Here Are the Complete Five-Year Win Forecasts
Last week, I asked you to project too much of the future. And, bless your hearts, you complied. Every offseason, in February or March, I poll the FanGraphs community to see how many games it thinks each team will win in the season ahead. That project is still coming down the road, when opening day gets closer and more of these free agents have signed. This experiment was more ambitious; instead of asking you about single-season wins, I asked you about entire five-year windows. Five-year win totals, for every single team. It’s far too much, given how little of the future is knowable, but you voted in the polls anyway. I appreciate your doing that.
For every polling project, there is an analysis post. Otherwise there wouldn’t be a point. Below, you can see what the community thinks about the near- and medium-term futures for every club. The idea here is to try to get a sense of which teams are and aren’t well-positioned in the bigger picture. Or, at least, how this community thinks about that. There’s more to this evaluation than just the state of the major-league roster — there’s also the state of the farm system, the identities in the front office, the resources supplied by ownership, and so on. A baseball team is a big, complicated business. It’s time to look at what you think about these businesses.
As per usual, for each response in each poll, I assigned a single number. That made it a pretty straightforward process to calculate average community-projected five-year win totals. I was heartened by the fact that the community wasn’t too dramatically optimistic — the average team had just under five wins too many, which means the average inflation was just under a single win a year. What I mean is, obviously, the average team in a given season will win 81 games. The average team in these projected seasons is expected to win just under 82 games. You expect a certain amount of optimism in a project like this, so I’m glad it didn’t get out of hand. I adjusted the final results to put them in line with reality.
Here are those results. I asked you all for five-year win totals. What I’m showing are those totals divided by five, expressed as average projected wins per season. Here’s how you think teams will do between 2018 and 2022.
Because of the design of the polls I made, the results might be a little bit low on the best teams, and a little bit high on the worst teams. That being said, the differences ought not be large, and the order here is accurate. Over the past five seasons, the Dodgers have won more regular-season games than any other team. You think that’s going to be true again moving forward, with the club just edging out the Yankees and Astros. I don’t know what’s less surprising, between the Dodgers point and the Marlins point. The Marlins are expected to be the worst five-year team, with about a three-win gap separating them from the Tigers each season. Over the past five years, only three teams have won fewer games than the Marlins have. Say what you will about their rebuild, but it’s only just getting underway, and only the Christian Yelich trade has returned a blockbuster haul.
As long as we’re comparing actual 2013 – 2017 performance against projected 2018 – 2022 performance, here are all the differences in win totals. This is no longer per year. This is just the future projection, minus the past performance.
The Phillies are expected to take the biggest step forward. No one has won fewer games over the past five years, but, moving forward, the community has ranked the Phillies 13th, about dead-even with the Twins and a step ahead of the White Sox. The five-year win gain comes out to 64. And keep in mind this is despite the 2018 Phillies looking fairly mediocre. You can consider them and the White Sox together. This is a reflection of the fact that the community likes these two rebuilds that have taken place. Much of the industry is in agreement. Baseball America just ranked the Phillies’ farm system sixth, and the White Sox’ farm system fourth. Fans do love a strong farm system.
See, also, the Braves — they’re first, according to BA, and they have a slightly higher five-year win projection than the Phillies. Yet thinking about those teams causes me to think about the Padres, Rays, and, especially, the Reds. Sticking with BA for a moment, those farm systems are ranked third, fifth, and ninth, respectively. But in five-year win projections, those teams are ranked 19th, 24th, and 25th. I sort of get it about the Padres; as talented as the system is, the major-league product still has a long way to go. And I sort of get it about the Rays; they’re just such a low-budget operation they can never really maximize their chances. But the Reds just seem like they have people feeling down. Only a few years ago, their payroll was right around the middle of the pack. The farm now is talented, and the big-league roster isn’t terrible. I bet this is partially a function of the eighth-worst ownership ranking. And, I bet this is partially a function of the fifth-worst front-office ranking. The community sees other rebuilding teams improving, but the Reds aren’t expected to take that step. I guess you could say they have something to prove.
