For the 20th consecutive season, the ZiPS projection system is unleashing a full set of prognostications. For more information on the ZiPS projections, please consult this year’s introduction and MLB’s glossary entry. The team order is selected by lot, and the first team up is the New York Mets.

Batters

At the very least, there’s a good sense of clarity when looking at the Mets depth chart. Francisco Lindor and Brandon Nimmo are plug-and-play options — just stick them in, and if they’re your biggest problem, you’re doomed anyway. Pete Alonso qualifies as that as well, though the Mets are not long from having to make a decision on whether it’s better to offer him a potentially ludicrous contract extension or find a new polar bear (they’re endangered after all!). Jeff McNeil will likely have a season somewhere in between his 2022 and 2023. Francisco Alvarez has a hold on the starting catching job now that he’s outlasted his predecessor (Tomás Nido) and the guy who really, really liked playing said predecessor (Buck Showalter). It’s also obvious that this is a crucial season for Mark Vientos and Brett Baty; the Mets don’t have infinite patience. There likely need to be better solutions in left field, and it’s time to start thinking about a post-Starling Marte right field.

While people are looking for the Mets to make big, splashy signings, it’s also a team that could use an extra bat or two in reserve. With questions at third and in left and right, it’s really hard from a roster standpoint to keep a platoon DH with no defensive value hanging around unless he absolutely crushes his side of the platoon (and Daniel Vogelbach really doesn’t). Eduardo Escobar was traded for good reasons, but he was handy to have around. The fixes to the offense might be low-key because of the need in the next section of this article. There aren’t any young phenoms really threatening to seize a roster spot from any of the offensive stragglers; the Mets have four offensive prospects in our Top 100 who are about a year away from making a real impact in the majors. The fifth, Ronny Mauricio, certainly has upside at second, but then the question becomes how much value McNeil really has as a corner outfielder.

Pitchers

There’s a lot of work to be done here. Kodai Senga is written in with permanent marker, and while ZiPS is very lukewarm — to be nice — about José Quintana, he’s certainly going to be in the rotation as well. After that, the Mets have a deep stable of just-a-guy types; the rotation is probably the biggest hurdle preventing the team from having a nice little bounce-back season. Not to pick on Mike Vasil, who I think will be a serviceable fourth/fifth starter for a while, but if Mike Vasil is this high in the projections, you’ve got some slots to fill. The Mets may have been relieved of the worry of Max Scherzer and Justin Verlander’s inevitable aging curve cliffs, but even if their time with the team didn’t go exactly to plan, without them, the rotation looks like a smoking crater. The good news is that while the free agent market has a real lack of impact bats, starting pitching is well-stocked, even before you consider the availability of Yoshinobu Yamamoto and Shōta Imanaga.

A healthy Edwin Díaz is a boon for the bullpen, though he’s not enough to single-armedly make this a plus unit. The relief corps is less of a smoking crater than the rotation, and ZiPS is more or less is cool with the rest of the group in Brooks Raley, Drew Smith, Trevor Gott, and Phil Bickford. ZiPS sees Josh Walker as a pretty decent swingman option, if a very low-ceiling one. Still, there’s room to improve. I don’t think the starters who fail to make the rotation next spring have electric enough stuff to be overly enthused about their bullpen chances, so the Mets will likely need to find an arm or two here. It doesn’t have to be a Díaz-like arm — good luck finding that — but a couple of mid-tier relievers might keep the wheels from coming off this apple cart.

Ballpark graphic courtesy Eephus League. Depth charts constructed by way of those listed here.

Players are listed with their most recent teams wherever possible. This includes players who are unsigned or have retired, players who will miss 2024 due to injury, and players who were released in 2023. So yes, if you see Joe Schmoe, who quit baseball back in August to form a Belgian Death Metal Skiffle Band that only plays songs by Franz Schubert, he’s still listed here intentionally. ZiPS is assuming a league with an ERA of 4.33.

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

As always, incorrect projections are either caused by flaws in the physical reality of the universe or by the skillful sabotage of our friend and former editor. You can, however, still get mad at me on Twitter.

