2023 Angels ZiPS Projections

[Inside Pitch]

I love when projections get posted, not for the actual projections but rather to see how people react to them.  

Not seeing anything really controversial with these.  They basically echo what everyone here has been saying.  The starting pitching is strong, the hitting should be okay so long as the two guys who have been hurt a lot are not "hurt a lot" this year and that the bullpen is a complete and total crapshoot.

If the 80% projections have the Angels as an 85 win team that's a nice place to be.  As Doc's much more in depth post points out there is room for improvement in some key areas and a serious concern in others.

Get a 4th OFer already and add a pitcher.

[BTH]

10 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

Get a 4th OFer already and add a pitcher.

I think whether or not they get a 4th OFer is a barometer of how invested they are into improving the team’s depth.

It should be a no-brainer to add one, since it shouldn’t be expensive and that they’ve added two infielders (Drury and Urshela) without set positions.

They’ve made the “flashy” position player depth moves, but now they need to make the one that’s not as flashy but still very important.

Edited January 4, 2023 by Trendon

[Second Base]

14 hours ago, Pancake Bear said:

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

One person posts recent data repeatedly to make a point, another flies off the handle on nonsensical emotional tirades and offers personal insults in response. It's pretty evident who here is making an irrational argument. 

Just out of curiosity, have you ever watched the documentary, "What is a woman?" If not, you should. It would be like looking in a mirror for you. Several, in fact. 

[Second Base]

15 hours 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.  

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. 

 

[Hubs]

14 hours 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.  

I agree with most of this detailed nuanced take. @Docwaukee is excellent as usual.

Here's how they get to 93.

First, I agree that the 2022 team had pretty bad luck, so I'll start at 81 like Doc did.

Starters are better with Anderson than Syndergaard and Lorenzen. Anderson had a 4 fWAR season with the Dodgers. Syndergaard was 1.2 and Lorenzen was 1.0. Even a bit of regression and this is +1 fWAR. That, Ohtani with a few more Starts, the return of Canning (I'm betting it will be 2020 Canning, not the ineffective and injured 2021 Canning is the guy coming back.) That and further development from Sandoval, Detmers, and Suarez will make the 2023 group +2.

Relievers were pretty bad in high leverage situations, and pitched a ton of innings last season, and while they will miss Iglesias, he was only worth 0.7 fWAR for then in 2022. Estevez and better season from Loup in particular should make this a wash. I think they'll be better as a group as a whole, and didn't think they were absolutely terrible last year, they were just slightly below average and overused.. I also think they add at least one more arm here, and Garza is gonna take Barria's spot, with Barria moving into higher leverage situations, plus C-Rod and Joyce maybe, and there is reason to be optimistic. Still...+0

Defense. I think it will be slightly better than last season, if only that Walsh and Rendon play more. Ward is okay defensively and Renfroe is good. Urshela is good. But I don't know that this gives them a whole +1. So We'll say +0.5.

Now the offense, position by position.

C. Agree with Doc. Kurt was bad. Stassi was also bad, but hopefully won't be. Thaiss gets the backup role for the first two months, and there is a possibility O'Hoppe ends up the primary C by years end. His offensive potential is huge. But let's not count on it, so +2.

1B. Walsh is healthy. Drury provides some pop, and he and Urshela play against lefties. I'm bumping up a a win, to get to 2 fWAR from the position based on Walsh being healthy and a platoon for the lefty starters. So +4

2B. Agree that Urshela/Drury/Rengifo +1.5 over last years production to about 2 fWAR. This is a bit more than Doc so, say +1.5.

SS. About the same, but I think any loss in defense is made up in offense, so we're still at add 0 fWAR here.

3B. The loss of Rendon cannot be understated. Urshela is a very good backup. Rendon had 0.8 fWAR in his 1/4 season, so even though he wasn't hitting like he has in the past, he was still at 3+win player. But I think he's gonna be the comeback player of the year. I'm expecting him to duplicate his 2020 output which was basically a 6.5-7.5 Win season in a full year, and would be in line with the previous three years. He's been hurt, and they've been fluke injuries. Seeing as they got 1 WAR out of this position last year, I'm expecting +4. 

