Cubs 2024 ZiPS Projections

[Bertz]

Not a ton of surprises, but a few things that stood out for me personally:

- ZiPS sees the Cubs as presently constructed finishing in the mid 80's for wins

- Justin Steele are a formidable 1-2, but ZiPS does not like Taillon or Hendricks.  Hendricks surprises me a bit because ZiPS usually picks up on FIP-beating prowess

- Alzolay has a pretty disappointing projection, but that's because the computer has him starting some games.  He gets a 3.00 ERA projection as a pure reliever.  Ben Brown gets a 3.20 as a pure reliever

- Nick Madrigal projects to 1.8 WAR in only 350 PAs.  That's a 3 win pace.  It loooooves his defense

- ZiPS is as skeptical as many about Cody Bellinger, projecting just 2.7 WAR and a 108 OPS+

- ZiPS doesn't love any of the offensive prospects to make much impact beyond PCA.  However this stuck out

Quote

The computer likes Kevin Alcántara over the long haul, projecting a 25-WAR career, but it doesn’t see him breaking through and earning much of that in 2024.

 

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Since the Cubs are the last NL Central team to get the ZiPS treatment, here's a crude look of how it forecasts them by summing up the depth chart values:

• Cardinals: 40.7 WAR
• Cubs: 38.9
• Brewers: 35 
• Reds: 32.5 
• Pirates: 30.8

 

Those aren't entirely up to date since the Cardinals added Kittredge, the Reds added a reliever, etc, but I don't believe anyone else in the division has made a move since their ZiPS day that would meaningfully change the top line number or order of the teams as it stands today.

[We Got The Whole 9]

The Brewers projection made me crack up. It was dismal AF, and if they trade Adames or Burnes LOLOLOL

[KCCub]

Michael Busch - 2.5 WAR Zips Projection

Seiya Suzuki - 2.4 WAR Zips Projection

Put me on the skeptical side that Busch will be more valuable than Suzuki year 1. 

 

[JBears79]

19 minutes ago, KCCub said:

Michael Busch - 2.5 WAR Zips Projection

Seiya Suzuki - 2.4 WAR Zips Projection

Put me on the skeptical side that Busch will be more valuable than Suzuki year 1. 

 

Yeah I am skeptical on that too. I think Busch will hit but I think were looking at a small adjustment period before he really takes off.

[chopsx9]

- ZiPS is as skeptical as many about Cody Bellinger, projecting just 2.7 WAR and a 108 OPS+

 

Is there somewhere I can put money on the Over for this?

[chopsx9]

1 hour ago, KCCub said:

Michael Busch - 2.5 WAR Zips Projection

Seiya Suzuki - 2.4 WAR Zips Projection

Put me on the skeptical side that Busch will be more valuable than Suzuki year 1. 

 

It's almost like they're just making up the numbers.

[Tryptamine]

If Imanaga puts up 3.2 war, then that was a grand slam of a contract.

[Rob]

FWIW, ZiPS projections may be twenty years old now, but the underlying projection system is continually receiving tweaks. He started folding in Statcast data a few years back. So to head off any arguments at the pass -- yes, these projections are incorporating advanced analytics like exit velocity, launch angle, spin rates, etc...

[Stratos]

Can't argue with most of those projections.  Suzuki/Happ are hopefully a bit low

[sneakypower]

27 minutes ago, Rob said:

FWIW, ZiPS projections may be twenty years old now, but the underlying projection system is continually receiving tweaks. He started folding in Statcast data a few years back. So to head off any arguments at the pass -- yes, these projections are incorporating advanced analytics like exit velocity, launch angle, spin rates, etc...

it's so lucky for us that Szymborski seems pretty averse to the idea of working for an MLB organization

[squally1313]

And here I was told we needed to sign like 10 WAR worth of players just to get back to where we were last year. Turns out we have like $50m to spend and are about 1 player away from being division favorites. Oh well, hopefully Jed wakes up from his hibernation soon!

[Rob]

51 minutes ago, sneakypower said:

it's so lucky for us that Szymborski seems pretty averse to the idea of working for an MLB organization

He'd have to stop being weird on the internet. I just don't think he's capable of that.

[Stratos]

3 hours ago, TomtheBombadil said:

I just noticed and appreciated Michael Busch's .248/.333/.446/.337/111/2.5 fWAR projection off of that monster MiLB season and a good prospect career. 80% .279/.356/.504/130/3.8 fWAR

Is it so much to ask the universe that this guy is basically Jason Giambi 2.0 during his time with the Cubs? He can do the steroids if that's all it takes, they're probably way better now.

They project 0.1 defensive runs for him.  Not sure how that happens if he plays 1B and maybe some DH, it will very likely be in the negative even if he plays it fairly well so more like 2.0 WAR, but even that is high for a rookie 1B.  The other projection outlets say around -6 defensive runs and 1.0 WAR  Let's hope he has a good year.  Mervis is a decent backup option.  Better than Hosmer was haha.

[G0CUB5G0]

ZiPS is no more reliable than a 15 day weather forecast.  We like both when favorable.  

