2014 ZiPS Projections!

The 2014 ZiPS projections are now available in the player pages and on the sortable projection pages. Much thanks to Dan Szymborski for once again providing his projections!

With the arrival of the ZiPS projections, we’ve updated our depth charts and projected standings to be a combination of both ZiPS and Steamer projections. Additionally, our playoff odds are now computed using a combination of both ZiPS and Steamer.




Print This Post



David Appelman is the creator of FanGraphs.

58 Responses to “2014 ZiPS Projections!”

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
  1. rottenchops says:

    yay

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  2. Candy LaChance says:

    Excellent! Will the projected playing time allocations continue to be corrected and improved? Any chance you can do a quick check to remove players from depth chats if they are no longer part of an org (e.g., Cord Phelps is now part of the Orioles, but still shows up on the Indians depth chart for 100+ PAs).

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Dave Cameron says:

      The depth charts are getting a thorough review and update this week.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • ralph says:

        Good to hear. I assume that means Matt Adams will no longer be projected to get 70 PA as a Cardinal RF.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

        • ralph says:

          Well, it’s heading in the right direction at least, with Adams now projected to get only 21 PA in RF.

          Now I’m puzzled about the projection of Bourjos getting 140 PA in RF. I feel pretty sure that whenever Bourjos is on the field, he’s only playing CF.

          Vote -1 Vote +1

        • indyralph says:

          I assume that the DH PA are pinch hitting for the pitcher, but what if Adams pinch hits 21 times for Peter Bourjos or Jon Jay? Is that crazy?

          Vote -1 Vote +1

        • ralph says:

          Definitely not crazy that Adams pinch hits for a RF 21 times, though somewhat unlikely if Adams starts 140 games. However, I think those PH appearances are also supposed to be accounted for by the DH PA projections.

          As a counterexample to support my point, the Mets (amongst others) seem like a team full of opportunities to pinch hit for the SS… but I don’t see Lucas Duda (or guys of his ilk on other teams) being given any PAs at the SS spot on the depth charts.

          Vote -1 Vote +1

  3. DNA+ says:

    Quite bullish on the Angels.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  4. Scott Clarkson says:

    A few players dont’ make it to the ZiPS leaderboard spreadsheet export all players: Michael Choice, Miguel Sano, Jonathan Singleton, JB Shuck, Michael Franco

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  5. George says:

    Big drop off projected for Josh Donaldson…can’t imagine he will drop .50 + wOBA, considering his peripherals and power. Maybe if his BABIP drops but…all the way down to .330? He will end up being one of the biggest fantasy busts if that happens.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • RC says:

      His whole projection seems a bit strange. Everything is getting worse. He’s been a +1.1 and +1.6 baserunner the last two years, and ZIPS is projecting -.3 this year.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

    • indyralph says:

      Most guys who have 7.7 WAR year get worse at everything. Last year at this time ZiPs had Josh Donaldson projected for a .297 wOBA and 1.7 WAR. The data that led to that projection doesn’t go away just because a guy puts up one stellar year. ZiPs has him at 3.7 and the 26th best position player.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • RC says:

        The problem is that the data that led to that projection is about 300 PA total.

        The other problem is there’s absolutely no point in his career where he’s been a negative base runner. Regression to the mean isn’t doing that, something else is.

        ZIPS is also lower than all 3 of the other projection systems by at a minimum 2.2WAR, and max of 3.2.

        So ZIPS is looking at something very different than Oliver and Steamer, so “regression” isn’t a good answer here.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

        • indyralph says:

          He’s only projected to be 1.2 WAR worse by ZiPs than Steamer and Oliver. He’s projected to be about 2 runs worse on defense than he has been over 1000 MLB PAs. That’s incredibly nitpicky, and not at all driving the WAR difference.

          He has over 2000 career minor league PA, about half in the very hitter friendly CAL and PCL leagues, at an .840 OPS. That data doesn’t suddenly vanish. My guess is that ZiPs weights the minor league data more strongly than the others.

