Here Are Your Expected 2017 Standings
So I actually ran two different polling projects this week. In one of them, I asked you to reflect on your 2016 fan experience. I wrote about the results of that on Thursday. In the other one, I asked you to look ahead to 2017. The question was pretty simple: For whichever given team, how many games do you expect that team to win?
I tried to make it clear I wasn’t asking about the teams with rosters as presently constructed. I wanted you to fold in some offseason expectations, some additions or subtractions. Of course, we don’t know how the real offseason will go, but we have ideas of what various teams want to do. In any case, I plan to look at numbers like these a few times before Opening Day 2017. Here goes the first analysis!
Consider these extremely preliminary 2017 fan projections. It was easy enough to convert all the polling results into an average expected-wins total. Here’s one way of looking at the data:
So that’s the whole landscape. The least-surprising part of this exercise is finding the Cubs in first place. Based on what the Cubs already are, and based on what respondents think the Cubs are additionally going to do, they’re expected to be the best team again, and by a large margin. The plot doesn’t make it perfectly clear, but the fans expect the Cubs to win about 99 games. The Red Sox and Dodgers are expected to win about 93 games. That’s a smaller gap than what we saw this year between the best team and the runner-up, but gaps like this are not easy to sustain. It speaks to the Cubs’ very obvious potential to be something sustainably dominant.
The general order of things here is not too shocking. Especially to you — you guys did all the voting. I do have one favorite quirk. In every polling project I run, I expect a certain small percentage of respondents to be trolls. And one of the options for every team in this polling project was winning at least 105 games. Practically every team got at least one vote, for that option. The Cubs got a lot of votes for that option. The Mets got six. The Braves got eight. The Yankees got five. The Reds and Phillies got one. Only the Rangers and Royals were left out. Every single team got at least a couple votes for winning fewer than 65 games. Almost every single team got at least one vote for winning at least 105 games. Not the Rangers, and not the Royals. For whatever reason, the trolls elected to leave those options alone. I’m not going to read into it, but I love any imaginable explanation.
As a different way of visualizing the same data, here are your expected standings, by division:
| AL EAST | W | AL CENTRAL | W | AL WEST | W |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Red Sox | 93.1 | Indians | 90.5 | Astros | 88.6 |
| Yankees | 84.8 | Tigers | 81.8 | Rangers | 85.8 |
| Blue Jays | 84.7 | Royals | 80.7 | Mariners | 84.0 |
| Orioles | 82.4 | White Sox | 74.8 | Angels | 78.7 |
| Rays | 76.6 | Twins | 71.8 | Athletics | 73.9 |
| NL EAST | W | NL CENTRAL | W | NL WEST | W |
| Nationals | 92.2 | Cubs | 98.9 | Dodgers | 92.8 |
| Mets | 86.0 | Cardinals | 86.1 | Giants | 87.8 |
| Marlins | 76.2 | Pirates | 82.8 | Rockies | 79.0 |
| Braves | 74.0 | Brewers | 73.4 | Diamondbacks | 76.0 |
| Phillies | 72.9 | Reds | 69.9 | Padres | 71.1 |
The would-be playoff teams are highlighted in yellow. Five of the division winners are expected to repeat, with the Astros moving past the Rangers. Seven of the playoff teams overall are expected to return, with the Cardinals replacing the Mets, and with the Astros and Yankees replacing the Blue Jays and Orioles. Only one of these divisions is expected to be close, but the wild cards are a different story. The Yankees might as well be tied with the Jays, and the Mariners are within a game. And the Cardinals might as well be tied with the Mets. The Pirates lurk further behind, and the Rockies are further behind still.
Now for one last way of looking at things. In this table, you see everyone’s expected win total. You also see everyone’s 2016 win total (per 162 games, for those teams who fell just short). And then, in the middle, there’s current projected win total, based on WAR. That projection is based on reasonable 25-man rosters as can be currently constructed. The expectation, meanwhile, is based on however the offseasons are expected to play out, adjusting those rosters. The table should be sortable.
