The Angels won 97 games last year - they are going to win 21 less by replacing Lackey, Vlad and Figgins with Pinero, Matsui, Wood and a full season of Kazmir? That seems a little harsh to me. Certainly they shouldn't win 97, but 85 seems about right to me.

And Oakland - PECOTA just cannot project them under .500

There's no way that team wins 82 games. No. Way.

"Milton Bradley can help the offense if he's healthy, but with his history of outbursts, he might also destroy the outstanding clubhouse chemistry."

This is not the Baseball Prospectus I once knew and loved.

"[Seattle] went 85-77 last season despite giving up more runs than they scored. Teams that do this will historically regress the next season."

This is correct, however, Seattle does not look like a candidate to do so. Here's why:
2009 Mariners hitters: .258/.314/.402
Hitters against Mariners, 2009: .247/.316/.394

The Mariners offense was ever so slightly better than their opponents. The pythagorean observation is correct, but when you look a little deeper, what you see is that the M's offense scored fewer runs than you would expect given its overall performance. Which is to say that their actual runs scored are a bad predictor of future runs scored, so they usual pythagorean regression isn't as likely as usual.

The Mariners were outscored by their opponents last season but still managed a winning record. This is unusual, and a nice bit of luck. But there was also some bad luck for the M's, mostly in the form not hitting well in leverage situations. When you look at what they did last season and figure out how much they should have scored, they looked like about a .500 team, despite what runs scored and runs allowed suggest. In an ironic way, the two forms of luck cancelled each other out to yeild a nearly .500 team.

PECOTA is obviously broken. You really shouldn't be writing these articles util your prejections are fixed.

This is also terribly misguided analysis. Don't compare to last year's performance, because last year's performance has statistical noise in it.

cwc has gone beyond looking at batter and pitcher splits to looking at infinitives split.

I was surprised the Angels fell as far as they did but they did lose really two major parts and some smaller pieces. The biggest drop to me is Figgins to Wood. Wood has to slug .500 to have any kind of value because he just won't reach base or make productive outs very often. Just as important, his defense probably won't be in the same catagory as Figgins.

I'd say 82-80 is more realistic for the Angels.

Also, unless Oaklands young pitching continues to improve, I can't see them as a .500 team. Their offense is really pretty ugly.

The Angels and PECOTA go together like Courtney Love and sobriety! I've been a subscriber for about four years and every year the Angels beat PECOTA's forecast. Seems to me that PECOTA can't see the forest for the trees. Why? Because there is such a thing as intangibles that create a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. The big intangible here is Scioscia. Also to consider: Matsui was BETTER than Vlady last year - period. Lackey missed at least one month at the start of the last two seasons and his K/9 is on the decline, while the rotation he leaves will do just fine without him. Figgins ground ball rate is increasing and his speed is in gradual decline . . . a bad time to get rid of him to allow a potential franchise player to prove himself. Really? Focus on Rodney, while ignoring the return of a healthy Shields, a rising Jepson, and capable Bulger. Really? Sorry folks, but the Angels will be looking down from the top once again because they will be the most balanced. Seattle has no offense and Texas, well they have to play in Arlington in July and August - the heat takes its toll. Once again guys, how about a BP West location. Your writing on the west coast teams is ill-informed. We need a "left coast" sports perspective.

If Matsui's knees go, then he would be on par with Vlady and his decline over the past two years. My money is on Matsui and his better plate discipline. You're right, Lackey is very good, and now will be much better just because he's pitching in the East coast media lime light. Heck, I'm preparing for the second coming now that he's pitching for the Red Sox. All of sudden he's lost all his warts. That's my point about this article - it's not objective in what the Angels truly lost and what they gained. As for Scioscia, like it or not, he is now in a class with LaRussa, Torre, and Cox - longevity and success. Not a lot of those kinds of managers around. btw - the Angels have missed the playoffs before under Scioscia, so it would take more than one year to remove him from the top tier of coaches.

The issue is that PECOTA, when it comes to the Angels, isn't PROJECTING well - not for the last 3 or so years. That is my point - formula/model doesn't seem to function as accurately as one would like.

And, Shields is returning with Jepson and Bulger on the rise. Oliver left because the Angels have replacements they feel are ready at a lower price point. This is where this organization excels and no one gives them credit. Look at how many players remain from 2002 World Series. I think they're now down to Shields and that is it. Yet they have won consistently since then. HMMM. Plus, a stats guy hanging his hat on ERA for Oliver and Kazmir, while going to SIERA for Holland. Apples to apples?

Why does PECOTA project about 90% of pitchers to have an ERA over 4? That baffles me. It's not reality.