Article: What Jumps Out from the 2024 Cubs ZiPS Projections?

[matto1233]

With spring training coming into sight on the horizon of this winter, it's projection season, baby. Let's look into one system's take on the Cubs.

Image courtesy of © David Banks-USA TODAY Sports

A couple of weeks ago, ZiPS projections officially went live for your 2024 Chicago Cubs. For the uninitiated, ZiPS projections are a way of projecting a player’s future performance by utilizing recent adjusted stats, to compare them to a past player of a similar age and position, created by Dan Szymborski. For more information, you can read the 2024 introduction here. Note that ZiPS is simply a baseline for a player. Plenty of players will significantly outperform a projection, and plenty of players will dramatically underperform them. What ZiPS provides is the most realistic performance for a player.

You can also check out the Cubs projections here. Let’s take a look at what these projections might be telling us for the upcoming season, and for the rest of the offseason, for the North Siders. 

Dansby Swanson and Nico Hoerner are legitimate cornerstones in the middle of the infield. 
ZiPS projects the Cubs’ middle infield to combine for 8 WAR, with Swanson contributing 4.1 of that and Hoerner chipping in 3.9. A lot of that value comes from the defensive side of the ball, which is typically much more difficult to project. Hoerner is projected for just a 98 OPS+, and Swanson comes in at 104, but regardless, the Cubs should feel comfortable at these two positions for the coming season, and (given the contract status of each player) several more after that.

Are we 100% certain the Cubs need to re-sign Cody Bellinger?
Ok, I am not really going to argue that the Cubs shouldn’t be re-signing Cody Bellinger. I am all for them spending money on improving the team, and Bellinger would do that, hands down. What I am saying, though, is that Bellinger is projected for 2.7 WAR, a 108 OPS+, and just 19 home runs in 544 plate appearances. Pete Crow-Armstrong is projected for an 88 OPS+, but because of the defensive value, comes in at 1.7 WAR in 531 plate appearances.

With the recent acquisition of Michael Busch to play some first base, I think it’s safe to say that Crow-Armstrong won’t be getting 531 plate appearances if Bellinger comes back. If the Cubs only have a certain amount of money left to spend, Matt Chapman figures to cost less money; wouldn’t block one of the Cubs top prospects from getting playing time; and has not produced less than Bellinger’s projected 2.7 WAR since his rookie season in 2017. ZiPS sees the free agent third-baseman producing 3.6 WAR, 25 home runs and a 117 OPS+.

Look, Chapman is not without his warts. He is older than Bellinger and had a rough close to his 2023 season. But his batted-ball data was better than Bellinger’s, and ZiPS seems to support that he might be a better investment. Just a little food for thought.

Busch deserves an everyday job, and should contribute right away.
ZiPs is plenty bullish on the Cubs’ newest top-100 prospect. The projection system thinks Busch will be the fifth-most valuable position player on the team, with 2.5 WAR and a 111 OPS+. I think that if the Cubs could lock that type of production in now from a rookie, they absolutely would.

ZiPS loves the Shota Imanaga signing.
On the other side of the runs ledger, the newest member of the Cubs' rotation is projected to strike out 25.6 percent of opposing batters, pitch to the tune of a 117 ERA+, and add 2.9 WAR over 137 innings pitched. Friendly reminder: one WAR on the open market is typically valued at roughly $9-10 million. Getting almost three WAR out of someone who will earn $10 million this year would be an absolute steal for the Cubs.

Justin Steele is projected to take a step back - but that’s ok.
The Cubs’ ace has a projection of 2.9 WAR and a 114 ERA+, one season after contributing 4.9 WAR and a 146 ERA+. The innings are definitely a factor here, as ZiPS is projecting Steele’s WAR in 153 ⅓ innings, rather than the 173 ⅓ that he threw in 2023.

As Szymborski notes, however, ZiPS typically deflates projections for pitchers. For reference, 2023 American League Cy Young Award winner Gerrit Cole is projected for 3.8 WAR, down from 5.2 last year. Also, both Steele and Imanaga are right outside of the top 10 in WAR for National League pitchers, where Steele finished fourth last season. The Cubs absolutely have a solid 1-2 punch in their rotation.

Some reliability in the bullpen would be nice.
Outside of Albert Alzolay, Julian Merryweather, and Luke Little(!), no other relief pitcher projects to have an average or better ERA+. And while Little’s projection has me excited, forgive me if I don’t want to rely on a rookie with 6 ⅔ major-league innings to his name. The group projects for 2.9 WAR as a whole, which is fourth in the NL Central, ahead of only the Cincinnati Reds. Alzolay alone projects to provide almost half of that WAR, at 1.2. Fortifying the bullpen with some reliable arms before the season starts is a must. 

What has you most excited from these projections? What has you most concerned? Does it color your opinions on what the team should do next? Discuss in the comments, while we wait to see what the team does to augment their projected win total.

View full article

[Maddux31]

There are more reasons not to sign Bellinger than there are reasons to sign him, including the projections and him blocking Busch and PCA, as was mentioned here. But the majority of the fan base almost seems to be demanding it.

Are these just casual fans who don’t dig into the numbers? I laugh every time I read where someone has said, “I’m not an analytics guy.” What does that even mean? And if someone says they don’t “trust” analytics, what is the reason they think giving a huge contract to Bellinger would be a good move for the Cubs going forward. Gut instinct?

I think some fans simply don’t understand the purpose of the data. It’s an oversimplification, but all these numbers are telling us is what the likely outcomes are based on past performance. Nothing more, nothing less. It is designed to take subjectivity out of the equation.

[CubinNY]

10 hours ago, Maddux31 said:

Nothing more, nothing less. It is designed to take subjectivity out of the equation.

