2023 Angels ZiPS Projections

[floplag]

50 minutes ago, Second Base said:

Basically, what he's saying @Stradling is that it's a little more nuanced than that. 

Dont drag me into that please...

[Inside Pitch]

46 minutes ago, Warfarin said:

It's hard to say.  If they are operating with the LT essentially acting as a "hard" cap, there are only so many dollars available to spend.  Would it be more worthwhile to sign, say, Wacha, or spread the money between a 4th OF and decent reliever?

A 4th OF would probably cost around what, 2-3mil or so?  But that would probably preclude a FA SP at that point.

I always assume there is a hard cap in place when it comes to the Angels.  Strictly saying what I'd like to see them do.  My preference is to safeguard against another freak injury in the OF.  Barrera is an upgrade over Moniak probably but I wouldn't want to see either him or any of the other possibilities playing CF for 50 games.

I've not really bothered to look at who is left SP wise, but Wacha and Cueto are two guys I wanted no part of and they seem to be brought up the most -- although as 6th guys it's whatever..  I don't know if Miley has signed yet, he has injury concerns and would be yet another LHP but I trust him to repeat his recent performances more than I do Wacha or Cueto.  Not gonna lie.  IMHO, if Canning is healthy he outpitches those guys.

[Second Base]

27 minutes ago, floplag said:

Dont drag me into that please...

Your not in it, I was just using what you said as a prop to help Strad understand. 

[Stradling]

1 hour ago, floplag said:

With respect this seems a gross over simplification.
Depth guys raise the floor, not the ceiling.
Depth guys keep you from losing 100, but wont help you win that many.
Even if we had more depth in recent years, great, we hit zips goals but are still a 500ish team. 

Our ceiling is fine. It was an over simplification, I agree. Last year major league depth was the problem.  Why was it the problem?  Health.  In years past starting pitching was a problem.  This last year it wasn’t. So we took bad players and replaced them with good players. Our floor needed raising. 

[Stradling]

8 minutes ago, Second Base said:

Your not in it, I was just using what you said as a prop to help Strad understand. 

Because I can’t follow your childish logic?  Ok. I’m sure in your “scouting days” every year was exactly the same as the previous.  

[Docwaukee]

3 hours ago, Second Base said:

I didn't read your post until this morning, because I wanted to be able to dedicate time to what you're saying. But unfortunately on this one, the practice you're going through, is COMPLETELY INACCURATE. 

The reason why I know, is because I've literally done one of these every single year since 2013. And every single one of them is inaccurate. Why?

That one, I can't answer. It's different every year. I think the overarching theme is that as biased fans, we are unable to see the true negative spots that will inevitably pop up during the season. We can see breakouts coming, we can see player progression because we are good at that. But not so good at seeing inevitable regression and injury. 

Just as an example, you're not starting at 80 wins, you're starting at 72. You can't throw out the REALITY of last season in favor of what you feel should have happened. Then there's the assumption we're actually 5 wins better at catcher and 1B, which is just preposterous. Then you don't take into account the concept that maybe pitching takes a giant step back. They performed great last year, but it almost seems likely that both Ohtani and Sandoval aren't THAT level of awesome in 2023. Or that Anderson turns into a pumpkin after leaving the Dodgers. Or that Suarez may not be able to perform at the same level while working under a clock. 

I'm not saying all those happen. But those are just a small sample of things that we as fans don't take into account that make our own "projections" inaccurate.

The Angels Have repeatedly failed to meet their non-biased statistical projections almost every single year, and so far the best argument we can make as to why it won't happen this year is what @Revadsaid, regression to the mean. 

 

 

it's completely inaccurate because you done it and it doesn't work?

you've mentioned it's different every year yet you posted a trend of how ZIPS has overestimated on a yearly and that it's gonna be wrong again the same way even though it's different every year?  

I agree there is plenty of bias when fans back of the napkin project like I did above but there's also a ton of bias when you make assumptions about a projection system and how it's been wrong every year.  

You have yet to ask yourself why.  This is one of the big reasons why certain groups actually hate stats and think they're worthless.  Because some people blindly regurgitate numbers without understanding them.  And when those numbers fail to tell the whole story people just assume they're worthless.  

I started from 80 wins because projection systems aren't meant to tell you what's gonna happen.  They're there to give you a reasonable idea of what is most likely based on previous statistics.  

The best argument for why is not what Rev mentioned.  The best argument for why is a lack of depth.  Most teams endure injuries and poor performance.  Some of that can be overcome.  Some not.  The reasons why they have failed to meet the non-biased statistical projections are different in each one of those seasons.  The trend is not a projection.  It's not predictive.  You are actually introducing bias into your interpretation of a non-biased system.  

Everything that you mentioned above could totally happen.  Everything I did in my projection was an assumption.  Everything you are saying isn't true about that is an assumption.  The projections are there to even out the extremes.  They aren't going to ever project -2 WAR from a single position.  They're built to the middle.  