Let’s go back to that last image. The Phillies are expected to gain the most wins. At the other end, we find the Royals. The Royals are tied for seventh in baseball in wins over the past five years, but, over the next five years, they’re ranked 28th, between the Orioles and Tigers. The only farm system worse than theirs, according to BA, belongs to the Mariners, and the Mariners, at least, seem to have a modestly competitive big-league roster right now. The Mariners’ reckoning is probably coming. The Royals’ reckoning is probably already here. The difference is that the Royals are far more willing to accept it, given the highs they recently achieved. This is just capturing them in their inevitable downturn, but we can’t forget about where the Royals got to. The Mariners should be so lucky.
I’m going to start winding down because there’s no sense in my talking about every single data point. If I were to offer my own opinion, I think the community is somewhat high on the Nationals, and low on the Pirates. I also wonder if the community isn’t somehow still too low on the Yankees, despite them getting the second-best five-year forecast. The community expects them to be strong, but perhaps not strong enough, given that they have every single thing going for them. They have a virtually limitless revenue stream, a good roster today, and a top-three or top-five system. But I’m not here to nitpick or criticize. This project is about you, and not me, and according to you, as as collective, the three teams in the best positions right now are the Dodgers, Yankees, and Astros, with the Cubs just behind. I thank you for your participation, and I look forward to the next time I run a project. They’re always a kick.
Jeff made Lookout Landing a thing, but he does not still write there about the Mariners. He does write here, sometimes about the Mariners, but usually not.


Cubs are 28th according to BA, how the mighty are fallen.
Yes, I’m sure the Cubs are upset their farm ranking is poor, when their roster is full of controllable graduates of that farm.
1+ WAR Cubs farm graduates (2014-Present):
2014:Hendricks (11.8), Baez (4.6)
2015: Bryant (21.6), Russell (8.2), Schwarber (3.3), Edwards (1.6)
2016: Contreras (5.4), Almora (2.0)
2017: Happ (1.8)
Only 60 fWAR over 3.5 seasons on pre arb contracts.
Yeah, it’s almost like the point of having a good farm system is not to have a bunch of good minor league baseball players.
Are you implying that it’s good that a team doesn’t have any +50 grade prospects?
That is exactly what everyone is saying. There’s no such thing as a pitching prospect, and most of their position players are under team control for 4+ years because they’re graduated prospects. Also, they’re a major market team currently sitting 20Mil under luxury, so they can adapt to their future needs.
IDK why the Cubs need prospects, barring “more than half of their young stacked ML-caliber players die in a bus crash”. They’re clearly a team built to win right now, with “right now” being “for the next 5+ years”.
The Cubs need prospects so they don’t have to spend 100 mil a year on their rotation when all their SPs hit FA in 2020.
Having graduated a top farm doesn’t mean you don’t still need prospects
Farm rankings are based on “near-MLB ready talent”. Cubs’ farm still has 3 years to develop/draft/trade for guys to start replacing the MLB talent.
The point of minor league players is to have develop players for your MLB team/trade for players to help your MLB team. It seems like that’s what the Cubs have been doing with their farm so far. The cupboard is bare now, but they have time to replenish it while using their young talented MLB team that won’t need to draw on the farm for a couple years in any huge ways.
Go Giants, LOL.
Sure but it doesn’t bode well for long term organizational health especially compared to the Yankees, Dodgers, Nats, and Astros.
FWIW I voted for 440-459 for the Cubs.
It’s not illegal to have a very good mlb team and still have a good farm system (see: Dodgers, Astros).
I think the negative reaction was to the hyperbole of “how the mighty have fallen.” They’ve fallen to what, a 90-95 win team with a big payroll?
Fallen right into a championship & the NLCS last 3 years.
I don’t think the crowd did a great job with these. For instance, Cleveland is great now, but they don’t have any payroll muscle. Why have them as one of the best teams in the league over the next 5 years? The Cubs have no farm system anymore (flags fly forever but wow how much better would this team look going forward with Eloy Jiminez and Torres), pitching that is not great and only going to get worse, and a team that is just going to get more and more expensive as their best players progress through arb. They don’t belong in the same conversation as the Dodgers and Yankees. Really it should be Yankees, Dodgers, moderate cliff, Astros, giant cliff, everybody else.