          Citing small sample size as one problem and then mean regression as the next problem is paradoxical. The mean that a projection regresses toward is not the 300 PA mean. It’s the mean of all of the players who are like Josh Donaldson.

          Vote -1 Vote +1

  6. dtaub89 says:

    Francisco Peguero looks primed to be a HUGE workhorse this season apparently (228 games!). What a monster.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  7. Paul says:

    I don’t understand… how can the Rays, Yanks, and Jays all have roughly the same POFF% (32-38), despite being projected to win 92, 86, and 74 games? Meanwhile, the Royals are projected to win 85 games and have a 19% POFF%.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Aaron (UK) says:

      I think you’re looking at last year’s record; bizarrely the columns of the left of the 2014 projections are “2013 Year To Date”.

      It’s a bit confusing and presumably will be cleaned up soon.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  8. Cool Lester Smooth says:

    Something, something, you guys clearly hate the Braves, because including the best projection system we have puts them behind the Nationals!

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Cool Lester Smooth says:

      Teh bias is so systemic that it even overcomes Werth, Desmond and Span each being expected to regress extremely heavily offensively, with Harper expected to remain stagnant despite being healthy going into his age-21 season.

      It’s bias, I tells yah!

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Anon21 says:

        Not for the first time: people who complain about Braves fans on Fangraphs are far more annoying than actual Braves fans on Fangraphs. Go worry about your shitheap team, not about how other people choose to engage with baseball.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

        • Cool Lester Smooth says:

          At least according to the Braves fans who find a perceived slight to bitch about in just about every article that doesn’t offer them unqualified praise.

          Vote -1 Vote +1

        • Rob says:

          It’s funny that the mock “outraged Braves fans” are far more prevalent at this point than actual complaining Braves fans.

          This is of course leaving aside the fact that Braves fans were generally correct in their complaints last year.

          Vote -1 Vote +1

        • Cool Lester Smooth says:

          You really haven’t read an article about the Braves or the Nationals in the past few months, then.

          Vote -1 Vote +1

        • Alex says:

          I certainly don’t see any in this comment section. The only thing I see is someone playing out a tired meme because the Braves fan base correctly pointed out errors last year.

          The beat part is that one of the things braves fans complained about last year was fangraphs’ writers ignoring the projection systems that had the braves and nats in a virtual dead heat and proclaiming the nats the prohibitive favorites to win the division.

          Vote -1 Vote +1

        • Anon21 says:

          Oh, and remember the time those silly, silly Braves fans said that Andrelton Simmons was about to go out and produce a truly great defensive season in 2013, and that projecting him as a +6 run defender was way too conservative?

          Witness the shame of Braves country:

          “[I]f Simmons hits that PA target, he should easily triple that DEF projection. Maybe quadruple.”

          And then he went out and quintupled it! I don’t know how I show my face around here after embarrassing myself so badly last year.

          Vote -1 Vote +1

  9. Combination? says:

    What does it mean that the team projections were compiled with a combination of the projection systems? Why wasn’t one just chosen?

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Combination? says:

      Also,

      There seems to be discrepency in projected wins between the playoff odds page and the depth charts page. I would’ve expected these to be the same.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • The playoff odds page simulates seasons and incorporates strength of schedule where the regular projected standings does not. That’s the difference between the two.

        Vote -1 Vote +1

        • Mooser says:

          These are great David thanks. I note that the SD for the expected wins on the playoff page is just 5.8. That seems really low, even for a projection. I think most are around 7. Any thoughts on why

          Vote -1 Vote +1

  10. eddiegaedel says:

    Thanks Dave, David, and Dan

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  11. Tom says:

    Looks like a close race in the AL West, a 3 way tie!

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  12. Matt says:

    Would it be possible to get the Team name into the export to CSV from the projections pages? I can limit by every team (tedious), but if I do so, it eliminates all the minor leaguers.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  13. Alex says:

    Any chance Dan will be putting out an extensive spreadsheet like he did last year? Thanks guys

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  14. d_i says:

    I take it no rotochamp projections this year? I liked having the ADPs in the same name format so I didn’t have to scrub from another source.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  15. Pizzabox says:

    Thank you so much for all of your hard work, Fangraphs. You remind us throughout those barren Winter months that the boys of Summer will take the turf once again… and you guys will be there with your calculators making it all the better.