| Team | 2016 Wins | Projected Wins | Expected Wins |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cubs | 104 | 97 | 99 |
| Red Sox | 93 | 89 | 93 |
| Dodgers | 91 | 95 | 93 |
| Nationals | 95 | 90 | 92 |
| Indians | 95 | 90 | 91 |
| Astros | 84 | 87 | 89 |
| Giants | 87 | 87 | 88 |
| Cardinals | 86 | 86 | 86 |
| Mets | 87 | 84 | 86 |
| Rangers | 95 | 80 | 86 |
| Yankees | 84 | 83 | 85 |
| Blue Jays | 89 | 81 | 85 |
| Mariners | 86 | 84 | 84 |
| Pirates | 78 | 83 | 83 |
| Orioles | 89 | 78 | 82 |
| Tigers | 87 | 81 | 82 |
| Royals | 81 | 77 | 81 |
| Rockies | 75 | 74 | 79 |
| Angels | 74 | 85 | 79 |
| Rays | 68 | 80 | 77 |
| Marlins | 79 | 79 | 76 |
| Diamondbacks | 69 | 77 | 76 |
| White Sox | 78 | 78 | 75 |
| Braves | 68 | 70 | 74 |
| Athletics | 69 | 77 | 74 |
| Brewers | 73 | 68 | 73 |
| Phillies | 71 | 73 | 73 |
| Twins | 59 | 74 | 72 |
| Padres | 68 | 69 | 71 |
| Reds | 68 | 73 | 70 |
Compared to last season, the Twins are expected to gain the most wins (+13), and the Rangers are expected to lose the most (-9). Compared to the projection, though, the Rangers have the biggest positive advantage (+6), and the Angels are at the bottom (-6). At this point in time, we can’t separate offseason expectations vs. season expectations. I don’t know if fans are skeptical of the Rangers’ player projections, or if they think the Rangers will just have a strongly positive winter. But this is among the reasons why I look forward to running a nearly identical project at the end of March. I look forward to being able to compare the data sets. My hunch here is that people definitely aren’t buying the Angels’ relatively rosy projection. People are also modestly down on the Rays.
To look at the White Sox for a moment: They’re projected to win 78 games. Last season, they won 78 games. The expectation is that they’ll win 75 games. It looks like a greater number of the respondents believe the White Sox are about to start some sort of dismantling process. Obviously, there’s no consensus yet that they’ll completely tear down, because then you’d expect to find them with an even worse record. To be observed!
Let me know if there’s anything else you’d like to see, and, thanks, again, for your participation. I love running projects like this, and I love that you people let me.
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.

Normally this is where I’d make fun of people for being overly optimistic resulting in impossible standings with too many wins, but we collectively only added about 21 more wins that should be possible, which is less than a win per team. Considering we were voting in 5 win windows, that’s pretty good I’d say.
Add a closer to the Giants and you can bank on them flipping with the Dodgers on their projections.
Closer > Kershaw…. Am I right?
Impossible. It’ll be an odd-numbered year!
So 1 reliever will add 5 wins to the Giants and subtract 5 wins from the Dodgers?
Bruh. The Braves just signed Dickey AND Colon. Need to update that win total to 95+.
Because, you know, Dave Stewart says just add their expected win totals to the team’s current win projection, right?
No, you are confusing wins with birthdays.
Not sure voters are really down on the Rays – expectation is they have the best last-place record, in the only division with four teams with winning records. The voters may well think they’re going to be as good as, say, the Royals or Tigers.
While the Royals/Rangers thing makes perfect sense to me, I can’t really explain it, but I think because I’ve wasted my life without social media, so I’ve never developed a very comprehensive troll catalog. Please, teach me: why you would troll any team within five games of .500, unless there were some historic rivalry? I get the joke on teams at the bottom, and I can sort of imagine the deranged and wishful thinking that makes 105+ seem possible for any team over 90 wins (which also has superfans), but why does this happen at all? Serious question. Why aren’t *more* teams spared?
Also, Jeff, I’d be interested to know if anything like this happened last year.
Some people just want to watch the world burn. With tiny, meaningless flames.
Will Bartolo put the Braves in contention?
By that chart, it looks like the Rangers are the most overrated against their projections (by 6 wins), and the Angels most underrated (also by 6 wins).
All the talk about the angels needing to blow it up, but by this measure they are looking like 4th-best in AL, competing with Astros for the west and a head above the rangers. Can’t wait to see how that ship will sink this year.
Richards, skaggs, and shoemaker combined for like 250 innings this year, the projections have them throwing 525 innings next year.
Methinks you underestimate the power of Weaver’s 170 IP coming off the books
Help me understand the second column from the right on the last table, because I must be misunderstanding it.
I took it to be what Fangraphs’s models are projecting for the teams based on WAR totals from depth charts based on rosters as currently constructed. Is that right?
Seeing the Dodgers with 95 wins makes me doubt I am understanding correctly. Should we really imagine they’ll get to that win total when they currently have no 3B and holes in the pen? Such skepticism leads me to think I’m misunderstanding what that column represents.
As expected, the Pirates will suck next year again. Time for them to fire everyone and rebuild. Their front office is so pathetic. Can’t even win one division title in 9 years. All the other teams to not win a division in that time (Mariners, Astros, Rockies, Marlins, Padres) have all changed front offices in that time. Pirates keep their front offices long after their expiration dates.