A 286/336/460 for <strike>Ruben</strike>Juan Rivera seems high, but reasonable. What would Konerko project to in this park?

268/360/463

Cool. I sure hope we pay an extra $13M-ish per year to get that extra 25 points of OBP this year.

4 things.

1. Hopefully the Jeff Mathis fans realize how much he would flat out suck starting full time. We're talking about a guy who might not break a 650 OPS.
2. Orlando Cabrera is worthless.
3. This is the sorriest group of hitters I've ever seen. LAA is going nowhere next year. In fact, they shouldn't have gone anywhere this year.
4. Shields isn't going to start OMG ZIPS is stupid!

enjoy three more years of the oc, halos fans... man, finley is done.

A 286/336/460 for RubenJuan Rivera seems high, but reasonable. What would Konerko project to in this park?

his career mark is .283/.331/.452 so why do the Zips projections seem high?

Juan Rivera, for whatever reason, is a player who always seems to be perceived as being worse than he actually is. I'm not saying he's great or anything- but my guess is that if you asked 20 people to give his avg/obp/slg (without looking it up) the average response would look like .260/.315/.400.

Part of teh reason could be the reverse LoDuca thing he has going on:
Career pre ASB: .246 .291 .401 .692
Career post ASB: .313 .363 .493 .856

He's always hit well enough to be a regular when he starts- when he sits a lot, gets platooned or PHs his bat turns off. He's had this pattern every single year- yet people keep insisting he can't start he has to be a sub/4th OF.

1. Mathis is no worse than Bengie was in 2002. That didn't stop the team from winning. He'll be better over the next 4 years than Molina will.

2. Yes he is. Hopefully he's traded after 2006 to make room for Wood or Aybar.

yet people keep insisting he can't start he has to be a sub/4th OF.

Its not like the Angels don't think he can start, they just have too little space. They don't think he's a CF. If Anderson went down I don't think they'd have any objections to him playing every day in left.

He's always hit well enough to be a regular when he starts- when he sits a lot, gets platooned or PHs his bat turns off. He's had this pattern every single year- yet people keep insisting he can't start he has to be a sub/4th OF.

The numbers don't tell you everything. As I'm sure you know, he's got a history of causing real problems in the clubhouse.

A 286/336/460 for RubenJuan Rivera seems high, but reasonable. What would Konerko project to in this park?

his career mark is .283/.331/.452 so why do the Zips projections seem high?

I meant that it seemed like the high end of his projection, not that it seemed wrong; I can see him doing it, but I think that's about as good as he gets.

I actually like Rivera quite a bit, and I wish he were our starting LF this year.

This is the sorriest group of hitters I've ever seen. LAA is going nowhere next year. In fact, they shouldn't have gone anywhere this year.

Well, there is that dirt hill in the middle of the infield, and the things that happen there are usually pretty important.

As I'm sure you know, he's got a history of causing real problems in the clubhouse.

Does refusing to accept Mr. K's "apology" count as such an incident?

if these pitching projections are even somewhat close to how they actually perform next year then the Angels are in a world of trouble.

I've been tinkering with a projection system, but I think I'm just gonna scratch it and trust ZiPS.

Player       Me           ZiPS
Erstad   273/324/371  274/325/368
Figgins  289/349/397  297/355/404
Vlad     322/397/573  327/400/571
Kennedy  283/352/388  286/353/388

Or maybe the Angels just have really predictable hitters.

How reasonable is that projection for Kotchman? I'd been hoping he would be better than that.

if these pitching projections are even somewhat close to how they actually perform next year then the Angels are in a world of trouble.

Pitcher   ER,2005   IP,2005   ER,ZiPS2006   IP,ZiPS2006
Colon        86      222.7        103           219.0
Escobar      20       59.7         73           168.0
Lackey       80      209.0         94           206.0
Byrd         85      204.3         79           177.0
Santana      69      133.7         81           172.0
Washburn     66      177.3         --           -----
TOTAL       406     1006.7        430           942.0
ERA:                 3.63                       4.11

I don't know ... even if they scored the same amount of runs in 2006, they would only drop about 8 games in their Pythagorean projection (from 93 wins to 85).

A lot will depend on what they do with the offense.

The Ervin Santana projection looks pretty nice. I was thinking he still was an injury risk to a greater extent than that projection indicates.

Izturis projects to be better at the plate than Cabrera.