Brooks Raley has been an effective reliever since returning to MLB in 2020 after five seasons as a starter with the KBO’s Lotte Giants. He’s been especially good for the past two. Taking the mound for the Tampa Bay Rays in 2021 and for the New York Mets this past season, the 35-year-old left-hander has logged a combined 2.74 ERA and a 3.21 FIP over 126 relief appearances. Moreover, he’s allowed just 81 hits and fanned 122 batters in 108.1 innings. Working primarily in a setup role, he’s been credited with a pair of wins and nine saves.

Raley is also a bona fide pitching nerd. That wasn’t the case when he got cups of coffee with the Chicago Cubs in 2012 and ’13, but then came a career-altering adoption of analytics when he was overseas. Looking to optimize his talents, the Texas A&M University product schooled himself on how his pitches played best, and what he could add, subtract or tweak in order to attack hitters more effectively. The result was a successful return to the big leagues, and not only has he put up a good FIP and a solid SIERA, but he also knows exactly what those acronyms mean.

Raley discussed his analytics-influenced evolution as a pitcher when the Mets visited Fenway Park this summer.

———

David Laurila: You played five years in Korea. What was that experience like?

Brooks Raley: “I loved it. I learned a lot. We’re talking analytics, and I went over there not very polished. I was a starter but didn’t have a changeup or a cutter, so I started watching YouTube videos of all the different shapes, spin rates, tilts, extension — all that stuff. For a little bit, I tried to throw like Chris Sale. I kind of leaned over and tried to create some different angles and see what kind of shapes I could get. I really got into that side of the sport. I found my cutter, found my arm slot, and then the sinker got better. My slider also got better. That all happened when I was in Korea. It’s how I got back [to MLB].”

Laurila: Why hadn’t you gotten into analytics and begun making changes prior to going to the KBO?

Raley: “I wouldn’t change anything about my career, but coming across analytics and what defines your strengths better… when I was coming through the minors, it was ‘sinkers down and away are safe’ and ‘ground balls over strikeouts.’ But I actually and naturally pitch better inside. That’s to both sides. To righties, I throw the cutter and the slider and have the changeup and sinker to keep them honest. To lefties, I’ve got the running sinker. It’s been inconsistent this year, I can’t really figure that out, but it’s been between 14 to 19 horizontal and probably anywhere from eight to two vertical. It’s kind of a unique pitch because it spins 2,400 [RPMs] or so. It’s got some life and late dart to it.

“I always struggled with changeups before I went over there, because I’d always try to throw the 10 miles an hour off [from the fastball]. Now I throw a Viulcan change, so I don’t really kill spin but I put it on the horizontal axis. I get around 19 and I’m either on the line or under the line. Basically, I found some unique shapes to really broaden my left and right, because I can throw a slider at 22 inches of horizontal and a changeup at 20 [in the opposite direction].” Read the rest of this entry »

When the Pittsburgh Pirates took Henry Davis first overall in 2021, they knew they were making a compromise. No matter what happened, even if he blew away everyone’s expectations, he was destined to only be the second-best hitter in big league history with the first name Henry and a last name that’s also a first name.

More than that, the Pirates took him knowing he probably wasn’t the best player in the draft. Davis received a signing bonus of just $6.5 million, only the fifth-highest number in the top six picks. Going way under slot allowed the Pirates to overpay for highly touted high schoolers with their next three picks, and I guess Bryan Bullington and Tony Sanchez no longer count as “in recent memory.”

Nevertheless, having the first pick is a rare gift, and you don’t want to blow it. Read the rest of this entry »

Once again, it’s time for me to fire up my computer and crank out the yearly team-by-team ZiPS projections. This is where I’d normally do my shtick, but we have a lot to get to, so imagine a quote from a 19th century personality, an allusion to a 13th century battle, and a 1980s pop culture reference, and then cram them all together for your own haute couture Szymborski pablum! We’ve got business to take care of, so no time for shenanigans.

ZiPS is a computer projection system I initially developed in 2002–04. It officially went live for the public in 2005, after it had reached a level of non-craptitude I was content with. The origin of ZiPS is similar to Tom Tango’s Marcel the Monkey, coming from discussions I had in the late 1990s with Chris Dial, one of my best friends (my first interaction with Chris involved me being called an expletive!) and a fellow stat nerd. ZiPS quickly evolved from its original iteration as a reasonably simple projection system, and now does a lot more and uses a lot more data than I ever envisioned it would 20 years ago. At its core, however, it’s still doing two primary tasks: estimating what the baseline expectation for a player is at the moment I hit the button, and then estimating where that player may be going using large cohorts of relatively similar players.

