spring training statistics versus ZIPS (as well as other projection) systems is the definition of an apples to oranges comparison. the former reflects non-competitive performances (i.e. pitchers working on a specific pitch), non-major league caliber talent (look at the roster for any given game), hitters and pitchers regaining their timing and so on. in other words, it’s value-less from a numbers perspective. and while i’ve obviously focused on red sox examples to make it easier to relate to the examples, you can go through every teams spring training numbers and find exactly the same thing. in other words it’s not cherry picking, it’s the spring training reality.

projection systems, on the other hand, are built on more reliable data: major league players competing against major league players, in games that actually count. they are therefore much more reliable as a predictor of future performance.

every creator of a projection system, however, will freely and happily admit that the systems are imperfect. if anyone could predict the future with perfect accuracy, they probably would be working on wall street rather than in baseball. what projection systems are designed to provide, instead, is a version of the future that is measurably better than what we might come up with in the absence of such systems, by guessing. and it is indisputably better than what you would project based on spring training statistics.

which is why the mike trout comparison is unfair. trout did something that maybe two or three other players have ever done in the history of the game. expecting projection systems to anticipate that kind of once in a generation performance is a fool’s errand, because the simple fact is that unexpected variances – good and bad – are part of what keeps life interesting. all that we can ask of projections is to give us their best guess based on past performances, and if a player hits that 1 in 1000 projection, tip your cap and hope the model gets it better next time. and appreciate the performance, of course.

in the meantime, i’ll take ZIPS over spring training stats. maybe – hopefully – bradley outperforms the ZIPS line because we don’t have major league data for him. but if i had to bet between the .696 OPS forecast by ZIPS and his 1.343 OPS line from Spring Training, i know which i’d take.

Even if you take a player with a much more similar profile to Bradley’s, Yonder Alonso, you see that ZIPS is largely taking a shot in the dark (likely just taking the player’s minor league performance and running it through an expected percentage decline of production for whatever league jump the player was set to make). JBJ has only one full season in the minors, so his potential production is all over the map.

Would’ve been so hypocritical for them to have freed up the salary only to repeat sequence from 2010-2011 in handing out big money to aging players.