2016 Steamer Projections--Braves Hitters

[The Chosen One]

WAR doesn't show Markakis' Lairdership effect. Otherwise he'd have as high of a WAR as JHey.

[clvclv]

WAR doesn't show Markakis' Lairdership effect. Otherwise he'd have as high of a WAR as JHey.

[mqt]

One relatively cheap way to improve the offense is to be a bit more aggressive in taking advantage of platoon splits. There are opportunities in left and second, and even other positions. I don't want to oversell the effect. But every little bit helps.

Yeah, let's trust Fredi to utilize his lineup based on splits. Kind of like how we could trust him to use his LH relievers properly.

[clvclv]

Projections are never 100% but that doesn't mean they aren't useful. Cain had a braek out year. I'm sure everyone saw that coming. Of the Braves hitters projections. I see Olivera being the main guy to really beat those numbers. The rest of them? Not so much. Fluke years do happen though and the Braves are going to need them to be a better offense.

Just mainly wanted to hear a "numbers guy" admit it. I don't think everyone that isn't a "stathead" is completely skeptical of all the numbers, projections, and their uses - we'd just like to see some folks reign it in a bit and admit that they're not particularly as written in stone as they try to make them seem.

[thewupk]

Just mainly wanted to hear a "numbers guy" admit it. I don't think everyone that isn't a "stathead" is completely skeptical of all the numbers, projections, and their uses - we'd just like to see some folks reign it in a bit and admit that they're not particularly as written in stone as they try to make them seem.

Admit what? That projections are just that? I don't really think anybody that believes that the projection systems are 100% accurate. And if they do then they are grossly misinformed. What I do find though is that people that are agaisnt these type of projections generally beleive those in favor of them do think they are set in stone which isn't the case. Like with anything else though, this is just a guide that is based on historical models and previous years of that player. Something any informed fan would likely come up with on their own.

[bravesfanMatt]

Admit what? That projections are just that? I don't really think anybody that believes that the projection systems are 100% accurate. And if they do then they are grossly misinformed. What I do find though is that people that are agaisnt these type of projections generally beleive those in favor of them do think they are set in stone which isn't the case. Like with anything else though, this is just a guide that is based on historical models and previous years of that player. Something any informed fan would likely come up with on their own.

stats are stats.. you can really find any stat to support your argument. you may have to cherry pick but you can do it. As someone who lives within financial statistics as my career, you don't hold future stats as a truth but more of a projection. I can't think of any aspect of my job that doesn't use past statistical data to help make decisions moving forward. Baseball is the same. Just because someone is projecting future stats based off some formula they invented, doesn't make them right or concrete. It is just a way to say, based on the past, this MIGHT happen in the future. now which stat/stats are best to determine a players worth can be debated ..

[nsacpi]

For perspective it is useful to compare our hitters with the projections of a strong contending team. I'll choose the Royals.

We have two players projected to be 3-4 WAR players (Freeman, Simmons). They also have 2 (Cain, Perez). I'm not counting Gordon or Zobrist who both project to be 3-4 WAR players but will be free agents.

They have two players who project to be 2-3 WAR players. We have none.

They have 1 who projects to be a 1-2 WAR player. We have zero.

At least when it comes to position players, we both have two players who project at above 3 WAR. But we have a big dropoff after those two, whereas they have some solid players (Moustakas, Hosmer, Escobar) in supporting roles.

Now those are just projections. You can argue that guys like Markakis, Olivera, Maybin and Peterson can be just as good as Moustakas, Hosmer and Escobar. It certainly isn't out of the question. But from the perspective of a statistical system like Steamer there is a difference that adds up to 4-5 wins between our supporting cast and theirs.

[Hawk]

stats are stats.. you can really find any stat to support your argument. you may have to cherry pick but you can do it. As someone who lives within financial statistics as my career, you don't hold future stats as a truth but more of a projection. I can't think of any aspect of my job that doesn't use past statistical data to help make decisions moving forward. Baseball is the same. Just because someone is projecting future stats based off some formula they invented, doesn't make them right or concrete. It is just a way to say, based on the past, this MIGHT happen in the future. now which stat/stats are best to determine a players worth can be debated ..