Devil's advocate: Analytical data also do not come straight from God. So you should not think they are accurate to the degree you seem to be proposing. Additionally, everything is relative. Lastly, context needs to be taken into account. 

Edited January 24, 2024 by CubinNY

[squally1313]

 

2 hours ago, CubinNY said:

Devil's advocate: Analytical data also do not come straight from God. So you should not think they are accurate to the degree you seem to be proposing. Additionally, everything is relative. Lastly, context needs to be taken into account. 

 

20 minutes ago, TomtheBombadil said:

The Future - which tbf isn’t so different from present - includes a powerless, punchless gen pop not owning anything, water (along with everything else) being privatized, and all brainwashed into blaming themselves for being entitled and not hustle grindy perfect the best enough. 

Certainly two normal responses to a prompt asking our takeaways from the Zips projections

[CubinNY]

9 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

 

 

Certainly two normal responses to a prompt asking our takeaways from the Zips projections

lol, you are horsefeathers troll. I was responding to the dude who thinks we've cracked the code. 

Data are data. The information upon which a decision is made is interpreted and not free of subjective determinations based on "gut" feeling. For example, saying Bellinger is a 120 OPS player and PCA is an 88 OPS player is not based in reality either, because it's projection. Is it better than a cold guess? Sure. How much? we don't know.

The thing about ZIPS is that in aggregate, the information on  team performance is pretty good. The prediction of individual performance is not that good, but over and underestimations are normalized acrosss the individuals, for the most part. 

Edited January 24, 2024 by CubinNY

[squally1313]

6 minutes ago, CubinNY said:

lol, you are horsefeathers troll. I was responding to the dude who thinks we've cracked the code. 

Data are data. The information upon which a decision is made is interpreted and not free of subjective determinations based on "gut" feeling. For example, saying Bellinger is a 120 OPS player and PCA is an 88 OPS player is not based in reality either, because it's projection. Is it better than a cold guess? Sure. How much? we don't know.

No one is arguing against anything you're saying, and everyone understands the limitations of a website that tries to predict the results of 600 PAs for 75 players over the next 8 months. Of course it's not going to be super accurate. But do I think the guy who does this for his full time job, and has been refining ZIPs for like 15 years now, probably has a better system of projecting players than anyone here, even the group who 'really watch a lot of baseball' and 'have been following baseball for years'? Yes, of course I do. It's a baseline based on a lot more than gut feelings or selection bias or potentially worse ways of judging players that we can use to compare players and make observations about the team/baseball in general. I would think discussions here about who sign/start/etc would be better off using some sort of metrics, even if they are predictive metrics, vs just going 'well data is actually kinda worthless when you really think about it, so who do you guys just innately like more?'. But that's just me

[CubinNY]

3 minutes ago, squally1313 said:

No one is arguing against anything you're saying, and everyone understands the limitations of a website that tries to predict the results of 600 PAs for 75 players over the next 8 months. Of course it's not going to be super accurate. But do I think the guy who does this for his full time job, and has been refining ZIPs for like 15 years now, probably has a better system of projecting players than anyone here, even the group who 'really watch a lot of baseball' and 'have been following baseball for years'? Yes, of course I do. It's a baseline based on a lot more than gut feelings or selection bias or potentially worse ways of judging players that we can use to compare players and make observations about the team/baseball in general. I would think discussions here about who sign/start/etc would be better off using some sort of metrics, even if they are predictive metrics, vs just going 'well data is actually kinda worthless when you really think about it, so who do you guys just innately like more?'. But that's just me

You are making a false argument. No one said data is actually kinda worthless. But that's just me.

I think most people agree the best predictor of future performance is past performance. Data help people to quantify what that means. However, there is error in measurement, so one has to use reasoning skills in their interpretation. The debate on Bellinger for example is that he's losing power. This may be true, but he's also changed his approach. Some people look at the changed approach and think that is important, others don't. Still other note that CF/1st isn't a position of need or that the Cubs have minor leaguers who could play those positions and it's not worth the dollars to sign him. In all those cases there is interpretations being made. That's why I said everything is relative and context is important. That for some reason you thought was worthy of ridicule. 

[squally1313]

1 minute ago, CubinNY said:

You are making a false argument. No one said data is actually kinda worthless. But that's just me.

I think most people agree the best predictor of future performance is past performance. Data help people to quantify what that means. However, there is error in measurement, so one has to use reasoning skills in their interpretation. The debate on Bellinger for example is that he's losing power. This may be true, but he's also changed his approach. Some people look at the changed approach and think that is important, others don't. Still other note that CF/1st isn't a position of need or that the Cubs have minor leaguers who could play those positions and it's not worth the dollars to sign him. In all those cases there is interpretations being made. That's why I said everything is relative and context is important. That for some reason you thought was worthy of ridicule. 

You came into a thread based on matto writing an article doing a deep dive on zips projections, asking for people's takeaways. You quoted a single sentence from maddux, leaving out literally the sentence before:

14 hours ago, Maddux31 said:

It’s an oversimplification, but all these numbers are telling us is what the likely outcomes are based on past performance.

and your response is, quoting verbatim: Analytical data also do not come straight from God. He never said that it did? He literally, the sentence before, said it was an oversimplification. You mention how everything is relative, and how you need to consider context, like somehow Zips, which compares baseball players to other baseball players, doesn't do any of that. I would quote the relevant parts of this article (https://blogs.fangraphs.com/here-come-the-2024-zips-projections/) but he goes into too much detail of all the things he considers. 

It's a conversation about people's opinions on the ZIPs projections. Not the concept of statistics in general. But I'm the troll.