So why is ZiPS named ZiPS? At the time, Voros McCracken’s theories on the interaction of pitching, defense, and balls in play were fairly new, and since I wanted to integrate some of his findings, I wanted my system to rhyme with DIPS (defense-independent pitching statistics), with his blessing. I didn’t like SIPS, so I went with the next letter in my last name, Z. I originally named my work ZiPs as a nod to CHiPs, one of my favorite shows to watch as a kid. I mis-typed ZiPs as ZiPS when I released the projections publicly, and since my now-colleague Jay Jaffe had already reported on ZiPS for his Futility Infielder blog, I decided to just go with it. I never expected that all of this would be useful to anyone but me; if I had, I would have surely named it in less bizarre fashion.

ZiPS uses multi-year statistics, with more recent seasons weighted more heavily; in the beginning, all the statistics received the same yearly weighting, but eventually, this became more varied based on additional research. And research is a big part of ZiPS. Every year, I run hundreds of studies on various aspects of the system to determine their predictive value and better calibrate the player baselines. What started with the data available in 2002 has expanded considerably. Basic hit, velocity, and pitch data began playing a larger role starting in 2013, while data derived from StatCast has been included in recent years as I’ve gotten a handle on its predictive value and the impact of those numbers on existing models. I believe in cautious, conservative design, so data is only included once I have confidence in improved accuracy; there are always builds of ZiPS that are still a couple of years away. Additional internal ZiPS tools like zBABIP, zHR, zBB, and zSO are used to better establish baseline expectations for players. These stats work similarly to the various flavors of “x” stats, with the z standing for something I’d wager you’ve already guessed.

How does ZiPS project future production? First, using both recent playing data with adjustments for zStats, and other factors such as park, league, and quality of competition, ZiPS establishes a baseline estimate for every player being projected. To get an idea of where the player is going, the system compares that baseline to the baselines of all other players in its database, also calculated from whatever the best data available for the player is in the context of their time. The current ZiPS database consists of about 140,000 baselines for pitchers and about 170,000 for hitters. For hitters, outside of knowing the position played, this is offense only; how good a player is defensively doesn’t yield information on how a player will age at the plate.

Using a whole lot of stats, information on shape, and player characteristics, ZiPS then finds a large cohort that is most similar to the player. I use Mahalanobis distance extensively for this. A CompSci/Math student at Texas A&M did a wonderful job showing how I do this, though the variables used aren’t identical.

As an example, here are the top 50 near-age offensive comps for World Series MVP Corey Seager right now. The total cohort is much larger than this, but 50 ought to be enough to give you an idea:

Ideally, ZiPS would prefer players to be the same age and position, but since we have about 170,000 baselines, not 170 billion, ZiPS frequently has to settle for players nearly the same age and nearly the same position. The exact mix here was determined by extensive testing. The large group of similar players is then used to calculate an ensemble model on the fly for a player’s future career prospects, both good and bad.

One of the tenets of projections that I follow is that no matter what the projection says, that’s what the ZiPS projection is. Even if inserting my opinion would improve a specific projection, I’m philosophically opposed to doing so. ZiPS is most useful when people know that it’s purely data-based, not some unknown mix of data and my opinion. Over the years, I like to think I’ve taken a clever approach to turning more things into data — for example, ZiPS’ use of basic injury information — but some things just aren’t in the model. ZiPS doesn’t know if a pitcher wasn’t allowed to throw his slider coming back from injury, or if a left fielder suffered a family tragedy in July. I consider those sorts of things outside a projection system’s purview, even though they can affect on-field performance.

It’s also important to remember that the bottom-line projection is, in layman’s terms, only a midpoint. You don’t expect every player to hit that midpoint; 10% of players are “supposed” to fail to meet their 10th-percentile projection and 10% of players are supposed to pass their 90th-percentile forecast. This point can create a surprising amount of confusion. ZiPS gave .300 batting average projections to three players in 2021: Luis Arraez, DJ LeMahieu (yikes!), and Juan Soto. But that’s not the same thing as ZiPS thinking there would only be three .300 hitters. On average, ZiPS thought there would be 34 hitters with at least 100 plate appearances to eclipse .300, not three. In the end, there were 25; the league BA environment turned out to be five points lower than ZiPS expected, catching the projection system flat-footed.