Amen brother.

[clvclv]

Admit what? That projections are just that? I don't really think anybody that believes that the projection systems are 100% accurate. And if they do then they are grossly misinformed. What I do find though is that people that are agaisnt these type of projections generally beleive those in favor of them do think they are set in stone which isn't the case. Like with anything else though, this is just a guide that is based on historical models and previous years of that player. Something any informed fan would likely come up with on their own.

That's just it - you're often missing the tone of others' posts at times because you might be focusing more on the numbers.

There are tons of posters here (as well as lots of places) who rattle the numbers off and commonly treat them as concrete proof that their opinion is more than just an opinion. It's simply not. Is it an educated guess based on what those numbers tell them? Lots of times, sure. And that's a good thing. I have always asked what criteria someone uses when throwing out their own projections - is that based on something, or are you just picking a number out of thin air? That's a good thing that much of the new math has helped with - basing those opinions ON something rather than just your intuition. But there sure do seem to be a lot of them who rely on them as some kind of gospel and don't want to hear anything they can't glean from them.

You mentioned Cain, and I think he's a great example. It's not as if some people didn't have a feeling that there was more in there (just as plenty of other players), but saying so tends to draw nothing more than ridicule from many of our numbers-based friends. The question is this - IF you only used players' past numbers when projecting a player's future, you're not likely ever going to be able to see a breakout season coming...FanGraphs certainly didn't.

[clvclv]

For perspective it is useful to compare our hitters with the projections of a strong contending team. I'll choose the Royals.

We have two players projected to be 3-4 WAR players (Freeman, Simmons). They also have 2 (Cain, Perez). I'm not counting Gordon or Zobrist who both project to be 3-4 WAR players but will be free agents.

They have two players who project to be 2-3 WAR players. We have none.

They have 1 who projects to be a 1-2 WAR player. We have zero.

At least when it comes to position players, we both have two players who project at above 3 WAR. But we have a big dropoff after those two, whereas they have some solid players (Moustakas, Hosmer, Escobar) in supporting roles.

Now those are just projections. You can argue that guys like Markakis, Olivera, Maybin and Peterson can be just as good as Moustakas, Hosmer and Escobar. It certainly isn't out of the question. But from the perspective of a statistical system like Steamer there is a difference that adds up to 4-5 wins between our supporting cast and theirs.

That's another reason I think many of us who aren't as numbers-savvy have trouble putting so much faith in them. I understand there are differences and different people altogether behind some of these things, but wouldn't PECOTA take some of these things into account? The same PECOTA system that projected the 2015 Royals to finish with 80.5 wins?

[thewupk]

That's just it - you're often missing the tone of others' posts at times because you might be focusing more on the numbers.

There are tons of posters here (as well as lots of places) who rattle the numbers off and commonly treat them as concrete proof that their opinion is more than just an opinion. It's simply not. Is it an educated guess based on what those numbers tell them? Lots of times, sure. And that's a good thing. I have always asked what criteria someone uses when throwing out their own projections - is that based on something, or are you just picking a number out of thin air? That's a good thing that much of the new math has helped with - basing those opinions ON something rather than just your intuition. But there sure do seem to be a lot of them who rely on them as some kind of gospel and don't want to hear anything they can't glean from them.

You mentioned Cain, and I think he's a great example. It's not as if some people didn't have a feeling that there was more in there (just as plenty of other players), but saying so tends to draw nothing more than ridicule from many of our numbers-based friends. The question is this - IF you only used players' past numbers when projecting a player's future, you're not likely ever going to be able to see a breakout season coming...FanGraphs certainly didn't.

While that may be true to a certain degree on break out seasons. When projecting what is going to happen I think looking for breakout seasons takes away from the exercise. We are looking for what is more than likely to happen. And again that's based not only what that player has done previously but the countless other players that have played the game. If the light bulb finally comes on for a player then their data gets adjusted accordingly.

