FiveThirtyEight's Thoughts & Predictions for 2018

[VariousCrap]

Team ¯\_(ツ)_/¯: Los Angeles Angels. The Angels have been stuck behind somebody in this division for most of Mike Trout’s stellar career, whether it be the Rangers and A’s early on or the Astros most recently. This season is supposed to be the start of something different, from the signing of Japanese two-way sensation Shohei Ohtani (more on him later) to other solid, under-the-radar pickups such as Ian Kinsler and Zack Cozart. Still, the forecast systems aren’t totally sure what to make of the Halos yet, penciling them in for win totals between the upper 70s and mid-80s. The best-case scenarios there probably won’t be enough to run down the Astros, but they might just be enough to snag the Angels a wild-card berth.

Player to watch: Mike Trout, Angels. I wanted to choose someone else here, I really did. But Trout is still the “player to watch” among any group of players you might ponder watching. Sadly, after last season’s campaign was limited by injury, he is no longer able to say he was the best player (by WAR) for any age at which he played a full season. (Ty Cobb finally got his revenge!) But Trout played so well when he was healthy that he may be primed for a comeback season for the ages. (Note: He was still the fifth-best player in baseball last season despite missing about 50 games.) Keeping tabs on Trout and his statistical feats is a duty — and joy — that falls on the shoulders of every baseball fan.

Biggest enigma: Shohei Ohtani, Angels. Ohtani came to the U.S. with immense expectations, and it would be unrealistic to expect him to deliver an instant payoff — particularly as the first legitimate hitter/pitcher in decades. All rookies need time to adjust, especially one who’s in a new country, facing a completely different style of opponent. That said, Ohtani has been unable to pitch or hit effectively this spring. His numbers have been so poor that analysts are wondering if he should make the team. Even that is a testament to his talent — who else’s spring stats are getting this much scrutiny? — but it also might make Ohtani the most uncertain player in the major leagues this season.

 

Their AL Thoughts: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/your-guide-to-the-2018-american-league/

Their NL Thoughts: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/your-guide-to-the-2018-national-league/

Their final predictions:

				AVG. SIMULATED SEASON		POSTSEASON CHANCES
TEAM ▲ ▼	DIVISION ▲ ▼	TEAM RATING ▲ ▼	1-WEEK CHANGE ▲ ▼	RECORD ▲ ▼	RUN DIFF. ▲ ▼	MAKE PLAYOFFS ▲ ▼	WIN DIVISION ▲ ▼	WIN WORLD SERIES ▲ ▼
Yankees0-0	AL East	1565		95-67	+125	74%	48%	10%
Red Sox0-0	AL East	1549		91-71	+89	61%	33%	6%
Blue Jays0-0	AL East	1507		81-81	-2	27%	10%	2%
Rays0-0	AL East	1495		78-84	-32	19%	6%	1%
Orioles0-0	AL East	1475		72-90	-84	9%	3%	<1%
Indians0-0	AL Central	1576		99-63	+174	88%	79%	14%
Twins0-0	AL Central	1510		83-79	+20	36%	15%	2%
Royals0-0	AL Central	1459		70-92	-101	7%	2%	<1%
White Sox0-0	AL Central	1457		70-92	-104	6%	2%	<1%
Tigers0-0	AL Central	1449		68-94	-123	4%	2%	<1%
Astros0-0	AL West	1577		97-65	+151	81%	66%	14%
Angels0-0	AL West	1510		81-81	-4	27%	11%	2%
Mariners0-0	AL West	1508		80-82	-7	26%	10%	2%
Rangers0-0	AL West	1497		78-84	-29	19%	7%	1%
Athletics0-0	AL West	1490		76-86	-47	16%	6%	<1%
Nationals0-0	NL East	1546		93-69	+111	73%	62%	8%
Phillies0-0	NL East	1490		79-83	-19	24%	14%	1%
Mets0-0	NL East	1491		79-83	-21	24%	14%	1%
Braves0-0	NL East	1474		75-87	-58	15%	8%	<1%
Marlins0-0	NL East	1443		67-95	-127	5%	3%	<1%
Cubs0-0	NL Central	1558		95-67	+127	76%	55%	10%
Cardinals0-0	NL Central	1522		86-76	+43	45%	22%	3%
Brewers0-0	NL Central	1510		83-79	+15	34%	14%	2%
Pirates0-0	NL Central	1483		77-85	-41	18%	6%	<1%
Reds0-0	NL Central	1465		72-90	-87	8%	3%	<1%
Dodgers0-0	NL West	1568		97-65	+145	81%	63%	13%
Diamondbacks0-0	NL West	1523		85-77	+38	43%	19%	3%
Rockies0-0	NL West	1503		80-82	-9	26%	9%	1%
Giants0-0	NL West	1494		78-84	-27	22%	8%	1%
Padres0-0	NL West	1455		69-93	-115	6%	2%	<1%