LF Ward will replicate his RF numbers here, though many see regression, I see improvement. So let's say +4. Moniak struggled in depth, I guess, but he's a good defender and a better hitter than he's shown. He's the same age as Marsh remember. Could he turn in a good season? Also, Fletcher will play the OF more than people think, and he's been a good defender and league average offense when healthy. Lets subtract 0.5 for depth, but that still puts us +3.5 in left.

CF Trout had 6 WAR in 119 games. With Health, that goes to 8 (or more). Depth is again challenging, but I'm not ready to say it is going to be negative. +2.

RF Renfroe is a solid hitter, and worth between 2 and 2.5 WAR. I think Ward would shift to right if there was any injury, and I think they'll use the infield depth in the outfield, and these guys are all OK outfielders. I also think Adell either is traded and brings back a 4th OF replacement level, and I have more faith in Moniak than most. Still I am gonna stay with Doc's projection and say -2.

DH. Ohtani might be better, but he might play a bit less here. So +0.

PH. Last year the pinch hitters were guys like Gosselin, Mayfield, Mackinnon, Rojas, etc. Drury alone makes this better, and with the depth overall, I'd still say +0.

Overall Pitching and defense is going to be +2.5 by my admittedly optimistic count, and Offense is much better at +15. Why am I +7 over Doc's +8...I'm protecting a mostly healthy Trout, Rendon, and Ward. He said 10 if everything goes well, and I'm at 15. Ok. His offensive +8 came all from 1B (+3), 2b +1, 3b (+2) and C (+2). Mine is higher at 1B by 1, as I expect 2 wins at 1B. I added a half a win at 2nd, as I'm expecting 2 wins there too. Doc says they'll get 3 total wins out of 3B, I'm saying they get 5. I believe Rendon is the key missing ingredient in the lineup and his defense is incredible. He's a 6-6.5 win player if healthy, and they got 1 win total out of 3rd. I'm being a bit conservative since I think so highly of him. So in the infield I'm 3.5 Wins over Doc. In the outfield he's calling for a net zero, I'm saying Ward is gonna give them a similar year to 2022, and that Trout gives us 8 as he's still the best player in the game when healthy. Renfroe is +2 over whatever they had last year, so that's +3.5 over Doc's projection. 

That puts me at offense +15, total +17.5 better than last years team, and while I don't think it's a 98 win team if healthy, they are going to easily exceed the 85, (Doc conservatively said 85, but his median projections put it at 89 as they were +8 in his breakdown).

Admittedly I am very optimistic but 93 is +13, so that's 4.5 wins less than my breakdown, so lets call that the conservative optimistic number.

And I didn't even get into the change in schedule. 19 games versus division opponents was too many, and I've hated it since they stuck the Trashstros in the division in 2013. 

 

 

[Hubs]

13 minutes 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. 

 

 

They won 73 games last year. Even if you start there with my rosier projections, they win 90+

Also +5 at 1st and C from a -3 to 2 wins over all is not that ridiculously high. Walsh was 2.3 in his healthy year in 2021. Stassi was 2.9 in just 87 games in 2021. Stassi was 0 last year and Walsh was -0.6. So from 2021 to 2022, they dropped from 5.2 to -0.6 combined. The depth has increased at both spots with Drury, Urshela, and O'Hoppe. +5 is possibly low.

Also You, for years, hyped up prospects that continued to fail, not develop, and move on, while denigrating the major league team and saying this dude at Burlington is gonna be better than Calhoun, or this dude at Low A is gonna be the next Troy Glaus, or whatever. 

Now this offseason you're really negative in your projections.

ZIPS specifically underrates offense, and overrates pitching. But Fangraphs depth chart projection have the Angels improving to similar numbers as Doc. Being an 85-88 win team, basically.

They've had starting pitching problems in all of the years you cited, and ZIPS is rosy on SP. so of course they underperformed their projections. But looking back further, when they had good pitching years, the projections are a lot closer to accurate. And the Angels usually exceeded them based on a good offense, where they underrate.

 

[Revad]

ZIPS is a tool to help us think about this stuff.   Below is a key paragraph from the article.

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/2023-zips-projections-los-angeles-angels/

My usual urging to resist simply adding up the WAR on the depth chart graphic goes double here; of the 16 teams so far, the Angels have the biggest disparity between what ZiPS is currently projecting and what adding up the depth chart playing time will get you. As noted, I’m far less optimistic about Trout and Rendon’s plate appearances than our current depth charts and when you combine that with simulations that occasionally require some pretty bleak fill-ins, you drop from a depth chart tally of about 93 wins to the 85 that ZiPS currently forecasts.

