2023 Angels ZiPS Projections

[Revad]

2 minutes ago, Second Base said:

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."

Regression to the mean.

[Hubs]

50 minutes 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.  

Fuck it I say they’ll win 93. 94 even. Maybe 95 if they’re “lucky”.

They allowed 668 runs last year and that was with their top 4 returning starters plus Lorenzen and Syndergaard pitching only 133 starts. Even if they don’t add anyone this is fine even if this is exactly what they get from The 4 returning starters and Anderson. If the 6th spot is split between Silseth, Canning, Barria, and Davidson… they still be an improvement over last years staff. I’m hoping for more innings too. Let’s just hope the pen is as good as last year and they’ll allow say 645 runs.

They had a bunch of scrubs play last year and most of them are gone. That’s gonna be about 7 negative WAR gone and replaced by Urshela, Drury and healthier seasons from Fletcher, Rendon, Trout and Walsh. They scored only 623 runs and if you get rid of the negative WAR by 7 and add say 7 more for Rendon and Trout and Walsh being healthy that’s like adding 140 runs. Add that and you’re at 763.

Pythagorean run expectation puts that at a 93-95 win team. 

[Stradling]

14 minutes ago, Second Base said:

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."

They went about the off season differently so we shouldn’t assume the same result. 

[Second Base]

1 minute ago, Stradling said:

They went about the off season differently so we shouldn’t assume the same result. 

Was every other offseason not seen as different than the one before?

[Second Base]

13 minutes ago, Revad said:

Regression to the mean.

Now THIS, I can actually believe. But in this case, regression to the mean it's like an 85 win team, not a 90-95 win team. 

[Stradling]

Just now, Second Base said:

Was every other offseason not seen as different than the one before?

No off season created actual major league depth.  No season before had 5 starters that pitched better than league average in the rotation. 

[Second Base]

25 minutes ago, Stradling said:

No off season created actual major league depth.  No season before had 5 starters that pitched better than league average in the rotation. 

So if the Angels were wrong in their approach every single year before this then why weren't you on here telling everyone that the Angels weren't going to win? Why were you  joining everyone else in predicting the Angels success?

[Revad]

I, more interested in the future than the past.

[Stradling]

7 minutes ago, Second Base said:

So if the Angels were wrong in their approach every single year before this then why weren't you on here telling everyone that the Angels weren't going to win? Why were you  joining everyone else in predicting the Angels success?

Because I didn’t know they were wrong in their approach.  Why were you constantly pimping our prospects when our farm system was underperforming?  Also why have you become a miserable person to interact with on here?  Why would you be disrespectful to people who actually add value on here (not me)?  

[Second Base]

2 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Because I didn’t know they were wrong in their approach.  Why were you constantly pimping our prospects when our farm system was underperforming?  Also why have you become a miserable person to interact with on here?  Why would you be disrespectful to people who actually add value on here (not me)?  

So what you're saying is, "Yeah but this time, it will be different." 

 

[Stradling]

4 minutes ago, Second Base said:

So what you're saying is, "Yeah but this time, it will be different." 

 

You forgot to answer the other questions. I’m sure the answers are nuanced, so I’ll wait. 

[Second Base]

13 minutes ago, Stradling said:

You forgot to answer the other questions. I’m sure the answers are nuanced, so I’ll wait. 

Don't you think the other gentlemen could defend their own position if it was sturdy enough to stand on it's own? And if what I was saying was actually disrespectful, why wouldn't it be deleted by our mods?  

Someone disagreeing with you, isn't disrespectful, Strad. It's dialogue. I think you need thicker skin. It's ok for someone to disagree with you or your internet friends. 

[Pancake Bear]

29 minutes ago, Stradling said:

Why would you be disrespectful to people who actually add value on here (not me)?  

Aww, thanks.

[Pancake Bear]

1 minute ago, Second Base said:

Someone disagreeing with you, isn't disrespectful, Strad. It's dialogue. I think you need thicker skin. It's ok for someone to disagree with you or your internet friends. 

