What Jumps Out from the 2024 Cubs ZiPS Projections?

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.

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. 

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

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. 

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

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. 

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.