2023 Angels ZiPS Projections

[m0nkey]

52 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.

We're due baby!

[Stradling]

Covid changed people.

[Docwaukee]

54 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.

correlation/causation.  The projection failed for specific reasons for each of those teams.  Mostly the same reasons.  Injuries and a lack of depth to cover those injuries or poor performance.  

I've documented this on numerous occasions for 2022.  

But how about 2016.  -4.4 Wins from 13 pitchers over 320 innings.  -3.2 WAR from 12 guys over 1400 at bats.  

[Second Base]

Just now, Docwaukee said:

correlation/causation.  The projection failed for specific reasons for each of those teams.  Mostly the same reasons.  Injuries and a lack of depth to cover those injuries or poor performance.  

I've documented this on numerous occasions for 2022.  

But how about 2016.  -4.4 Wins from 13 pitchers over 320 innings.  -3.2 WAR from 12 guys over 1400 at bats.  

They underperformed every year for specific reasons. But THIS TIME....they won't ....for specific reasons. 

[Second Base]

19 minutes ago, m0nkey said:

We're due baby!

I like the way you see the world!

[beatlesrule]

21 minutes ago, m0nkey said:

We're due baby!

 

1 minute ago, Second Base said:

I like the way you see the world!

[Stradling]

5 minutes ago, Second Base said:

They underperformed every year for specific reasons. But THIS TIME....they won't ....for specific reasons. 

Yes, those reasons are depth.  Lack of depth has been the problem.  

[Second Base]

1 minute ago, Stradling said:

Yes, those reasons are depth.  Lack of depth has been the problem.  

I'm afraid they're a bit more nuanced than that, Strad. But it's ok, this time, it'll be different. 

[Stradling]

Just now, Second Base said:

I'm afraid they're a bit more nuanced than that, Strad. But it's ok, this time, it'll be different. 

Ok.  It’s funny that you tell me its a bit more nuanced but your response is “but it’s ok, this time, it’ll be different”. Thank you for your nuanced response. But you aren’t a pessimist.  

[Hubs]

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. 

Since 2016, the year where their starting pitching imploded and they haven't had a guy start 33 games since.

 

[Second Base]

2 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Ok.  It’s funny that you tell me its a bit more nuanced but your response is “but it’s ok, this time, it’ll be different”. Thank you for your nuanced response. But you aren’t a pessimist.  

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.

------

It's called, "data." I think you need to "trust the science."

[Stradling]

Just now, 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.

------

It's called, "data." I think you need to "trust the science."

No shit.  

It’s fine, we get it, you’ve changed.  

[Second Base]

1 minute ago, Stradling said:

No shit.  

It’s fine, we get it, you’ve changed.  

I'm afraid it's a bit more nuanced than that, Strad. 

[Hubs]

Second Base....

Where are the ZIPS from 2002-2009? When they had good teams and solid starting pitching?

 

[beatlesrule]

1 minute 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.

------

It's called, "data." I think you need to "trust the science."

[Second Base]

2 minutes ago, Hubs said:

Second Base....

Where are the ZIPS from 2002-2009? When they had good teams and solid starting pitching?

 

If I'm not mistaken, I believe the ZIPS system was created in 2013. 

[Docwaukee]

11 minutes ago, Second Base said:

They underperformed every year for specific reasons. But THIS TIME....they won't ....for specific reasons. 

at some point, yes.  If you stop doing things a specific way that keeps those failures happening then you buck the trend.  Are saying that regardless of what we do, we're always going to be 5-10 wins below projections?  

They did it differently this off season for the first time in a long time.  If it doesn't make things better then I'll gladly eat crow, but for now, I can confidently say that I believe the trend will be broken.  

[Docwaukee]

11 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.

------

It's called, "data." I think you need to "trust the science."

people who don't understand how numbers work shouldn't make posts about numbers.  

[beatlesrule]

1 minute ago, Docwaukee said:

people who don't understand how numbers work shouldn't make posts about numbers.  

Pretty sure what he is getting at is everyone year we think the team will be better than it is. That goes for the 2023 team too. I think they've improved sure but they have also proven they can't stay healthy year after year after year etc so this year is likely to be the same. The only outlier is that Arte will HOPEFULLY not be the owner come April so that just might change things right there. The staff he has hired clearly should not be employed by a major league club. That's my hope for 2023. A new owner would be amazing.

[BTH]

16 minutes ago, Second Base said:

It's called, "data." I think you need to "trust the science."

It’s more nuanced than “the Angels always finish 8-10 games below the projections.”

If that were the case, wouldn’t the creator of ZiPS always subtract 8-10 wins from the Angels after the initial projected standings in their formulas? The answer is yes. If there was that strong of a correlation that “take the first projected record and subtract 8-10 wins to get the Angels projection,” it’d be done.

It’d be foolish to say that they’re automatically gonna finish 8-10 wins worse than their projected record.

[Hubs]

12 minutes ago, Second Base said:

If I'm not mistaken, I believe the ZIPS system was created in 2013. 

I found 2009, but not by team, thats the oldest I found.

Still, you can say that they always finish below projections but honestly that's because the pitching has been terribly bad other than last year. 

They still used 16 starters in 2022. No one can predict that, and thats why they finished so far back.

[Second Base]

12 minutes ago, Docwaukee said:

at some point, yes.  If you stop doing things a specific way that keeps those failures happening then you buck the trend.  Are saying that regardless of what we do, we're always going to be 5-10 wins below projections?  

They did it differently this off season for the first time in a long time.  If it doesn't make things better then I'll gladly eat crow, but for now, I can confidently say that I believe the trend will be broken.  

I'm with you, I believe the trend will be broken as well. I believe 85 wins is a pretty solid guess. But I won't go so far as to say this different tactic Perry has employed is going to make a 20 win difference. 

[Second Base]

12 minutes ago, Docwaukee said:

people who don't understand how numbers work shouldn't make posts about numbers.  

The irony here is that one of my first professional jobs is to assess data and create short, readable reports for higher ups to use. 

[Second Base]

8 minutes ago, Trendon said:

It’s more nuanced than “the Angels always finish 8-10 games below the projections.”

If that were the case, wouldn’t the creator of ZiPS always subtract 8-10 wins from the Angels after the initial projected standings in their formulas? The answer is yes. If there was that strong of a correlation that “take the first projected record and subtract 8-10 wins to get the Angels projection,” it’d be done.

It’d be foolish to say that they’re automatically gonna finish 8-10 wins worse than their projected record.

I never actually said that. I've said multiple times now, I think 85 wins sounds about right.

[Hubs]

Just now, Second Base said:

I'm with you, I believe the trend will be broken as well. I believe 85 wins is a pretty solid guess. But I won't go so far as to say this different tactic Perry has employed is going to make a 20 win difference. 

But better health from Rendon, Walsh, Ward, and Trout might. Seriously the biggest problem was depth with our 2022 lineup (and to some extent, pitching staff), and while they've improved the depth, the best improvement to depth is to not need it, because you're healthy.

The Astros won the World Series. They were incredibly healthy. The lineup of

Altuve, Bregman, Brantley, Alvarez, Gurriel, Tucker, Pena, Maldonado, and McCormick was their opening day lineup. Only Brantley missed time after playing most of the first two and half months, and they had a platoon in CF.

They used 8 Starters, Valdez started 31, and Verlander, Urquidy, Garcia, and Javier all started 25 or more. Odorrozi had 12, McCullers 8, and Brown 2.