[Jason Ross]

20 minutes ago, G0CUB5G0 said:

ZiPS is no more reliable than a 15 day weather forecast.  We like both when favorable.  

First off, welcome to the boards!

in terms of ZiPS, I don't really agree with that. I think prediction systems, in general, get a bad wrap because people misuse them. They're not iron clad guarantees, but a way of taking input data, in this case, past performance, batted ball data, age-regression curves, and then outputting a likely, and, realistic, possibility. Whether or not it's favorable for the Cubs, the output is unbiased and just...information. Where people become disappointed with ZiPS is when ZiPS is off, but again, I think it's user error more than ZiPS being erroneous...it's that people sometimes can't recognize that ZiPS can't predict wild change, batted ball variance, improvement, injury, etc. 

I'm a fan of looking at things like ZiPS because it gives you a realistic idea of where players and your team sits. It's just important to also recognize the general recipe as well, and how things can change based on ingredients.

[G0CUB5G0]

Hello, 

That's kinda my point.   Too many variables.  I'm not trying to hate on the people who put these projections out each year.  I just don't see putting out projections before rosters are set for opening day.   Maybe it's to give us fans something to talk about in January.    Anyway Cards Suck... 

[Jason Ross]

6 minutes ago, G0CUB5G0 said:

Hello, 

That's kinda my point.   Too many variables.  I'm not trying to hate on the people who put these projections out each year.  I just don't see putting out projections before rosters are set for opening day.   Maybe it's to give us fans something to talk about in January.    Anyway Cards Suck... 

Content schedule, I'm sure. 30 teams, want to draw it out a bit. Plus, most teams are generally settled most offseasons. We're in a bit of a weird one right now. With that said, even with a few teams likely to add a 3 or so win player here or there, 99% of players projections are ready to rock and roll. So I don't blame them.

[Jason Ross]

Just now, username said:

Is there a place to quickly see prior year's preseason projections versus actuals?  It'd be interesting to see how these projections compared to actual results.  

Fangraphs usually runs a "Looking back at..." article from Dan Szymborski himself. Dan's the bomb, and he's always willing to be really introspective at the projection. I really enjoy his twitter if you don't follow. He'll jump around from really cool baseball analysis, to mocking the Rockies, to some weird AI generated image. Worthy follow. 

Here's Dan's 2022 retrospective.  

[squally1313]

13 minutes ago, username said:

Thanks for the link.  This has the team results, do you know if there's a player focused one?  Like, if I wanted to see what they projected for each member of the opening day 2023 Cubs and have a side by side of what each of those players wound up doing?

What jumped out at me about the link you shared was that the projections were 8 or more wins wrong (in either direction) for half the teams in the league.  I don't know what a good measure of success is, so admittedly I could be way off, but... that feels a pretty inaccurate system, no?  

Compared to what? That link had Zips going 17-13 against the Vegas over/under lines, and said historically the average is 19-11. Further down he says the average error on OPS+ is 16 points, and ERA+ is 20. Which, to your point, is a pretty big swing. But....what else do we have to go on?

I think compared to most, if not all projection systems, from gut feelings through deep statistical analyses, ZIPs is superior. If we just toss out all prediction models in general, what do we really have to use as support in these conversations? I think even the biggest ZIPS people here acknowledge the limitations. But, as one of those people, I think it's more fun to figure out the 'math' , for lack of a better term, of putting the best team together vs like, comparing personal biases about players. 

[Stratos]

1 hour ago, username said:

Thanks for the link.  This has the team results, do you know if there's a player focused one?  Like, if I wanted to see what they projected for each member of the opening day 2023 Cubs and have a side by side of what each of those players wound up doing?

What jumped out at me about the link you shared was that the projections were 8 or more wins wrong (in either direction) for half the teams in the league.  I don't know what a good measure of success is, so admittedly I could be way off, but... that feels a pretty inaccurate system, no?  

The projections try to determine the most likely outcome.  Like if you ran the season 100 times the average outcomes would probably resemble their projections.   And yes there's some variables the projections might miss.  There's always going to be variability like good luck and bad luck, injuries, unexpected breakout seasons and long hot or cold streaks etc. 

A GM can't predict these things, they can only base their decisions on what's most likely to occur then let the chips fall where they may

[CubinNY]

It's best to think of them not as accurate or even likely but in the ballpark. The problem (if you can call it that) is that people like us and even actually some of us treat them like gospel, which they are not. From a rough perspective, they present a reasonable approximation of what could happen, but no one is going to get rich using them to bet on a player-by-player basis.

[squally1313]

3 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

It's best to think of them not as accurate or even likely but in the ballpark. The problem (if you can call it that) is that people like us and even actually some of us treat them like gospel, which they are not. From a rough perspective, they present a reasonable approximation of what could happen, but no one is going to get rich using them to bet on a player-by-player basis.

No one treats them like gospel. They're a third party, unbiased projection that people, in my opinion, should prefer over gut instincts or biased/selective memory because on a large scale they will prove closer to being accurate than anything we have.