Another crucial thing to bear in mind is that the basic ZiPS projections are not playing-time predictors, at least with players without firm possession of a full-time job in the majors. By design, ZiPS has no idea who will actually play in the majors in 2024. ZiPS is essentially projecting equivalent production; a batter with a .240 projection may “actually” have a .260 Triple-A projection or a .290 Double-A projection. But telling me how Julio Rodríguez would hit in a full-time role in the majors in 2022 was a far more interesting use of a projection system than it telling me that he would only play a partial season (in the end, quite obviously, he played a full year). For the depth charts that go live in every article, I use the FanGraphs Depth Charts to determine the playing time for individual players. Since we’re talking about team construction, I can’t leave ZiPS to its own devices for an application like this. It’s the same reason I use modified depth charts for team projections in-season. There’s a probabilistic element in the ZiPS depth charts: sometimes Joe Schmo will play a full season, sometimes he’ll miss playing time and Buck Schmuck has to step in. But the basic concept is very straightforward.

What’s new in 2024? Outside of the typical calibration updates, there’ll be an extra table in this year’s projections. Don’t worry, the 80/20 splits are returning, but I’m adding split projections into the team-by-team rundowns as well. Usually I create these for the benefit of companies using my projections for their baseball games and calculate it sometime in February. But this year, I successfully integrated that model into ZiPS and, after repairing all the things I broke doing so, platoon splits are now being spit out with the usual array of numbers.

Have any questions, suggestions, or concerns about ZiPS? I’ll try to reply to as many as I can reasonably address in the comments below. If the projections have been valuable to you now or in the past, I would also urge you to consider becoming a FanGraphs Member, should you have the ability to do so. It’s with your continued and much appreciated support that I have been able to keep so much of this work available to the public for so many years for free. Improving and maintaining ZiPS is a time-intensive endeavor and reader support has enabled me to have the flexibility to put an obscene number of hours into its development. It’s hard to believe that ZiPS is now 20 years old. Hopefully, the projections and the things we’ve learned about baseball have provided you with a return on your investment, or at least a small measure of entertainment, whether you’re delighted or enraged.

Ben Lindbergh and Meg Rowley banter about a low-suspense awards week, the vastly varying paths to being a major league manager, the latest sign of the Angels player-development apocalypse, Brian Cashman on Giancarlo Stanton, the death of Padres owner Peter Seidler, Michael Jordan’s baseball career on For All Mankind, how much holding runners matters, and how to judge how many championships a franchise “should” have won, then Stat Blast (1:08:56) about postseason baserunning, scoring first in October, winning rings without playing a lot, and players who lost a lot of WAR, plus a PSA (1:31:02) about EW Secret Santa.

Audio intro: Daniel Leckie, “Effectively Wild Theme”
Audio outro: Nate Emerson, “Effectively Wild Theme”

Link to Posnanski on unanimous awards
Link to Meg’s preseason predictions
Link to “Imperial phase” wiki
Link to Sheehan on managers
Link to story on college-coach managers
Link to Blum on Percival
Link to Cashman’s comments
Link to Stanton’s agent’s response
Link to NYT Seidler obit
Link to FAM Jordan image
Link to Petriello on running prevention
Link to the EW wiki on Lester
Link to running prevention leaderboards
Link to BP piece on championships
Link to Topps Now
Link to Rob Mains on October baserunning
Link to Rob on comebacks
Link to “scoring first” sheet
Link to Ryan Nelson’s Twitter
Link to low-playing-time-rings sheet
Link to Bellinger on EW
Link to Gore on EW
Link to “lost WAR” sheet
Link to FG on Doumit’s framing
Link to Secret Santa sign-up sheet

 Sponsor Us on Patreon
 Facebook Group
 Twitter Account
 EW Subreddit
 Effectively Wild Wiki
 iTunes Feed (Please rate and review us!)
 Get Our Merch!
 Email Us: podcast@fangraphs.com

Podcast (effectively-wild): Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS

Earlier today, the Philadelphia Phillies and Milwaukee Brewers made a swap ahead of this year’s 40-man roster deadline, the last day teams have to either add eligible minor league players to their 40-man roster or expose them to December’s Rule 5 Draft. In this trade, the Brewers acquired 26-year-old second baseman Oliver Dunn and added him to their 40-man roster, while the Phillies received two prospects in return, 21-year-old infielder Robert Moore and 20-year-old outfielder Hendry Mendez.