To answer your point on Cleveland, I agree that in 5 years their lack of payroll will hurt them. But over the next 3 years, they should still be very good. They still have Lindor, Ramirez, and Kluber for the next few years. Even if they struggle in 2022, they should win enough from 2018-2020 to be one of the best teams on average for the next 5 years.
I think the Cubs are going to be better for longer than we expect. Even without reinforcements, they have Bryant and Rizzo under control until 2021, Quintana and Lester under control until 2020, Willson Contreras and Ian Happ under control forever, etc. And if Addison Russell or Schwarber turn out to be good, or if they sign Machado or Harper, then you have the makings of a solid core where they can tinker around the edges.
To me, it looks like the Cubs have a legitimate four year contention window, as long as Rizzo and Bryant are under team control. I still think we probably have overestimated the Cubs by a bit
For Cleveland, I think the crowd might be on the right track. They have Kluber and Lindor under control until 2021, Carrasco and Salazar until 2020, Ramirez until 2022…but the real reason they’ll stay good is because the Tigers and Royals are going be lousy for almost the entire 5-year stretch.
The question was wins, not talent level.
Strength of schedule matters and if you think KC and the Tigers are bottoming out after the ChiSox bottomed out last year, Cleveland and Minnesota will have on paper a comfy ride for two-years just off the division also-rans.
Sort-of like last year’s Nationals.
The Cubs could’ve won 100 games a year for a decade and been a failure without one singular title. The Chapman trade was an overpay, but well within reason.
If you have Eloy back on the team, you subtract Quintana, and have an extra outfielder on a team with too many outfielders and are short a starter on a team without enough starters.
Don’t understand this logic. Q is a 4 win starter controlled for 3.5 seasons for which the Cubs gave up an elite AA prospect controlled for 6+.
I agree that the Quintana trade made sense for the reasons that you say.
The Chapman trade is the one that looked like a heavy overpay at the time, not just relative to abstract surplus value math – you know that you’ll pay up for a very good reliever acquired in-season – but also compared to what the Indians traded at virtually the same time for 2.5 years of Miller.
Miller looks great in hindsight, and some of the luster has come off Chapman. Don’t get me wrong, the deal was an overpay, but anyone trading for an elite reliever in-season runs that risk. RP talent is silly hard to evaluate, which is why we constantly see great closers fall off a cliff and complete nobodies wind up with 30+ saves. With RP volatility it might not been a terrible idea to take the shorter contract with Chapman.
Yes, it was a terrible idea to give up Gleyber for Chapman rather than Miller.
They wouldn’t have to keep trading for relievers if they had Miller’s contract.
I agree with that. Not because Chapman was bad in the ws (he was great in the other series and they might not have gotten there without him) but they could have won with another very good but not quite elite reliever who could have been had for a low level top100 instead of a then top30.
Still won’t argue with the results, of course a ws was worth it in hindsight.
But the Quintana trade was absolutely necessary, they absolutely needed a cost controlled TOR starter and Quintana was just that. Maybe not quite Chris sale but still an excellent number 2 who is durable and consistent.
I also think eloy doesn’t hurt that much because he is a corner of. He might be the best bat prospect but while he could be Manny Ramirez it is more likely he is just a good corner of bat (say 120 wrc+ with average defense) and while that is very valuable that is easier to get than a cheap TOR starter (you almost have to give a 29+ year old 200+m and that doesn’t feel great).
Sure if eloy hits 320 with 40 hr every year you lost but if it is 280 with 25 hr I might even prefer 3 years of prime Quintana in the cubs situation who do not have any pitching but tons of hitting.