Says the guy who accused everyone else of getting angry when no one agreed with him. 

[Stradling]

5 minutes ago, Second Base said:

Don't you think the other gentlemen could defend their own position if it was sturdy enough to stand on it's own? And if what I was saying was actually disrespectful, why wouldn't it be deleted by our mods?  

Someone disagreeing with you, isn't disrespectful, Strad. It's dialogue. I think you need thicker skin. It's ok for someone to disagree with you or your internet friends. 

I wasn’t referring to how you interact with me, I couldn’t care less.  My skin is fine, thank you.  

[Second Base]

3 hours ago, Pancake Bear said:

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.

You don't suppose insulting someone's vocational abilities is a reflection of your anger at someone disagreeing with you over the internet, do you?

[Warfarin]

So .. shifting back to the projections themselves ..

I think this is basically our team in a nutshell, as we have seen for many years.  This team has, for over half a decade, been very top heavy and reliant on its top talent to stay healthy and productive.  If Trout, Rendon, and Ohtani can all stay reasonably healthy (140+ games) and produce to their capabilities, this is a playoff team.

The great variable that we have seen, of course, is health.  It would be impossible for any team to replace Trout and Ohtani, but as we have seen, this team has historically been in awful position, sending out sub-replacement level players in their place.  We had Gosselin, Rojas, Duffy, and various others trying to replace a 4+ fWAR 3B.  This is what has sunk the team for many years now.

To Minasian's credit, he is trying to bridge that gap as effectively as he can with the resources he has available.  Urshela is not amazing, but he should be considerably more effective than the above replacements.  Trout is irreplaceable, but maybe if they are able to swing Ward to CF, and shift one of our various other OF options to LF in Ward's place .. that would be better than rolling out Moniak, Adell, etc.

So again, as has been the case for many years, this team's year will be dictated by the health of our star players.  We are in better position to absorb some absences, which has been Minasian's goal.  I think 85 wins is a fair projection, but with a bit of luck and some improved health, it would seem that the upper 80s is at least within range.

[Docwaukee]

38 minutes ago, Second Base said:

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."

ok sure.  

we were -8 relative to our base runs from last year which means on paper we should have won 81 games.  Some of that is bad luck.  Some of that is having a horrible bottom of the lineup.  Some of that is defensive positioning.  Some of that is having a really bad bullpen in high leverage situations.  But mostly it's statistical variation that would normalize to some degree.  So to me, the team, on paper was about .500 the second the season ended.  

On the pitching side, the loss of Thor/Lorenzen is offset by Anderson.  I could see a couple of the younger guys getting better but maybe a couple get a little worse.  So I'll call SP a wash right now.  

The pen is a crapshoot to me right now.  I think it will be better but for the sake of argument, let's say it stays about the same and still pretty crappy.  

I'll call the defense about the same.  Some loss from Velzaquez but not that much statistically because Fletcher is good there.  Improved at 3b with more Rendon and Urshela.  About the same in CF, 2b.  Improved at C (no suzuki).  About the same at 1b.  We lose Marsh but also less Adell so that offsets.  etc. etc.  But...the same on a relative basis as the new rules apply to everyone.  

On offense, I like to break it down by position.  

C - I think Stassi gets the nod early but he won't be allowed to struggle.  It was about -1 WAR last year but mostly because of Kirk.  1 win total is fair overall which is +2

1b - This was a -2 win position for the Angels last year.  Walsh might be healthy.  He might not.  But you've got Drury, Urshela to back him up.  It's hard to accumulate wins at 1b though.  Even Walsh's very good 2021 was only 2.5 wins.  So a conservative or +3.  

2b - Even with Rengifo doing well it was only 0.4 wins.  Why?  Because Rengifo played a lot of 3b when he was 'breaking out'.  It's about a 2 win position now but hedge our bets and call it only +1.