Let’s start with Milwaukee’s end of this, as we’re most likely to see 2024 big league impact from Dunn, who is coming off an Arizona Fall League stint in which he won the league’s Breakout Prospect award. Dunn, whose brother Ross is in the Twins system, was a Yankees 2019 11th round pick out of Utah. He hit .196 coming out of the lost 2020 season, and spent a significant portion of both 2021 and 2022 on the IL dealing with multiple injuries, including a fractured jaw, an abdomen strain, and a hamstring strain.

The Phillies drafted him in the minor league phase of the 2022 Rule 5 Draft and Dunn had a huge power breakout in 2023 at Double-A Reading, where he hit .271/.396/.506 and slugged 21 homers, more than he had hit throughout his entire career entering 2023. Reading is a hitter’s haven and Dunn was in his age-25 season, so there are good reasons to be skeptical of his sudden change in output, but his underlying power metrics also took a leap, with his average and peak exit velocities (92 mph and 112 mph, respectively) cresting above the big league average. This isn’t gigantic, impact power, but it’s meaningful pop for a second baseman. Dunn swings and misses quite a bit, especially within the strike zone (you can see him struggling with velo up and away from him, a Fall League theme for Dunn, in the video below), but he’s a dangerous all-fields hitter because of his power and ability to catch some fastballs deep in the hitting zone and punish them the other way. Read the rest of this entry »

This post is part of a series covering the 2024 Contemporary Baseball Era Committee Managers/Executives/Umpires ballot, covering candidates in those categories who made their greatest impact from 1980 to the present. For an introduction to the ballot, see here. The eight candidates will be voted upon at the Winter Meetings in Nashville on December 3, and anyone receiving at least 75% of the vote from the 16 committee members will be inducted in Cooperstown on July 21, 2024 along with any candidates elected by the BBWAA.

Hank Peters

In a career that spanned over four decades, from 1946 to ’91, Hank Peters helped lay the groundwork for two powerhouses: the mid-1970s A’s as an executive with their Kansas City forerunners, and the mid-1990s Cleveland squad as the team’s president and general manager from ’87-91. In between those stints, he served as the general manager of the Orioles from 1975 to ’87, navigating the dawn of free agency and making key trades that helped the team win at least 90 games six times, highlighted by a pennant in ’79 and a championship in ’83.

Peters wasn’t particularly colorful, but he was meticulous without being overbearing, with a keen eye for talent. From his Washington Post obituary in 2015: “Patient and unflappable, Mr. Peters did most of his work away from the public spotlight. The Baltimore Sun once likened his laid-back persona to that of a ‘rubber tree plant in an insurance office.'” Within the aforementioned Sun column, from 1985, his admirers found him to be “a rock,” “a great organizer, a great detail man,” and “the consummate baseball man.”

Peters is the only general manager among the eight candidates on this ballot, though Lou Piniella served in that role briefly with the Yankees. He’s one of only two executives on the ballot, along with former National League president Bill White, whose credentials also include stardom as a player and a stretch as a pioneering broadcaster. Read the rest of this entry »

Here at FanGraphs, Ben Clemens ranked Kyle Gibson 25th on our Top 50 Free Agents list, 12th-highest among starting pitchers. I can’t imagine that produced much controversy, and a quick search of the comments section and Ben’s Top 50 Free Agents chat suggests the same.

Of all the other major baseball publications’ top free agent lists, though, none had Gibson ranked as highly. Sports Illustrated was the only other site to feature the veteran righty on its official top 50, ranking him 18th among starters and 33rd overall. To be fair, Jordan Shusterman of Fox Sports had Gibson 22nd on his list of the top 30 starting pitchers, though he left him off the overall Fox Sports top 30. Similarly, The Athletic only included 40 players on its staff consensus list, but Gibson likely would have landed somewhere between 41–50 had they continued on; Jim Bowden and Keith Law each included him as the final starter on their personal rankings.

Moreover, as I’m sure Ben would tell you, the precise ranking for each player isn’t always significant, especially the further you move down the list. I’d argue that the difference between the players ranked one and two on our list is bigger than those ranked 25–50. Following that logic, there isn’t necessarily a meaningful difference between ranking Gibson 25th and leaving him off entirely. Read the rest of this entry »