I know this is the popular sentiment, and it may especially apply in the case of the Cubs, but I for one disagree. I profoundly disagree. I’d much rather watch a team that wins consistently even if it gets unlucky in the crapshoot of the playoffs. I’d much, much rather be a fan of the 90s Braves who went to the post-season every year than the 90s-early2000s Marlins who won a World Series as a wild card (twice!) but didn’t play winning ball most of the other seasons and never otherwise saw the postseason. And I’d hold to that even if the Braves hadn’t won any World Series in that decade of excellence. I watch baseball to enjoy baseball; winning is more fun than losing, but if I consider the season a failure if it doesn’t end with a title, I’m consigning myself to a lot of failure. Which is certainly unhealthy and also dumb and unnecessary.
As a Cubs fan I will gladly take a World Series Championship over having an extra infield prospect on a team loaded with controllable infielders. What was it worth to a Cubs fan? Put it this way, my good friend and fellow Cubs fan said he was in doghouse with his wife for a week after the Cubs won. He cried over the Cubs winning but not at their wedding.
Agree with goatherder. It’s not that I don’t want us to keep competing for more, but we really, really wanted that first one, and I think our front office understood that.
Yes. I’m a Cubs fan for over 50 years, and am very happy for that win during my lifetime that my older relatives didn’t get. My adult team is the A’s, and I’d rather they just compete every year.
Your Braves got one ring.
Cleveland is now on its third cycle of high performance (Thome era, Sizemore era, and now Lindor days) with no title to show for 23 years of effort.
(Never mind the previous 46 years.)
As pointed out, KC is in for some rough times but nobody is taking that title away.
Being competitive for years on end is good but it is better if there is a title somewhere in the mix.
They’re not “my” braves. In fact I got so sick of the team (and that godawful tomahawk chop) during that run of excellence that to this day I won’t watch a game if they’re one of the teams. But I’d love for my team to do that, even if they don’t win a WS in that span.
I’m actually a Mariners fan, and they’re 3062-3455 (.470 winning %) since I started watching them in 1977. So yeah, I’d take a bunch of 100 win seasons without a WS title, just to get them above .500 before I die — which isn’t going to happen. (The Indians over that span, BTW, are 3241-3264, a .498 winning % — I’d take that, too.) And after 16 years outside looking in, it’d be nice to get a wild card game or a divisional series too.
I’d love to see two or three WS games played in Seattle, which of course has never happened; I’d be fine if the M’s lost the series. The 116 win season happened and I enjoyed the heck out of it, not diminished in the least by their failure to advance in the playoffs. And actually, from watching what happened with the Seahawks, I’m not sure winning it all is so great anyway. I’m not an NFL fan, but while the fans here did get their big moment it was followed by the hollow lingering “what next” feeling that persists to this day. Maybe Spock said it best.
By surplus value chapman was a gigantic overpay but I think theo saw the pitching window and the risk of that falling apart.
I still think the cubs have a good future with their hitting core and the idea to build around hitting was great but since then more adapted that causing the price of controllable pitching to shoot through the roof.
So the lack of pitching is going to become a problem especially when the hitters start to become expensive and they can’t just buy aces.
Getting quintana helped a lot and probably was worth losing eloy but there will be more spots to fill.
How long have you been doing these? It will be interesting to look back on this data in 5 years to see how these predictions have gone.
I agree with this. Hold us all accountable! Now if only you could organize some crowdsourced Bold Predictions…
People probably think of Votto getting old sinking that team, but there is a lot of spots that will be improved in 2018 and likely beyond.
They also have a very left-handed lineup in a division full of righty starting pitchers and left-leaning parks.
Not only does human decency suggest the pitching will be better, they now have several decent or better pitchers under team control and presumably healthy enough to make that happen.
Can there also be a companion poll and a writeup on who will have a five win year?
Agree that the crowd is overrating the Nationals. They’re not well-run, they’re average-run, their payroll is not among the top tier in the league, they’re about to have two teams on the way up fighting for their division, and fundamentally a lot of their success since 2012 is built on the good fortune of being terrible right when two consensus amazing prospects became available in the draft.
If they manage to retain Harper, they will always be a threat to make the playoffs, but I don’t expect that they will be able to retain him.
It’s almost like Strasburg and Harper are the only reasons they’re a good team in the first place.