    U r 2 cool.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  16. rosborne says:

    Is there a way to export the playing time projections? I know that the PA/IP on the Steamer projections are very close to the depth chart projections. Is that the best way to download the playing time expected? Thanks.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  17. batpig says:

    Is there any possibility of having something like “Fangraphs Depth Charts” as one of the sortable, projected stats options in the “Projections” section? This would facilitate export to a spreadsheet for fantasy purposes.

    For example, if I wanted to I could go to the “Projections” page and download the ZiPS or FANS or Steamer projections individually. But there is nowhere to download the Depth Chart projections, which synthesize Zips and Steamer and then a subjective evaluation of playing time projections. Right now, that data is scattered across each of the team pages.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  18. Dennis Shea says:

    Huzzah, my tweet worked!

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  19. Brian Snyder says:

    Could someone explain to me what the Astros did this offseason to get 120 runs better than 2013?

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • jackson says:

      Regression, most things regress towards the mean, so we shouldn’t expect them to be as bad. They could, of course, but we shouldn’t expect them to. Also, to be accurate, projections have very low standard deviations. When’s the last time you saw the best team in the league go 91-71? It’s to make errors smaller if some catastrophe happens to the Dodgers.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

      • Brian says:

        That just doesn’t make sense though. Unless there was some reason they were unlucky last year to be so bad, why can their “mean” just be that bad. Just because the other teams in the league are better doesn’t automatically mean that they have a better chance of being better.

        Its almost like the calculation that formulates the data forecasts some kind of bottom end for the team no matter what the true bottom should be. (Ie. A team with all little league pitchers should go 0-162, but I have a feeling the calculation would give them a base number of wins no matter what)

        (And for the people that hate comments like this: I’m sorry I don’t have the time to do the research that some people on the site think is necessary to even comment, I’m just doing an eye test on the data, and it really doesn’t make sense to me)

        Vote -1 Vote +1

  20. Mike says:

    I really can’t see the Rays going 83-79, I also can’t see there being just one 90 win team.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Anon21 says:

      Re: the latter, it’s a central-tendency projection. Projecting a team to win 98 games, as BPro has with the Dodgers, is generally quite stupid; there are a lot more ways to miss on the downside than to get it right. Even though we know that there will almost certainly be several teams with win totals in the mid-to-high nineties, those teams will, almost by definition, have experienced some good luck (whether in the form of sequencing, good health, or run distribution between games), which is not something one can predict in advance. What a good projection should tell you is how the teams stack up relative to one another.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  21. Mregan says:

    That is the nature of projections, some players/teams will exceed their projections, some will fall short.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  22. Matt says:

    These projection absolutely love the NL West this year. Here’s the number of games above / below .500 each division is projected to finish according to these fangraphs numbers….

    NL West: +32
    AL East: +14
    NL Central: -4
    AL West: -6
    NL East: -8
    AL Central: -28

    Vote -1 Vote +1

  23. jim says:

    OK, the National league hasn’t beaten the American league in interleague since 2003 or so, and most of the years haven’t really been close. The projection is for the national league to win in 2104 by 20 games. Based on what?

    And how does the NL West all of a sudden project so well? Rockies, SD and Giants aren’t improved, and Az may or may not be any better.

    Vote -1 Vote +1

    • Anon21 says:

      “The projection is for the national league to win in 2104 by 20 games. Based on what?”

      Randomness, I guess. When you’re projecting 90 years out, noise tends to swamp signal.

      Vote -1 Vote +1

  24. wynams says:

    Odd, I exported ZiPS a while back and I swear it had saves. Now it doesn’t. Hoping that not much changed :/

    Vote -1 Vote +1

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Current day month ye@r *