projected 81 wins, actual 72 wins

2020 Projected 30 wins, actual 26 wins

2021 Projected 84 wins, actual 77 wins

2022 Projected 81 wins, actual 73 wins.

If we could all take off our Homer glasses for just one second, we could see that the Angels underperform their projection, pretty much every single season. If FG projects 85 wins, it's more likely going to be 80. If they project 90, it's more like 85. 

You can call me a pessimist all you want, but me saying 85 wins sounds about right, is even too optimistic given recent history.

The Angels have some bright spots right now, and I like what Perry is trying in his effort to build a winner, retain Ohtani and keep his job.... But realistically, there's nothing that sets this team apart as a surefire playoff team. There isn't, and that's just the truth. 

Can they make the playoffs with this roster? Yes. Will they? Maybe. I'd say it's a toss up. But all these posters predicted 90 wins or whatever else. It's just nonsense.