[Revad]

Even though the depth is much better, it’s not complete.  Is Barrera the fourth outfielder?

[Second Base]

I'm say it again, 85 wins sounds about right to me. 

[Revad]

6 minutes ago, Second Base said:

I'm say it again, 85 wins sounds about right to me. 

Given better health, 90.

[Second Base]

1 minute ago, Revad said:

Given better health, 90.

I can agree with that. If all else remains as expected AND Trout and Rendon both played 150 games, this is a 90 win team. 

[Inside Pitch]

51 minutes 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?

Humor me -- what is it you are basing accuracy on?  The final numbers, win totals in general? 

The only numbers that mean anything to me are the rates, and those come with the usual caveats regarding young players making the jump and old players who could fall off the cliff at any moment.  So the final numbers or the total counting stats are pretty meaningless to me.

I used to keep a running count of all the projection systems to try to find the most accurate only to find all of them had their strengths and weaknesses and that 75% of the results were so close between the different sites that the differences between them amounted to noise.

[T.G.]

4 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

Humor me

That's my job.

[Inside Pitch]

Just now, T.G. said:

That's my job.

And you always come through.

[Warfarin]

19 minutes ago, Revad said:

Even though the depth is much better, it’s not complete.  Is Barrera the fourth outfielder?

I don’t think anything is set in stone, but I would think that Barrera and Moniak are probably the front runners for now.

[Revad]

Szymborski Is a smart guy, and ZIPS is useful.  Useful but not supposed to be perfect.  Plus, I think his chats are hilarious.

 

[Revad]

1 minute ago, Warfarin said:

I don’t think anything is set in stone, but I would think that Barrera and Moniak are probably the front runners for now.

Seems like we could do better.

[floplag]

20 hours ago, Stradling said:

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

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. 

[Inside Pitch]

1 minute ago, Revad said:

Seems like we could do better.

If they fail to add someone I'll honestly be disappointed.  I get that some guys are probably looking to be a starter or guaranteed more ABs so adding a FA may be hard, but I'm hoping they add someone else to the mix.

[Revad]

1 minute 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. 

Removing subpar at bats and innings is more a depth issue than talent.  Our floor last year sucked.

[Revad]

1 minute ago, Inside Pitch said:

If they fail to add someone I'll honestly be disappointed.  I get that some guys are probably looking to be a starter or guaranteed more ABs so adding a FA may be hard, but I'm hoping they add someone else to the mix.

We’re going to have another year of infielders playing outfield.  It’s a low hanging fruit and a cheap fix, could make a significant difference.

[Second Base]

9 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

Humor me -- what is it you are basing accuracy on?  The final numbers, win totals in general? 

The only numbers that mean anything to me are the rates, and those come with the usual caveats regarding young players making the jump and old players who could fall off the cliff at any moment.  So the final numbers or the total counting stats are pretty meaningless to me.

I used to keep a running count of all the projection systems to try to find the most accurate only to find all of them had their strengths and weaknesses and that 75% of the results were so close between the different sites that the differences between them amounted to noise.

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?

[Second Base]

6 minutes 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. 

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

[Warfarin]

26 minutes ago, Revad said:

Seems like we could do better.

 

22 minutes ago, Inside Pitch said:

If they fail to add someone I'll honestly be disappointed.  I get that some guys are probably looking to be a starter or guaranteed more ABs so adding a FA may be hard, but I'm hoping they add someone else to the mix.

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.

[Inside Pitch]

3 minutes 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?

PECOTA is my favorite because their projections for young players is typically closer to actual results than the others -- but they always put a lot of work into their MLEs and I think it ends up showing.

As far as it being about win totals goes -- I don't think that's ever been the end goal for most of these systems, more of a happy byproduct of their systems correctly projecting performance.  Most systems base their win totals on some simple variant of a Pythag record, so it all goes back to those individual performances and how they all add up (runs scored .vs runs allowed).  Injuries and play time end up being just as important a factor as the actual accuracy of the systems as a result.

I think most people tend to look grade projections like you so I get why there is always so much controversy/debate when these things come out.

I think it's sort of funny that ZIPS completely pegged Trout's end of season OPS figure of .999 last year -- but it massively misjudged the power and the OBP totals.  So, while the final number was 100% accurate, the system still missed.