2016 ZiPS Projections – Los Angeles Angels

After having typically appeared in the very hallowed pages of Baseball Think Factory, Dan Szymborski’s ZiPS projections have been released at FanGraphs the past couple years. The exercise continues this offseason. Below are the projections for the Los Angeles Angels. Szymborski can be found at ESPN and on Twitter at @DSzymborski.

Other Projections: Arizona / Atlanta / Baltimore / Boston / Chicago AL / Chicago NL / Cincinnati / Cleveland / Colorado / Detroit / Houston / Kansas City / Los Angeles NL / Minnesota / New York AL / New York NL / Oakland / Philadelphia / Pittsburgh / St. Louis / San Diego / San Francisco / Seattle / Texas / Toronto / Washington.

Batters
For how much of an outlier it is, Mike Trout’s projection (688 PA, 9.3 zWAR) represents probably one of the easiest to calculate on the back of an envelope. In each of his first four seasons, he’s produced about five or six wins above average by way of his bat, added another half-win or so by means of base running, and recorded slightly above-average defensive numbers. Add in a little more than two wins’ worth of replacement value and the result is an 8.0-9.0 WAR forecast. Whatever influence there might be from regression is likely offset by a combination of Trout’s youth and the nearly 3,000 plate-appearance sample over which he’s established this level of play. The calculus is a strange combination of simple and impossible, not unlike Trout himself.

A team composed of all exactly replacement-level players and also Mike Trout would record roughly 57 wins over the course of a season — meaning the Angels, as a group, need to augment Trout’s contribution with about 30 wins of their own in order to qualify for the postseason in some fashion. Kole Calhoun (604 PA, 2.7 zWAR) and the newly acquired Andrelton Simmons (590 PA, 3.7 zWAR) would appear to be useful in that endeavor. Depending on the health of his foot, Albert Pujols (602 PA, 2.7 zWAR) might also be, as well. After those four players, however, finding even an average projection among the club’s hitters is difficult.

Pitchers
Garrett Richards‘ 2015 campaign wasn’t bad, at all — he produced slightly above-average fielding-indepdent and run-prevention numbers — but it failed to approximate the quality of his promising and injury-shortened 2014 season, during which he recorded over four wins in 168.2 innings. ZiPS, which calls for 182.1 innings and a 3.8 zWAR from Richards in 2016, expects him to more resemble that 2014 edition of himself. Elsewhere in the rotation, one finds that, while Jered Weaver (151.1 IP, 0.6 zWAR) is likely to work nominally as the club’s No. 2 starter, there are a half-dozen other pitchers on the club forecast to outperfrom him.

With regard to the bullpen, while it doesn’t appear to possess any explicit weaknesses — the five pitchers included in the depth-chart graphic below, for example, are expected to prevent runs at a better-than-average rate — it also doesn’t offer a proper relief ace. Huston Street (55.2 IP, 0.4 zWAR) is the closer and Joe Smith (62.2 IP, 0.6 zWAR) is best acquitted by Dan Szymborski’s computer, but neither is elite. The result is a sub-par projection overall.

Bench/Prospects
The owner of six major-league plate appearances — and even then, from back in 2012 — outfielder Rafael Ortega (437 PA, 1.5 zWAR) was signed by Los Angeles this offseason to a minor-league deal. Despite the modest cost of employing him, Ortega actually receives the third-best projection among Angels outfielders. Catcher Jett Bandy (345 PA, 1.3 zWAR) and waiver-claim infielder Rey Navarro (489 PA, 1.1 zWAR) profile as the club’s other top replacement sorts. With regard to pitchers, left-hander Hector Santiago (153.1 IP, 1.8 zWAR) is omitted from the depth-chart graphic below, but actually receives the third-best forecast among all Angels starters. Young Nick Tropeano (135.2 IP, 1.0 zWAR) is in a similar situation, as well.

Depth Chart
Below is a rough depth chart for the present incarnation of the Angels, with rounded projected WAR totals for each player. For caveats regarding WAR values see disclaimer at bottom of post. Click to embiggen image.

Ballpark graphic courtesy Eephus League. Depth charts constructed by way of those listed here at site and author’s own haphazard reasoning.

***

***

***

***

***

***

Disclaimer: ZiPS projections are computer-based projections of performance. Performances have not been allocated to predicted playing time in the majors — many of the players listed above are unlikely to play in the majors at all in 2016. ZiPS is projecting equivalent production — a .240 ZiPS projection may end up being .280 in AAA or .300 in AA, for example. Whether or not a player will play is one of many non-statistical factors one has to take into account when predicting the future.

Players are listed with their most recent teams unless Dan has made a mistake. This is very possible as a lot of minor-league signings are generally unreported in the offseason.

ZiPS is projecting based on the AL having a 3.93 ERA and the NL having a 3.75 ERA.

Players that are expected to be out due to injury are still projected. More information is always better than less information and a computer isn’t what should be projecting the injury status of, for example, a pitcher with Tommy John surgery.

Regarding ERA+ vs. ERA- (and FIP+ vs. FIP-) and the differences therein: as Patriot notes here, they are not simply mirror images of each other. Writes Patriot: “ERA+ does not tell you that a pitcher’s ERA was X% less or more than the league’s ERA. It tells you that the league’s ERA was X% less or more than the pitcher’s ERA.”

Both hitters and pitchers are ranked by projected zWAR — which is to say, WAR values as calculated by Dan Szymborski, whose surname is spelled with a z. WAR values might differ slightly from those which appear in full release of ZiPS. Finally, Szymborski will advise anyone against — and might karate chop anyone guilty of — merely adding up WAR totals on depth chart to produce projected team WAR.