 

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2018-mlb-predictions/

How they determine their predictions: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-our-mlb-predictions-work/

[Make Angels Great Again]

I can't wait until we give everyone the middle finger and win 95+ games.

[Torridd]

81-81? How does that make any sense considering what we did last year and all the personnel changes since then??

[zenmaster]

My biggest takeaway from this is that there's a 2% chance we win the world series. I'll take it.

[AngelsLakersFan]

It's hard for me to see this team being utterly mediocre unless all the question marks break against us.

[Jobu]

24 minutes ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

It's hard for me to see this team being utterly mediocre unless all the question marks break against us.

That's the issue with predictions - they need something to go on. This has been a mediocre team for the last 3 years. Outside of Justin Upton, what known quantity has been added? Any rational rating is going to look at Kinsler and see age related decline, look at Cozart and see outlier season, and just not have enough data on any of the pitchers to predict anything truly optimistic.

The Angels don't need question marks to break one way or another to be ranked higher, they need less question marks.

[mulwin444]

We can see the potential but these projections are based on previous seasons and, right now, the rotation looks like:

GRich - 62.1 IP combined over the past 2 seasons

Skaggs - 134.2 combined over the past 2 seasons

Ohtani - no MLB experience

Heaney - 27.2 IP over the past 2 seasons

Shoemaker - 237.2 IP over the past 2 seasons

J. C. Ramirez - 193.2 IP over the past 2 season, one 1 season as a starter

Bridwell - 121 IP as a starter last season, 3.1 IP in MLB the previous season

Tropeano - out last season with only 68.1 IP on MLB career

Barria - no MLB experience

Not a lot to project with that rotation.  

As for the BP, Parker, Bedrosian, Noe Ramirez, Johnson, etc are all question marks

I like the team and think they have a shot at a 90+ win season but I wouldn't look to the national publications for validation.

 

[Docwaukee]

12 minutes ago, AngelsLakersFan said:

It's hard for me to see this team being utterly mediocre unless all the question marks break against us.

our entire infield sans Simmons is better than last year and we get Upton for a full season.  Trout was hurt and Calhoun had an off year.  Maldo played too much and now has a capable backup.  

Our starting pitching was abysmal last year.  Our second best starter had 1 WAR and made 6 starts.   Nolasco and Chavez pitched over 1/3rd of starter innings last year.  If we can't be way better than we were here, then it's because everyone got injured again.  

The bullpen is going to be worse.  Petit and Parker had career years.  Not confident the current group is going to make up for that.  

We were a slightly below .500 team last year.  I think we've made up 6-14 wins which makes us an 84-92 win team.  84 wins if not much goes right.  92 wins if a lot goes right.  

I think we've got a better shot at the division than people are giving us credit for.  I could actually see things playing out similarly to the way the NL central did last year where the Cubs were supposed to be an unstoppable juggernaut coming of their WS win and 107 victories.  Then they eeked out division title and 92 wins last year.  

We'll need to add pen help sooner than later, and maybe a SP at the deadline.  

[Angelsjunky]

Fuck nerds. They've taken over this country, thanks to Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Nate Silver. Let's make America great again and go back to the 80s, when nerds knew their proper place and taped their broken glasses, rather than wore designer hipster glasses.

[AngelsLakersFan]

49 minutes ago, Jobu said:

That's the issue with predictions - they need something to go on. This has been a mediocre team for the last 3 years. Outside of Justin Upton, what known quantity has been added? Any rational rating is going to look at Kinsler and see age related decline, look at Cozart and see outlier season, and just not have enough data on any of the pitchers to predict anything truly optimistic.

The Angels don't need question marks to break one way or another to be ranked higher, they need less question marks.