Yes, Rivera can play. He only played 4 games in CF in 2005, so they don't seem to believe (probably correctly) that he can cover the position even when they didn't have very good alternatives.

Finley, Kennedy, Donnelly and Shell for Manny

Stick with Y's, halofan.

Finley, Kennedy, Donnelly, Hensley and Moseley for Manny.

Well, there is that dirt hill in the middle of the infield, and the things that happen there are usually pretty important.

Their pitching is good, no doubt, but they overperformed. Their EQR allowed last year was 680. They gave up 640 runs. As far as I can tell, they're worse than Oakland and not appreciably better than Texas. We'll see what happens.

Just going off the ZiPS projections, adjusting for playing time, it looks like the Angels would be about 15 runs better offensively in 2006, which would get them back up to 87 pythagorean wins, using the same pitching estimates made above. The bullpen is a whole other story.

I do suspect they are likely to regress, but a lot of that can likley be abated by playing an optimal lineup (i.e. Erstad in CF or on the bench), not that optimal is likely to happen ...

Of course, even that estimate is based on me erasing Steve Finley from existence ...

Angels purchased the contracts of SS Erick Aybar, 2B Howie Kendrick, C Mike Napoli, OF Nick Gorneault, OF Tommy Murphy, OF Reggie Willits and RHP Jose Arredondo.

The Angels left Napoli available a year ago and no one took him. Now that he's another year closer to helping as a reserve, it was smart to keep him. Rafael Rodriguez wasn't protected and could be stashed away by another team, even though he's probably a couple of years away. Reliever Bob Zimmermann is another candidate to be taken in the Rule 5 draft. Nov. 18 - 6:15 pm et



Angels sent RHP Dustin Moseley outright to Triple-A Salt Lake.
Moseley, acquired from the Reds for Ramon Ortiz a year ago, battled arm problems and went 4-6 with a 5.03 ERA in 17 starts for Salt Lake. It still might have been a good idea for some club to claim him off waivers. He's a potential fourth or fifth starter, and if he's healthy, he's not far away from being ready. Nov. 18 - 6:08 pm et



Angels waived RHP Matt Hensley.
Hensley got to collect a major league salary while spending the entire year on the DL rehabbing from surgery to repair a torn labrum. He'll probably compete for a job in another team's bullpen next spring. Nov. 18 - 6:06 pm et

Chone Figgins will have the same OBP and SLG til he retires.

Brewers claimed shortstop Zach Sorensen off waivers from the Angels.
He's no Derrick Turnbow. Sorensen, who turns 29 in January, hit .303/.372/.383 in 287 AB for Triple-A Salt Lake last season. He'd be a pretty weak option as a utilityman. Nov. 18 - 6:59 pm et

That analysis includes Washburn, who won't be back, and Byrd, who quite possibly won't be. It would be very difficult for the Angels rotation to be nearly a good next year as it was this year.

Computer predictions are Boring, not to mentione Dumb. For example, Lackey will be way better than that--the dude came into his own last year and was lights out after April. Why would he regress at his age? Kotchman should also be much better than that--I don't see why he shouldn't hit at least .290/.340/.450, and that is pretty conservative.

The Angels's hitting should be better next year with full(er) seasons from Rivera, McPherson and Kotchman, perhaps Morales stepping in (who should also out-hit that prediction). Figgins, Kennedy, and Vlad should be about the same. Garret Anderson and Orlando Cabrera might hit a bit better, at the least shouldn't be any worse than last year. Erstad and Finley...well, let's hope they're shipped. Only Molina for Mathis should be a downgrade offensively, and maybe not as bad as people think.

I know, I wrote "mentione" just before Dumb. Human error.

p.s. Molina for Mathis is the classic "step back next year, then step forward the year after," sorta like the Athletics did with their pitching staff, and barely at that. Despite getting bagged on for not being as good a prospect as he was a couple years ago, Mathis should still be a good player over the next 10+ years. Let's not forget that he's pretty young, and I think has a good chance to fill out as a hitter over the next five years.

That analysis includes Washburn, who won't be back, and Byrd, who quite possibly won't be. It would be very difficult for the Angels rotation to be nearly a good next year as it was this year.

Well, my analysis didn't have Washburn for 2006. It did for The Wyrd, who I believe the Angels will re-sign.

I agree with the second part; while the rotation should still be good, it is unreasonable to expect them to be as good as last year.

Mathis is no potential superstar, he's certainly not as good as the other JM catcher from the 2001 draft who also has an infielder older brother named Jake.