You disagreeing with me because of the reasons you mentioned is reasonable.  You disagreeing with the projection system because of the reasons you mentioned is like arguing with your car because it didn't get as good of gas mileage as what the sticker said it would.  Without any consideration as to how you actually drove it.  

And just so you know, ZIPS actually agrees with you that Ohtani and Sandoval aren't going to be as good as they were last year.  

It is my contention that because of what they've done this off season to build the team we have the best chance of meeting the projections than we've had in the last 8 years.  Of course, if 75% of the team underperforms and the other 25% get injured, then we won't.  But a projection system is never going to project that.  And if human makes that statement it's full of bias.  Just like saying that they'll probably stay mostly healthy and 75% of the team will outperform the projected numbers.  If you disagree with my contention that the projections are going to be reasonably accurate by seasons end then so be it.  But what I'm mostly saying is that the information you're presenting as a meaningful argument as to why you disagree just isn't.  

[Pancake Bear]

2 hours ago, Second Base said:

Win totals. The only thing that counts in MLB. The rest of it is noise, very interesting noise though. Personally, I've always been more of a PECOTA fan. Still, we've seen a pattern here, which is the Angels generally perform slightly (5-ish wins on average) worse than what is expected based off projections. 

The crux of what I'm really asking, is that aside from regression to the mean, is there a legitimate argument that can be made as to why it'll be different this year? I mean we say the same things every season, why were we wrong before and why should I believe that we are correct this time?

It rained every day this week. Clearly there will never be another day in SoCal where it won't rain again. 

And yes, there are, you just ignore them when people explain it to you and revert back to posting the same context-lacking numbers as if it's an argument. 

[Docwaukee]

Just now, Pancake Bear said:

It rained every day this week. Clearly there will never be another day in SoCal where it won't rain again. 

And yes, there are, you just ignore them when people explain it to you and revert back to posting the same context-lacking numbers as if it's an argument. 

you just said in three sentences what it took me like 10 paragraphs to say just above you.   

[Pancake Bear]

3 minutes ago, Docwaukee said:

you just said in three sentences what it took me like 10 paragraphs to say just above you.   

That's a first. 

[Revad]

13 minutes ago, Pancake Bear said:

That's a first. 

Link?

[floplag]

1 hour ago, Stradling said:

Our ceiling is fine. It was an over simplification, I agree. Last year major league depth was the problem.  Why was it the problem?  Health.  In years past starting pitching was a problem.  This last year it wasn’t. So we took bad players and replaced them with good players. Our floor needed raising. 

But whats the point if the ceiling doesnt raise with it?
Were still projected to miss the playoffs. 
That likely means Ohtani walks.
Dont get me wrong i love the depth moves, but once again the job is unfinished and were relying on luck to be anything more than a 500 team.

[Stradling]

3 minutes ago, floplag said:

But whats the point if the ceiling doesnt raise with it?
Were still projected to miss the playoffs. 
That likely means Ohtani walks.
Dont get me wrong i love the depth moves, but once again the job is unfinished and were relying on luck to be anything more than a 500 team.

It isn’t luck we are relying on. We will always rely on health when you pay $105 million on three players. The ceiling raised with these acquisitions as it relates to wins. But when I think of raising the ceiling instead of the floor it’s signing fewer higher end talent versus more overall talent spread across needs. 

[Second Base]

44 minutes ago, Pancake Bear said:

It rained every day this week. Clearly there will never be another day in SoCal where it won't rain again. 

And yes, there are, you just ignore them when people explain it to you and revert back to posting the same context-lacking numbers as if it's an argument. 

You're oversimplifying and failing to properly explain because you're angry you can't find a single reason why you're emotion driven guess is right and a statistical model complete with recent history is wrong. So you revert to logical fallacies to try and accrue bro points and receive validation from a bunch of middle aged men you've never met but talk to every day. 

[Second Base]

1 hour ago, Docwaukee said:

it's completely inaccurate because you done it and it doesn't work?

you've mentioned it's different every year yet you posted a trend of how ZIPS has overestimated on a yearly and that it's gonna be wrong again the same way even though it's different every year?  

I agree there is plenty of bias when fans back of the napkin project like I did above but there's also a ton of bias when you make assumptions about a projection system and how it's been wrong every year.  

You have yet to ask yourself why.  This is one of the big reasons why certain groups actually hate stats and think they're worthless.  Because some people blindly regurgitate numbers without understanding them.  And when those numbers fail to tell the whole story people just assume they're worthless.  

I started from 80 wins because projection systems aren't meant to tell you what's gonna happen.  They're there to give you a reasonable idea of what is most likely based on previous statistics.  

The best argument for why is not what Rev mentioned.  The best argument for why is a lack of depth.  Most teams endure injuries and poor performance.  Some of that can be overcome.  Some not.  The reasons why they have failed to meet the non-biased statistical projections are different in each one of those seasons.  The trend is not a projection.  It's not predictive.  You are actually introducing bias into your interpretation of a non-biased system.  