Even if Kinsler repeats last year and Cozart repeats 2016 this is a much improved lineup. Pitching wise last year is about worst case scenario, how can they not be better?

[AngelsLakersFan]

47 minutes ago, Dochalo said:

our entire infield sans Simmons is better than last year and we get Upton for a full season.  Trout was hurt and Calhoun had an off year.  Maldo played too much and now has a capable backup.  

Our starting pitching was abysmal last year.  Our second best starter had 1 WAR and made 6 starts.   Nolasco and Chavez pitched over 1/3rd of starter innings last year.  If we can't be way better than we were here, then it's because everyone got injured again.  

The bullpen is going to be worse.  Petit and Parker had career years.  Not confident the current group is going to make up for that.  

We were a slightly below .500 team last year.  I think we've made up 6-14 wins which makes us an 84-92 win team.  84 wins if not much goes right.  92 wins if a lot goes right.  

I think we've got a better shot at the division than people are giving us credit for.  I could actually see things playing out similarly to the way the NL central did last year where the Cubs were supposed to be an unstoppable juggernaut coming of their WS win and 107 victories.  Then they eeked out division title and 92 wins last year.  

We'll need to add pen help sooner than later, and maybe a SP at the deadline.  

Agreed, especially with regards to the division. People discount the role of randomness in the game. The Astros are clearly superior on paper today, but that may or may not be the case come June.

[Inside Pitch]

4 hours ago, Torridd said:

81-81? How does that make any sense considering what we did last year and all the personnel changes since then??

Because it's based on projection systems which for the most part are based on MLEs and aging curves.   That type of a scenario doesn't really differentiate usage due to injury vs simple usage when it comes to play time -- so players like Richards and Skaggs get comped to similar totals and not similar situations in most cases.    The best way to use these sorts of projections is to look at individual slash lines and predictive info then try to allocate playing time to a more likely outcome rather than just a historical comp.

The Angels grade out better in projections where the system attempts to allocate usage more closely to what the Angels "hope" to do.

[VariousCrap]

2 hours ago, Dochalo said:

We were a slightly below .500 team last year.  I think we've made up 6-14 wins which makes us an 84-92 win team.  84 wins if not much goes right.  92 wins if a lot goes right.  

 

 

 

I agree with this 100%.

[Lou]

6 hours ago, VariousCrap said:

Sadly, after last season’s campaign was limited by injury, he is no longer able to say he was the best player (by WAR) for any age at which he played a full season.

Does this make sense to anyone? 

[Make Angels Great Again]

5 hours ago, Dochalo said:

our entire infield sans Simmons is better than last year and we get Upton for a full season.  Trout was hurt and Calhoun had an off year.  Maldo played too much and now has a capable backup.  

Our starting pitching was abysmal last year.  Our second best starter had 1 WAR and made 6 starts.   Nolasco and Chavez pitched over 1/3rd of starter innings last year.  If we can't be way better than we were here, then it's because everyone got injured again.  

The bullpen is going to be worse.  Petit and Parker had career years.  Not confident the current group is going to make up for that.  

We were a slightly below .500 team last year.  I think we've made up 6-14 wins which makes us an 84-92 win team.  84 wins if not much goes right.  92 wins if a lot goes right.  

I think we've got a better shot at the division than people are giving us credit for.  I could actually see things playing out similarly to the way the NL central did last year where the Cubs were supposed to be an unstoppable juggernaut coming of their WS win and 107 victories.  Then they eeked out division title and 92 wins last year.  

We'll need to add pen help sooner than later, and maybe a SP at the deadline.  

6-14 you say?

Do you know what else is special about 6-14? /s

[Blarg]

When you divide each by 2 you end up with prime numbers? 

[Docwaukee]

1 hour ago, Lou said:

Does this make sense to anyone? 

total WAR through Trout's age at any given time.  Trout was in the lead all time until 2017.  then cobb took him over since Trout had 6.9 WAR for age 25 while cobb had 9.1 WAR for age 25.  To retake the lead through age 26, Trout needs 9.2 fWAR.  

Here is what Trout needs to maintain his lead going forward assuming he is 0.1 ahead at years end:

Age  -  yearly WAR (total WAR)

25 - 54.4 current

26 - 9.2 (63.6)

27 - 5.3 (68.9)

28 - 9.8 (78.7)

29 - 9.3 (88.0) - hornsby took the lead with back to back monster seasons of 12.5 and 10.8 WAR

30 - 10.0 (98.0) - Cobb with an 11.5 WAR season to take the lead back.  

