2023 Angels ZiPS Projections

[Second Base]

7 minutes ago, Hubs said:

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.

There's reasons every year. And there are teams that have perpetually found ways to outperform their projections. The Angels had that reputation until like 2010, I think. 

And it can be done again, for sure. 

But doing that will require the team to operate like they haven't operated recently. 

[Hubs]

Just now, Second Base said:

There's reasons every year. And there are teams that have perpetually found ways to outperform their projections. The Angels had that reputation until like 2010, I think. 

And it can be done again, for sure. 

But doing that will require the team to operate like they haven't operated recently. 

Since 2016, only Heaney had started 30 games, in one season... 2018. That is the primary reason for being below the projections.

[Pancake Bear]

34 minutes ago, 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. 

The real irony is someone talking about nuance when you've repeated these numbers like 4 times in this thread already:

28 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."

The numbers aren't a generic cudgel. Were the projections accurate or were they wrong? And, taking 2017 for an example, being 'right' because the numbers match doesn't mean that they correct analyzed anything. They could have projected players incredibly badly and yet still end up 'correct' because of other factors they didn't account for. Or, to put it more simply:

15 minutes ago, Docwaukee said:

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

You either don't understand how numbers work or you're being ridiculously disingenuous in this thread.

1 minute ago, Second Base said:

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. 

Then either you Dipoto'd your boss and sold him a bill of goods by pretending you were smarter than you were and he just couldn't tell because he knew even less than you did about them, or you're being ridiculous disingenous in this thread. Which is interesting, because you used to be over the top in the opposite direction.

[Second Base]

3 minutes ago, Pancake Bear said:

The real irony is someone talking about nuance when you've repeated these numbers like 4 times in this thread already:

The numbers aren't a generic cudgel. Were the projections accurate or were they wrong? And, taking 2017 for an example, being 'right' because the numbers match doesn't mean that they correct analyzed anything. They could have projected players incredibly badly and yet still end up 'correct' because of other factors they didn't account for. Or, to put it more simply:

You either don't understand how numbers work or you're being ridiculously disingenuous in this thread.

Then either you Dipoto'd your boss and sold him a bill of goods by pretending you were smarter than you were and he just couldn't tell because he knew even less than you did about them, or you're being ridiculous disingenous in this thread. Which is interesting, because you used to be over the top in the opposite direction.

I know this is childish, but I can't help it. I'll just let the numbers speak for me.

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.

[Second Base]

[Second Base]

9 minutes ago, Hubs said:

Since 2016, only Heaney had started 30 games, in one season... 2018. That is the primary reason for being below the projections.

Depth, injuries, underperformance, prospects not panning out.... 

I think that just about covers every reason why a team underperforms. 

[Docwaukee]

10 minutes ago, Pancake Bear said:

You either don't understand how numbers work or you're being ridiculously disingenuous in this thread.

huh?  I'm agreeing with you.  That 'trend' tells you almost nothing as to what happened and why.  AND he's using it as it's somehow predictive.  It's making my head hurt.  

[Docwaukee]

7 minutes ago, Second Base said:

I know this is childish, but I can't help it. I'll just let the numbers speak for me.

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.

you might as well because it doesn't seem you can explain them yourself.  You keep posting this as if you know what it means.  You don't know what it means.  

[Stradling]

4 minutes ago, Docwaukee said:

you might as well because it doesn't seem you can explain them yourself.  You keep posting this as if you know what it means.  You don't know what it means.  

But he used to right simple reports. 

[jsnpritchett]

[Second Base]

12 minutes ago, Docwaukee said:

you might as well because it doesn't seem you can explain them yourself.  You keep posting this as if you know what it means.  You don't know what it means.  

It seems you're upset, Doc. Has my reporting of projections vs actual outcome angered you? If so, you can take solace in the fact that you say the Angels will win 93 games, with absolutely nothing concrete to back it up, other than you're biased, highly subjective feelings. 

[Stradling]

Just now, Second Base said:

It seems you're upset, Doc. Has my reporting of projections vs actual outcome angered you? If so, you can take solace in the fact that you say the Angels will win 93 games, with absolutely nothing concrete to back it up, other than you're biased, highly subjective feelings. 

You’ve become an absolute dick. I should know because I too am a dick. 

[Second Base]

Just now, Stradling said:

You’ve become an absolute dick. I should know because I too am a dick. 

I feel misgendered. Wait, are you flirting with me? 

[Docwaukee]

32 minutes ago, Second Base said:

It seems you're upset, Doc. Has my reporting of projections vs actual outcome angered you? If so, you can take solace in the fact that you say the Angels will win 93 games, with absolutely nothing concrete to back it up, other than you're biased, highly subjective feelings. 

no.  It's far from anger.  I just try to defend logic and reason.  And I never said they'd win 93 games.  I mentioned that they projected that for the team being healthy but 85 if not.  I can live with both of those.  

and the only thing 'concrete' you've posted is a trend you don't understand and has as much relevance to their current projections as me saying I think they'll win 93 games because I like sandwiches.  

[Docwaukee]

34 minutes ago, Stradling said:

You’ve become an absolute dick. I should know because I too am a dick. 

quit the personal attacks...on yourself.  

[Stradling]

1 minute ago, Docwaukee said:

no.  It's far from anger.  I just try to defend logic and reason.  And I never said they'd win 93 games.  I mentioned that they projected that for the team being healthy but 85 if not.  I can live with both of those.  

and the only thing 'concrete' you've posted is a trend you don't understand and has as much relevance to their current projections as me saying I think they'll win 93 games because I like sandwiches.  

You don’t understand sandwiches 

[Docwaukee]

Just now, Stradling said:

You don’t understand sandwiches 

I like to take a bunch of sandwiches and make one simple sandwich.  

[Revad]

2 minutes ago, Stradling said:

You don’t understand sandwiches 

Ah, a Symborski fan.  I think a hot dog with chili without beans is a sandwich.  So there.

[Second Base]

I just watched two men get angry with data they don't like, so much that they began to verbally stroke each other....

Usually, this kind of entertainment is only available for a price in the darker parts of Tijuana or Okinawa. But we get it free here at AW. 

[Second Base]

Ooop, here comes a third!

[Stradling]

5 minutes ago, Second Base said:

I just watched two men get angry with data they don't like, so much that they began to verbally stroke each other....

Usually, this kind of entertainment is only available for a price in the darker parts of Tijuana or Okinawa. But we get it free here at AW. 

You must forget that you once quit this place because people were mean to you.

[Second Base]

7 minutes ago, Stradling said:

You must forget that you once quit this place because people were mean to you.

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

[Pancake Bear]

1 hour ago, Docwaukee said:

huh?  I'm agreeing with you.  That 'trend' tells you almost nothing as to what happened and why.  AND he's using it as it's somehow predictive.  It's making my head hurt.  

I was unclear. I was quoting you by way of agreement. 
The lack of clarity was my bad. 

[Pancake Bear]

I feel like I'm watching a kindergartner try to argue.

[Second Base]

Ok, how about this. I'm open to changing my mind, if any of you can an argument that cannot be summed up by, "Yeah but this time it will be different."