Everything that you mentioned above could totally happen.  Everything I did in my projection was an assumption.  Everything you are saying isn't true about that is an assumption.  The projections are there to even out the extremes.  They aren't going to ever project -2 WAR from a single position.  They're built to the middle.  

You disagreeing with me because of the reasons you mentioned is reasonable.  You disagreeing with the projection system because of the reasons you mentioned is like arguing with your car because it didn't get as good of gas mileage as what the sticker said it would.  Without any consideration as to how you actually drove it.  

And just so you know, ZIPS actually agrees with you that Ohtani and Sandoval aren't going to be as good as they were last year.  

It is my contention that because of what they've done this off season to build the team we have the best chance of meeting the projections than we've had in the last 8 years.  Of course, if 75% of the team underperforms and the other 25% get injured, then we won't.  But a projection system is never going to project that.  And if human makes that statement it's full of bias.  Just like saying that they'll probably stay mostly healthy and 75% of the team will outperform the projected numbers.  If you disagree with my contention that the projections are going to be reasonably accurate by seasons end then so be it.  But what I'm mostly saying is that the information you're presenting as a meaningful argument as to why you disagree just isn't.  

"I started from 80 wins because projection systems aren't meant to tell you what's gonna happen.  They're there to give you a reasonable idea of what is most likely based on previous statistics.  " 

- And yet your exercise you went through that was meant to show why we're a 90+ win team is based off the premise of improvement from last year, and the ONLY number that dictates the success or failure of a season is 73, not 80. If your staying point is flawed, your tracking of growth will also be flawed.

"You disagreeing with the projection system because of the reasons you mentioned is like arguing with your car because it didn't get as good of gas mileage as what the sticker said it would.  Without any consideration as to how you actually drove it.  "

You disagreeing with actual results even though projections suggested a different outcome is like arguing with your dietitian that eating low fat foods should've resulted in weight loss without any consideration of your actual lifestyle. 

"It is my contention that because of what they've done this off season to build the team we have the best chance of meeting the projections than we've had in the last 8 years. "

It is my contention that you're right but your conclusion lacks proper context. Yes, I agree with you, the Angels should be better in 2023 than they have been at any point in the last eight years. But proper context would also say that you've thought the same thing every year for the last 8 years, and have been dead wrong for the last 8 years. 

[Stradling]

13 minutes ago, Second Base said:

You're oversimplifying and failing to properly explain because you're angry you can't find a single reason why you're emotion driven guess is right and a statistical model complete with recent history is wrong. So you revert to logical fallacies to try and accrue bro points and receive validation from a bunch of middle aged men you've never met but talk to every day. 

He said what you said and you are right and he’s wrong because he’s emotional.  What the fuck happened to you?

[jsnpritchett]

[Second Base]

5 minutes ago, Stradling said:

He said what you said and you are right and he’s wrong because he’s emotional.  What the fuck happened to you?

Have you read our Top 30 prospect report yet?

[Stradling]

3 minutes ago, Second Base said:

Have you read our Top 30 prospect report yet?

Why are they all going to be HOFers?  Oh wait that was you pre-Covid . 

[Ender]

Projections are nice, but I seldom agree with them. Especially for non super star players ... they end up being all over the place. 

It gives a nice kinda baseline thought, but I take it with a grain of salt. 

Let the players play!

[Second Base]

7 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Why are they all going to be HOFers?  Oh wait that was you pre-Covid . 

Well if you get around to reading it, read my take on post hype sleepers and how the Angels have benefited from them, and then explain to me why my rosy reds aren't rosy enough for you. 

[floplag]

1 hour ago, Stradling said:

It isn’t luck we are relying on. We will always rely on health when you pay $105 million on three players. The ceiling raised with these acquisitions as it relates to wins. But when I think of raising the ceiling instead of the floor it’s signing fewer higher end talent versus more overall talent spread across needs. 

Well thats moot, we are where we are in that regard and i might remind you that two of those three guys played to their level last year, Rendon is the only one who did not.  Would having Urshela have made the team much better last year?

[Revad]

36 minutes ago, jsnpritchett said:

And those are actually two posters that I consider optimistic and good friends.

[Stradling]

2 minutes ago, floplag said:

Well thats moot, we are where we are in that regard and i might remind you that two of those three guys played to their level last year, Rendon is the only one who did not.  Would having Urshela have made the team much better last year?

Would Urshela, Renfro, Drury and Anderson make a difference last year?  Yes. 

[Stradling]

7 minutes ago, floplag said:

Well thats moot, we are where we are in that regard and i might remind you that two of those three guys played to their level last year, Rendon is the only one who did not.  Would having Urshela have made the team much better last year?

Also you accused me of gross simplification and then you post this?

[Revad]

40 minutes ago, Ender said:

Let the players play!

I ready to focus on the season, I’m really truly this year optimistic.  At least until June, promise.