31 - 6.5 (104.5) - Cobb still in the lead

32 - 7.5 (112.0) - Hornsby takes the lead back.  

33 - 11.1 (123.1) - Hornsby with a monster year to keep the lead.  .380 avg.  174 wRC+.  (Trout's was 181 last year btw)

34 - 3.3 (126.4) - Ruth takes the lead.  Trout could have an off year here and still keep it or make up some group if he falls behind. 

35 - 10.6 (136.9) - Ruth taking a big lead now.  Bonds is at 110.1 after age 35.  

36 - 10.7 (147.6) - next closest now is 131.3 with Bonds closing the gap with his enormous head.  

37 - 8.7 (156.3) - still the babe with Cobb in 2nd in front of barry by 1 WAR at 136.5

38 - 6.8 (163.1) - Bonds closes the gap to 145.5 but the Babe with a comfortable lead

39 - 5.1 (168.3) - Bonds gaining ground again magically at that age by some miracle.  ahem.  

40 - 0.2 (168.5) 

41 - 0.0 (168.5) - bonds still gaining ground 

42 - 0.0 (168.5) - bonds at 164.4

 

So from age 26 through age 39 ie 14 seasons, Trout needs to avg 8.15 WAR.  If he's gonna end up in the top 10, he needs to avg 5.1 per year in order to surpass Stan Musial who is at 126.8.  If he goes to a WAR of 9 the next 5 years, then he needs to avg 3 for the next 9 years to get in the top 10.   I think he's got a legit shot at passing Mays in 3rd who has 149.9 WAR.  But getting to Bonds and Ruth is gonna be next to impossible.  

 

[Second Base]

2 hours ago, Dochalo said:

total WAR through Trout's age at any given time.  Trout was in the lead all time until 2017.  then cobb took him over since Trout had 6.9 WAR for age 25 while cobb had 9.1 WAR for age 25.  To retake the lead through age 26, Trout needs 9.2 fWAR.  

Here is what Trout needs to maintain his lead going forward assuming he is 0.1 ahead at years end:

Age  -  yearly WAR (total WAR)

25 - 54.4 current

26 - 9.2 (63.6)

27 - 5.3 (68.9)

28 - 9.8 (78.7)

29 - 9.3 (88.0) - hornsby took the lead with back to back monster seasons of 12.5 and 10.8 WAR

30 - 10.0 (98.0) - Cobb with an 11.5 WAR season to take the lead back.  

31 - 6.5 (104.5) - Cobb still in the lead

32 - 7.5 (112.0) - Hornsby takes the lead back.  

33 - 11.1 (123.1) - Hornsby with a monster year to keep the lead.  .380 avg.  174 wRC+.  (Trout's was 181 last year btw)

34 - 3.3 (126.4) - Ruth takes the lead.  Trout could have an off year here and still keep it or make up some group if he falls behind. 

35 - 10.6 (136.9) - Ruth taking a big lead now.  Bonds is at 110.1 after age 35.  

36 - 10.7 (147.6) - next closest now is 131.3 with Bonds closing the gap with his enormous head.  

37 - 8.7 (156.3) - still the babe with Cobb in 2nd in front of barry by 1 WAR at 136.5

38 - 6.8 (163.1) - Bonds closes the gap to 145.5 but the Babe with a comfortable lead

39 - 5.1 (168.3) - Bonds gaining ground again magically at that age by some miracle.  ahem.  

40 - 0.2 (168.5) 

41 - 0.0 (168.5) - bonds still gaining ground 

42 - 0.0 (168.5) - bonds at 164.4

 

So from age 26 through age 39 ie 14 seasons, Trout needs to avg 8.15 WAR.  If he's gonna end up in the top 10, he needs to avg 5.1 per year in order to surpass Stan Musial who is at 126.8.  If he goes to a WAR of 9 the next 5 years, then he needs to avg 3 for the next 9 years to get in the top 10.   I think he's got a legit shot at passing Mays in 3rd who has 149.9 WAR.  But getting to Bonds and Ruth is gonna be next to impossible.  