But as far as putting actual weight into projections like this. I put a lot more stock into it then the guy who says Player X is going to be a great hitter in 2016 because he had a huge BABIP bump in 2015. That's not to single any poster or player out but sometimes a lot of stock gets put into SSS numbers when they shouldn't.

[clvclv]

While that may be true to a certain degree on break out seasons. When projecting what is going to happen I think looking for breakout seasons takes away from the exercise. We are looking for what is more than likely to happen. And again that's based not only what that player has done previously but the countless other players that have played the game. If the light bulb finally comes on for a player then their data gets adjusted accordingly.

But as far as putting actual weight into projections like this. I put a lot more stock into it then the guy who says Player X is going to be a great hitter in 2016 because he had a huge BABIP bump in 2015. That's not to single any poster or player out but sometimes a lot of stock gets put into SSS numbers when they shouldn't.

This is why I put ALMOST as much weight on what scouts with previous success say - they see these guys on a regular basis, and tend to have a better feel for who those players might be even though the numbers might not reflect it - yet.

I just think there needs to be a balance since the metrics aren't able to measure many things the eyes are telling scouts - it's not that I think the numbers aren't an extremely important tool that should always be considered as well.

[bravesfanMatt]

This is why I put ALMOST as much weight on what scouts with previous success say - they see these guys on a regular basis, and tend to have a better feel for who those players might be even though the numbers might not reflect it - yet.

I just think there needs to be a balance since the metrics aren't able to measure many things the eyes are telling scouts - it's not that I think the numbers aren't an extremely important tool that should always be considered as well.

I would bet you scouts have their favorite stats they use to rank players. None are going to be correct 100% of the time but I am pretty sure they have their favorites. Say scout A might like WAR/oWar/BBIP and so on.. while another guy might tend to look at line drive %/ K/BB or exit velocity.. there is a huge array of stats that, if I wanted to work hard enough, make a claim that player A is better than player B regardless if it is true or not.

I love stats, they never lie, but then again, they never tell the whole story either.

[nsacpi]

So what are your favorite scouts projecting for our hitters next year

This is why I put ALMOST as much weight on what scouts with previous success say - they see these guys on a regular basis, and tend to have a better feel for who those players might be even though the numbers might not reflect it - yet.

I just think there needs to be a balance since the metrics aren't able to measure many things the eyes are telling scouts - it's not that I think the numbers aren't an extremely important tool that should always be considered as well.

[clvclv]

So what are your favorite scouts projecting for our hitters next year

A far better question to ask those here who have contacts inside the organization that tend to hear things we don't always read in print. I would think it safe to say that several see a significant step forward for Olivera and that some will campaign for a commitment to Bethancourt because of what they saw after the demotion when he was getting regular ABs. Potentially some that believe Peterson could take a step forward pointing to the fact that part of his troubles could feasibly be attributed to hitting a wall because of fatigue and the fact that he has demonstrated the ability to turn on pitches at times. They're obviously different players, but both Freeman and Heyward struggled to close that hole in and under their hands early on.

[dak]

FG has made some (much needed) tweaks to playing time assumptions, so the projections have changed a bit accordingly (linked below in depth chart format). There is still some ugliness in here though, like Chris Johnson still showing up as a Brave. Here are the updated fWAR numbers by position:

C: 1.7 (assumes AJP is resigned)
1B: 3.4
2B: 0.5
SS: 3.2
3B: 1.3
LF: 0.7
CF: 1.5
RF: 1.0
DH (?): 0.1
SP: 7.2
RP: -0.5
Total projected wins: 68.1

Even if you guesstimate FA additions, it seems like FG / Steamer will ultimately project the Braves for a win total in the low to mid 70s. Seems a bit conservative.

http://www.fangraphs.com/depthcharts...=ALL&teamid=16

[zitothebrave]

Why is that a bit conservative? We only won 67 games this year, even if you assume boom for Julio because he's not gonna be that bad again. And a better pen, how is low to mid 70s that far off?