I think he'll turn out to be something like Mike Leiberthal or Ramon Hernandez, which once he hits his prime is a step up from Molina.

I've got a projection system too. On the whole the numbers are very close to ZIPS. My numbers are a little lower across the board, the biggest difference is Vlad, who I have at .308/.387/.539 where ZIPS has a .971 OPS. Perhaps I'm using too much regression, which would make me miss the very best hitters more than the average ones.

I don't think my system tells me anything that I can't get from downloading ZIPS. So why do I bother doing it? Because its fun.

A team has offered Byrd a three-year deal, though, which I don't think the Angels are interested in doing (though I don't know how they'll replace him if they don't sign him.) I wonder who it was? Probably Kansas City or Texas, though maybe Baltimore. Didn't he love it in KC and not want to leave to begin with?

grich, it's always a good idea to expect any pitcher to regress, especially if he's only had one season of a particular quality, regarless of his age. While Lackey has the "stuff" to sustain it, so have many, many who didn't, from Rick Ankiel to Bobby Witt.

Kotchman should also be much better than that--I don't see why he shouldn't hit at least .290/.340/.450, and that is pretty conservative.

Well, considering what he did in AAA this year, I'd disagree. Also, why do you capitalize boring and dumb?

Vaux, I'm mainly going by the trend of Lackey's career (which is extremely similar to Brett Myers, btw; Lackey's been slightly better, but Myers is two years younger...it will be interesting to see who has a better career). Plus--and this partially answers your question, Spivey--the main problem with computer analyses is that they don't (cannot) take into account stuff that isn't hardwired into the numbers. In Lackey's case, as an Angels fan I know that his development was pretty stagnant for two years of pretty inconsistent play (2003-2004). You can tell that by looking at the numbers. But what you cannot tell, at least without looking at his game log, is that Lackey is prone to hot and cold spells, or a run of good starts with an occasional total bombshell. This hurts his numbers. Furthermore, he is known to get pretty miffed on the mound when he blows it; he got talked to by Bud Black and Mike Scioscia earlier this and since then he's been pretty terrific because he's been more consistent. I don't see why he would revert to his more "immature" 2003-to-early-2005 self, unless Bud Black and Mike Scioscia forget about occasional personality maintenance in a crack-smoke haze (in other words, it ain't gonna happen).

In other words, reading into the statistical record a bit deeper than yearly totals AND knowing something about the PERSON and their history allows us to get a better idea of how a player is LIKELY to perform. I think 2005 represents what we'll see from Lackey over the next 5-8 years, with some fluctuation. But it certainly looks like he has "arrived." In fact, he'll probably be the Angels's best starter next year, unless Kelvim Escobar somehow manages to start 30 games...and that's even if Bart "Mr Overrated" Colon's injury heals.

And Spivey, I was capitalizing Dumb and Boring because I was invoking the deeper archetypal meanings of the words ala Plato's Ideals. Computer-only statistical predictions are Dumb mainly because they doesn't take into account Personhood, which is almost as bad as trying to figure out the meaning of existence solely from its physical components (iow, it is not only enormously reductive but is a category error).

All that said, there is nothing wrong with having a bit of harmless fun, and that is what stat predictions are.

The thing with Kotchman is that everyone (except Kotchman) says he totally changed his approach in April of this past season, trying to consciously hit for more power. As a result, he went into the worst slump of his life. From May on, he was fine, as his post-All Star Break performance in the majors reflects. So, as long as he sticks to what got him here, I think he should outperform that projection by a bit.

For me the biggest surprise is Washburn. He has led the Angel starters in ERA 5 of the last 6 years
and this shows five better next year?

Those numbers for OC look better than I expected. Izturis did better at the plate this year.

For me the biggest surprise is Washburn. He has led the Angel starters in ERA 5 of the last 6 years
and this shows five better next year?

Washburn's k/9 trend: 5.86; 6.07; 5.12; 5.18; 4.77
Washburn's k/bb trend: 2.33; 2.35; 2.19; 2.15; 1.84

I think he's reaching the point where a significant dropoff is very likely, and almost certain within the next few years.

I think you know you have great pitching when you are 0.01 era points away from having your Cy Young winner finish 5th in projections.

The Angels' current roster, with my playing time adjustments, projects to 88-74. That's with Steve Finley getting only 125 at bats, and Kotchman playing more-or-less regularly at first, MacPherson at third, and Erstad in center. (i.e. best-case scenario)