SS - This wasn't as bad as people thought because of defense.  Still not good at 1 win and while I'm fine with what they've done in bolstering the MIF, this is probably gonna be about the same.  +0

3b - The combo of Rengifo, Rendon, Duffy and Soto put up about 2.5 wins here.  But that was offset by the -1.5 wins from Rojas, MacKinnon, Mayfield, Gosselin and Villar.  I'm tempted to say that they get 4 wins here this year but I'll keep by conservative approach and call it 3 for +2.

RF - Ward was awesome here.  A legit 4 win player.  Too bad the other 13 guys here put up -1.0 win in the 150 or so PA covering for his injury.  Renfroe is about a 2 WAR player but he's not going to play ever game and God forbid he gets hurt because we're probably at -1 win for depth here with Moniak and others.  Maybe Walsh can play some OF.  Maybe Rengifo as well.  Maybe Adell does better?  But an injury at either corner and it's probably a repeat of last year.  So for now, it's -2

LF - Was a zero last year.  Ward moving there probably makes it a +2.5 at least but again.  no depth.  So we'll call it +2.  

CF - About the same.  Trout's 6.  Couple of DL stints for Trout of -1.  +0

DH - Same.  +0

PH - 120 PA here last year so not just a throw away.  About 0 wins.  I think this will be better but lets call it even.  

So offense total?   About +8 wins.  More injuries than expected (especially in the OF)?  +4ish.  Fewer than expected?  +10 or so.  Add a good 4th OFer?  +2.  Not because that player will be a two win player but because it'll allow them not to have accumulate -2 wins without one.  Add another starter?  +2.  Same theory.  Add another pen guy?  Who knows unless it's an elite guy.  

Started at about 80 wins.  Defense, PH, SP and Pen are all about the same.  Offense is conservatively +5.  So I'm at about 85 wins with allowing for a decent amount not going well.  A 6th starter allows you to sustain a significant pitching injury as long as it's not Ohtani.  A good 4th OFer allowed you to sustain a significant injury as long as it's not Mike Trout.  We're ok with injuries for the IF.  

Whatever the pen does could have a 5 win impact on this team though.  

[AngelsLakersFan]

2 hours 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. 

How much alcohol have you been drinking?

I say this with the understanding that I generally agree with the point you are trying to make, but you are kind of acting retarded - no offense meant to the actual retards on this board.

[Pancake Bear]

23 minutes ago, Second Base said:

You don't suppose insulting someone's vocational abilities is a reflection of your anger at someone disagreeing with you over the internet, do you?

No, I would suppose insulting someone's vocational abilities is a reflection of what said person might hypothetically of demonstrated through repeated irrational arguments. 

[tdawg87]

14 minutes ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

How much alcohol have you been drinking?

I say this with the understanding that I generally agree with the point you are trying to make, but you are kind of acting retarded - no offense meant to the actual retards on this board.

None taken, sir.

[Revad]

2 hours ago, Second Base said:

Now THIS, I can actually believe. But in this case, regression to the mean it's like an 85 win team, not a 90-95 win team. 

If the regulars play regularly 90 wins sounds about right.

[Revad]

43 minutes ago, Docwaukee said:

ok sure.  

we were -8 relative to our base runs from last year which means on paper we should have won 81 games.  Some of that is bad luck.  Some of that is having a horrible bottom of the lineup.  Some of that is defensive positioning.  Some of that is having a really bad bullpen in high leverage situations.  But mostly it's statistical variation that would normalize to some degree.  So to me, the team, on paper was about .500 the second the season ended.  

On the pitching side, the loss of Thor/Lorenzen is offset by Anderson.  I could see a couple of the younger guys getting better but maybe a couple get a little worse.  So I'll call SP a wash right now.  

The pen is a crapshoot to me right now.  I think it will be better but for the sake of argument, let's say it stays about the same and still pretty crappy.  