I think they have been run very well and they did have an amazing run. But what is when harper is gone and murphy, scherzer and Zimmerman all enter their decline. They still have strasburg, rendon, robles, turner and hopefully soto but will that be enough? After those guys there isn’t that much talent.
I could see them rebuilding in 2020.
The Cubs have no future. Will be one of the worst teams in baseball the next 5 years.
“The Royals’ reckoning is probably already here. The difference is that the Royals are far more willing to accept it”
I read these two sentences differently than their actually meaning I suppose.
Are the Royals willing to accept the reckoning is here, because they won a World Series and now have to start the process again? Perhaps.
Are the Royals ACTUALLY going to accept the reckoning? It seems unlikely as they:
1) Continue to be in on signing Eric Hosmer
2) Traded away cheap talent to offload expensive contracts for salary relief (to perhaps “afford” Hosmer)
3) Re-signed one of the worst players in baseball to start in front of their best prospect
4) Haven’t traded any of their higher end controlled talent (though maybe they are waiting until the deadline)
It seems like the team is shooting for mediocrity with an unrealistic shot at upside surprise (shooting for 75 wins and getting 85 wins based on luck) rather than a true rebuild.
Is Hosmer really the player you want to be building around/relying on to keep you afloat anyway though?
1) We have a report saying the Royals offered Hosmer a contract. Given his agent (who also said the report was not accurate) I would take that with an entire salt shaker. Even if true the Royals are likely aware that the chances of Hosmer re-signing with them are pretty slim given their current place on the win curve and the offer may just be a PR gesture or sorts.
2) huh?
3) Escobar is on a 1 year 2.5 million dollar deal. Even for the Royals that is nothing. There is no reason to believe he is anything more than an insurance policy and/or platoon player. He is not blocking anybody
4) The only high end controlled talent they have is Duffy and Herrera. Neither of which need to be dealt anytime soon. Duffy is under contract till 2021 and will be worth just as much next year as he is now (performance depending) and Herrera will likely fetch more at the deadline from a contending team looking to bolster their BP for a playoff run.
Its funny how people forget that the Royals assembled arguably the best farm system ever seen less than a decade ago. You would figure they would get some benefit of the doubt that they might not be complete idiots.
Damn. The Rays have really fallen out of favor. 4 straight losing seasons will do that, I suppose.
Poor Rays indeed: https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/tampa-bays-lost-window-of-contention/
To get a rosier picture for the Yankees, just include more Red Sox fans’ projections! Overall, we’re a pessimistic bunch, and given the chance, we’ll always fear the Yankees will be Great (capital G), and that our own team will disappoint us.
This is probably less true than it was before 2004, but I think a lot of us will always fear the Yankees, no matter what.
Agreed: This Red Sox fan has to give respect where it’s due: Cashman is a freaking ninja.
Cashman is indeed excellent, and the Yanks currently are quite strong in both the majors and minors.
But let’s not forget, from 2013-2016 they did win only 85, 84, 87, and 84 games. That’s a pretty long stretch of mediocrity — by Yankee standards at least. And Stanton was more or less gifted to them several weeks back, rather than acquired via some Yankee wizardry. So I don’t rate their 5-year future quite as bright as the Dodgers, and maybe not the Astros.
And the Nationals, OVER-rated?! They have a highly successful GM in place, tons of current MLB talent, a trio of young terrific position prospects in Robles, Soto, and Kieboom, and a solid financial situation. I believe their numerous playoff flops have undermined people’s perceptions faaar too much.
I’m surprised the nats are that high. Next year looks good and they had a grea run (yeah I know the playoffs, but playoffs are luck…) but after 2018 it is getting pretty uncertain, not just because harper is a FA but also because scherzer, murphy and Zimmerman are all entering their mid 30s. They have some young talent in Turner, robles and soto but after them it gets thin and might get thinner with more deadline deals.
They could easily be thea giants in 2020.
The even year Giants or the odd year Giants? ;>}
It pleases me that Boston is #6org. Let the descent in to mediocrity begin!