We also benefitted this year from a basically late career career year from Pierzynski and Markakis having one of his best BABIP seasons when he's not as fast as he used to be.

But what has to be factored in is the loss of Alex Wood. Alex Wood was very very very important early on to us. Him and Miller were the only SP we had worth a damn.

[nsacpi]

FG has made some (much needed) tweaks to playing time assumptions, so the projections have changed a bit accordingly (linked below in depth chart format). There is still some ugliness in here though, like Chris Johnson still showing up as a Brave. Here are the updated fWAR numbers by position:

C: 1.7 (assumes AJP is resigned)
1B: 3.4
2B: 0.5
SS: 3.2
3B: 1.3
LF: 0.7
CF: 1.5
RF: 1.0
DH (?): 0.1
SP: 7.2
RP: -0.5
Total projected wins: 68.1

Even if you guesstimate FA additions, it seems like FG / Steamer will ultimately project the Braves for a win total in the low to mid 70s. Seems a bit conservative.

http://www.fangraphs.com/depthcharts...=ALL&teamid=16

I think we can do better than projected at our two weakest positions, second and left, with a platoon arrangement. Playing Bourn mainly against righties makes sense. His career OPS is 76 points higher against righties and starting mostly against righties will play to his strength as a base stealer. Swisher on the other hand hits lefties better. Bourn in left the majority of the time will also provide a much needed improvement in outfield defense. I think they both will benefit from a situation that gives them some regular rest given their ages and recent injury histories. It is worth noting that the Braves have a financial motivation to limit the number of plate appearances by Bourn and Swisher to prevent their options from vesting.

The other area where we are likely to outperform the projections is the pen. Currently, fangraphs is allocating innings to some of the flotsam and jetsam that populated our pen last year, such as Sugar Ray Marimon who is projected to pitch 55 innings to the tune of -0.8 WAR.

I think we will break spring training with a team that projects to win 75-80 games.

It actually is hard to field a team as bad as ours was last year with core players like Freeman, Simmons, Miller and Teheran. You have to trade your closer late in spring training while a couple of your other key relievers get hurt or suspended for PEDs. Then your palatable backup closer has to go down halfway thru the season. You then have to trade away a couple of your other decent relievers while acquiring guys who you know have injuries that will prevent them from pitching until the following season at the earliest. The bright side is you get to solemnly declare at the end of the season that the front office has taken an oath not to allow a repetition of this.

[dak]

Why is that a bit conservative?

The current projections are obviously of a "fake" team that we'll never field. It's more or less a view of things if we retained all our departing FAs and made no other moves. I'm just suggesting that the net projection of this "fake" team is a bit low as a starting point.

Some of that is related to weirdness in the FG depth chart. For instance, 3 of our 4 best RPs are not even listed on the depth chart (Grilli, Simmons, Withrow).

As far as individual projections, some appear too high and some appear too low. A lot of this cancels itself out at various positions. The position that's a bit of a head-scratcher for me though is 2B. Based on how I assess Peterson and Castro, I would definitely take the over on a 0.5 fWAR projection. I think there's a reasonable case for that to be higher by a full run.

[gilesfan]

Freeman .283/.374/.480 3.9 WAR
Simmons .262/.314/.370 3.1 WAR
Markakis .269/.340/.369 0.6 WAR
Olivera .260/.306/.395 0.9 WAR
Maybin .252/.313/.361 0.5 WAR
Peterson .240/.310/.331 0.4 WAR
Bourn .244//310/.328 0.3 WAR
Swisher .226/.313/.366 -0.3 WAR
Bethancourt .256/.287/.376 0.9 WAR
Garcia .266/.297/.397 0.2 WAR
Castro .258/.289/.340 -0.1 WAR
Ciriaco .244/.270/.327 -0.4 WAR
Terdoslavich .249/.312/.403 0.0 WAR
Perez .264/.307/.340 -0.1 WAR

The WAR projections are partly based on their assumptions regarding playing time and incorporate projections for defense.

At least we have 1 good hitter.