I'll call the defense about the same.  Some loss from Velzaquez but not that much statistically because Fletcher is good there.  Improved at 3b with more Rendon and Urshela.  About the same in CF, 2b.  Improved at C (no suzuki).  About the same at 1b.  We lose Marsh but also less Adell so that offsets.  etc. etc.  But...the same on a relative basis as the new rules apply to everyone.  

On offense, I like to break it down by position.  

C - I think Stassi gets the nod early but he won't be allowed to struggle.  It was about -1 WAR last year but mostly because of Kirk.  1 win total is fair overall which is +2

1b - This was a -2 win position for the Angels last year.  Walsh might be healthy.  He might not.  But you've got Drury, Urshela to back him up.  It's hard to accumulate wins at 1b though.  Even Walsh's very good 2021 was only 2.5 wins.  So a conservative or +3.  

2b - Even with Rengifo doing well it was only 0.4 wins.  Why?  Because Rengifo played a lot of 3b when he was 'breaking out'.  It's about a 2 win position now but hedge our bets and call it only +1.

SS - This wasn't as bad as people thought because of defense.  Still not good at 1 win and while I'm fine with what they've done in bolstering the MIF, this is probably gonna be about the same.  +0

3b - The combo of Rengifo, Rendon, Duffy and Soto put up about 2.5 wins here.  But that was offset by the -1.5 wins from Rojas, MacKinnon, Mayfield, Gosselin and Villar.  I'm tempted to say that they get 4 wins here this year but I'll keep by conservative approach and call it 3 for +2.

RF - Ward was awesome here.  A legit 4 win player.  Too bad the other 13 guys here put up -1.0 win in the 150 or so PA covering for his injury.  Renfroe is about a 2 WAR player but he's not going to play ever game and God forbid he gets hurt because we're probably at -1 win for depth here with Moniak and others.  Maybe Walsh can play some OF.  Maybe Rengifo as well.  Maybe Adell does better?  But an injury at either corner and it's probably a repeat of last year.  So for now, it's -2

LF - Was a zero last year.  Ward moving there probably makes it a +2.5 at least but again.  no depth.  So we'll call it +2.  

CF - About the same.  Trout's 6.  Couple of DL stints for Trout of -1.  +0

DH - Same.  +0

PH - 120 PA here last year so not just a throw away.  About 0 wins.  I think this will be better but lets call it even.  

So offense total?   About +8 wins.  More injuries than expected (especially in the OF)?  +4ish.  Fewer than expected?  +10 or so.  Add a good 4th OFer?  +2.  Not because that player will be a two win player but because it'll allow them not to have accumulate -2 wins without one.  Add another starter?  +2.  Same theory.  Add another pen guy?  Who knows unless it's an elite guy.  

Started at about 80 wins.  Defense, PH, SP and Pen are all about the same.  Offense is conservatively +5.  So I'm at about 85 wins with allowing for a decent amount not going well.  A 6th starter allows you to sustain a significant pitching injury as long as it's not Ohtani.  A good 4th OFer allowed you to sustain a significant injury as long as it's not Mike Trout.  We're ok with injuries for the IF.  

Whatever the pen does could have a 5 win impact on this team though.  

This is rational middle of the road thinking.  I agree.

[ShotimeDynasty]

12 hours ago, beatlesrule said:

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.

They’ve “proven” they can’t stay healthy.. Tell me, which Angels player has a chronic injury that you’re concerned is gonna recur?

some people just can’t see past the narrative

[Pancake Bear]

5 hours ago, ShowtimeDynasty said:

They’ve “proven” they can’t stay healthy.. Tell me, which Angels player has a chronic injury that you’re concerned is gonna recur?

some people just can’t see past the narrative

Yup.

I drafted Christian McCaffrey in fantasy football this year at #2 overall. People said I was dumb because he'd missed quite a lot of the last two seasons with lengthy injuries. But he had #1 upside and the injuries of his last two seasons weren't things likely to reoccur, so I drafted him. Dude didn't miss a game.  He finished second in points.

Sometimes narratives are just an excuse for lazy groupthink.