 

Bonds being artificial and the Babe being before black people, Dominicans, Puerto Rican, Venezuelans, Japanese, Koreans etc....

I think if Trout reaches third all time, then he'd likely be the greatest player of all time, all things considered.

[Lou]

 

 

[Lou]

3 hours ago, Dochalo said:

total WAR through Trout's age at any given time.  Trout was in the lead all time until 2017.  then cobb took him over since Trout had 6.9 WAR for age 25 while cobb had 9.1 WAR for age 25.  To retake the lead through age 26, Trout needs 9.2 fWAR.  

Here is what Trout needs to maintain his lead going forward assuming he is 0.1 ahead at years end:

Age  -  yearly WAR (total WAR)

25 - 54.4 current

26 - 9.2 (63.6)

27 - 5.3 (68.9)

28 - 9.8 (78.7)

29 - 9.3 (88.0) - hornsby took the lead with back to back monster seasons of 12.5 and 10.8 WAR

30 - 10.0 (98.0) - Cobb with an 11.5 WAR season to take the lead back.  

31 - 6.5 (104.5) - Cobb still in the lead

32 - 7.5 (112.0) - Hornsby takes the lead back.  

33 - 11.1 (123.1) - Hornsby with a monster year to keep the lead.  .380 avg.  174 wRC+.  (Trout's was 181 last year btw)

34 - 3.3 (126.4) - Ruth takes the lead.  Trout could have an off year here and still keep it or make up some group if he falls behind. 

35 - 10.6 (136.9) - Ruth taking a big lead now.  Bonds is at 110.1 after age 35.  

36 - 10.7 (147.6) - next closest now is 131.3 with Bonds closing the gap with his enormous head.  

37 - 8.7 (156.3) - still the babe with Cobb in 2nd in front of barry by 1 WAR at 136.5

38 - 6.8 (163.1) - Bonds closes the gap to 145.5 but the Babe with a comfortable lead

39 - 5.1 (168.3) - Bonds gaining ground again magically at that age by some miracle.  ahem.  

40 - 0.2 (168.5) 

41 - 0.0 (168.5) - bonds still gaining ground 

42 - 0.0 (168.5) - bonds at 164.4

 

So from age 26 through age 39 ie 14 seasons, Trout needs to avg 8.15 WAR.  If he's gonna end up in the top 10, he needs to avg 5.1 per year in order to surpass Stan Musial who is at 126.8.  If he goes to a WAR of 9 the next 5 years, then he needs to avg 3 for the next 9 years to get in the top 10.   I think he's got a legit shot at passing Mays in 3rd who has 149.9 WAR.  But getting to Bonds and Ruth is gonna be next to impossible.  

 

Thanks, I think, but he wasn't healthy in 2017 and the sentence specifically stated:

"for any age in which he played a full season"

 

[Angelsjunky]

As for Trout's final WAR total, at this point he seems a lock to reach the 100 WAR club, of which there are currently only 20 hitters. But 100ish would be disappointing, which is pretty remarkable to say for anyone, let alone a player just 26 years old. Even more crazy to say is that he is probably going to finish somewhere in the 120-150 range. There are only 11 hitters in major league history who have accrued 120+ WAR, and the only one to play in the 21st century is Barry Bonds.

@Dochalo, I think your numbers--especially in the mid-30s--are a bit optimistic overall. I'll be a bit more moderate. Let's say he averages 8 WAR for the next five years, age 26-30. I actually think he'll average more like 9 WAR, but we have to account for possible injury and/or an off year. That puts him ~95 through age 30. Then let's say he averages 6 WAR age 31-35. Again similar logic: he should average higher when healthy, but I want to be modest. That puts him around 125 through age 35. Then he plays a few more years, and finishes somewhere in the 130s. That would put him with the cluster of Williams, Speaker, Hornsby, and Wagner, but below Cobb and Mays, and Bonds and Ruth. That makes most sense to me.

Trout will very likely end as one of the inner circle greats, the greatest non-roided player of the last half century. Not so bad.

And consider: ten years ago, we would never have guessed the modest Angels franchise would have such a player. For us, the "greats" were always players like Salmon and Joyner. Vlad brought us to a new level, but his nova flashed briefly, if brilliantly. But Trout...well, even if the Angels suck, Angels baseball never fully sucks due to that one player.