The Most-Changed Teams Since Opening Day

Projections. Do you not like reading that word? Don’t worry about it. I don’t particularly like writing that word, and I know full well that it can be a major turn-off. It doesn’t help that there’s not a great alternative way to express the same idea. When you’re talking about projections, you typically have to say “projections” somewhere. It’s inelegant, but it is what it is.

Some people don’t like projections because projections aren’t always right. Perfectly legitimate, even if it holds the model to an impossible standard. That being said, overall, the better projections are better than human guesswork. I’ve never seen convincing evidence that people are better at seeing the baseball future than projections are, and so the projections live on, referred to constantly. This has all been a long way of getting to the point that, hey, I’m about to build a post around our team projections. I want to compare projections today to the projections we had the morning of the first day of the season.

It’s not that hard to do, using the information readily available on our Playoff Odds page. You could do it yourself! But you don’t have to. Because, look below. When we start getting games under our collective belt, fans and readers ask us which of our ideas have changed. We all have our own individual ideas about players and teams, but changes in the projections tend to be closely linked. So let’s quickly examine changes at either end of the spectrum.

I’ve prepared two plots. For this first one, you’re seeing current end-of-season projected wins, minus end-of-season projected wins from opening day.

You Aren't a FanGraphs Member
It looks like you aren't yet a FanGraphs Member (or aren't logged in). We aren't mad, just disappointed.
We get it. You want to read this article. But before we let you get back to it, we'd like to point out a few of the good reasons why you should become a Member.
1. Ad Free viewing! We won't bug you with this ad, or any other.
2. Unlimited articles! Non-Members only get to read 10 free articles a month. Members never get cut off.
3. Dark mode and Classic mode!
4. Custom player page dashboards! Choose the player cards you want, in the order you want them.
5. One-click data exports! Export our projections and leaderboards for your personal projects.
6. Remove the photos on the home page! (Honestly, this doesn't sound so great to us, but some people wanted it, and we like to give our Members what they want.)
7. Even more Steamer projections! We have handedness, percentile, and context neutral projections available for Members only.
8. Get FanGraphs Walk-Off, a customized year end review! Find out exactly how you used FanGraphs this year, and how that compares to other Members. Don't be a victim of FOMO.
9. A weekly mailbag column, exclusively for Members.
10. Help support FanGraphs and our entire staff! Our Members provide us with critical resources to improve the site and deliver new features!
We hope you'll consider a Membership today, for yourself or as a gift! And we realize this has been an awfully long sales pitch, so we've also removed all the other ads in this article. We didn't want to overdo it.

This plot contains good news for the Diamondbacks, Rockies, Yankees, Brewers, and so on. But the biggest news of all is right there at the far side — we’ve got the Giants, dipping from 88.5 projected wins to 80.1. That shift has taken place in less than four weeks, and to put that in context, at the start of the year, the Giants ranked seventh in baseball in projected wins. Now they rank 16th, about even with the Marlins. The Giants were supposed to finish 11 games better than Arizona and Colorado. Now they’re projected to finish a few games behind. It’s not the biggest shift imaginable in such a short span of time, but this is huge, nevertheless. Giants fans presumably sense it. Don’t get stuck falling for the gambler’s fallacy, either — an early slump isn’t automatically offset by a later hot streak. All those losses are already in the books, and there’s no easily undoing the damage.

That plot helps to answer one question. However, a huge factor in there is how teams have already started. Let’s strip away the direct effect of actual wins and actual losses. In this plot, I’ve included the changes in projected rest-of-season winning percentage. This is a closer reflection of changes in true talent, as it’s important to remember that the projections we have on FanGraphs are responsive to new information in the form of new stats.

Of course, this order is much like the order in the previous plot. The Brewers, by this measure, look like the most-improved team around, having boosted their projected winning percentage by 19 points. It hasn’t had much of an effect on the Brewers’ shot at the playoffs, since no one really believes the Brewers have a shot at the playoffs, but I’d say this qualifies as a surge. And a massive component, naturally, has been Eric Thames‘ hot start, which has bumped his wOBA projection by 16 points. Manny Pina has boosted his own wOBA projection by 14 points, and you’ve probably never even heard of him before. I don’t need to break everybody down; overall, the Brewers look better. You can argue, with them and with any team, that nothing much has actually changed since opening day. Perhaps Eric Thames has been this good all along. But our expectations for him have most certainly climbed, as we’ve gained new data. That’s what this reflects.

The Yankees look good here, thanks to a handful of hot starts. Aaron Judge has bumped his wOBA projection nine points. Aaron Hicks has bumped his 11 points! The Diamondbacks also look legitimately improved, building on the potential people pointed out all March long. But why ignore the elephant in the room any longer? The Giants, again. Their projected rest-of-season winning percentage is down 29 points, a function of two obvious things: some bad starts, and the Madison Bumgarner injury. The Giants’ downward shift is more than twice as bad as the next-worst, which belongs to the Angels, and that probably has a lot to do with the Garrett Richards injury. As for the Blue Jays, when I look at the 20 hitters who have seen the biggest drops in projected wOBA, they’ve got three names in there, including Steve Pearce, Jose Bautista, and Devon Travis. Pearce has the biggest change of all, at -17 points. Some of the negative trends are going to reverse, but one should feel a little worse about the Jays now as compared to a month ago. That’s an obvious point, but it’s still a point worth remembering. It’s not *all* just about the early wins and losses.

It’s the Giants who’re in the most trouble. Where they used to be projected to win almost as much as the Astros, they’re now projected to win out like the…Blue Jays, which is awfully convenient. And if you’re a Mariners fan worried about losing both Mitch Haniger and Felix Hernandez, I guess the good news is that the projection hasn’t actually gotten much worse. But these projections are based on manually-estimated playing times, and maybe those injuries are worse than presently assumed. Look, there’s nothing truly good there. Just stuff that could be less bad.

I guess the major takeaway is that it’s been less than a month, and the NL West looks almost upside-down. Thank goodness for the Padres, preserving some element of familiarity.





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.

34 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Matt
9 years ago

Haniger probably balances himself out – less play time due to injury, but his hot start has to improve his projections.

victorvran
9 years ago

Cubs have the 5th largest decline. Doesn’t surprise me.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
9 years ago
Reply to  victorvran

They were going to have to play like they did last season to keep that projection up, and they haven’t.

victorvran
9 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

well, not really. They were projected at 95 wins this year, I beileve, last year they played like a 104 or 105 win team by baseruns.

My point was more that with the decrease in velocity and effectiveness of some of their starters, it makes a lot of sense that the projections would be lower.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
9 years ago
Reply to  victorvran

My understanding was that even if they played like a 104 or 105 win team in the early going, they would be projected to win out like a 95 win team simply because prediction models like this don’t predict at the extremes. But that may be incorrect.

bunslow
9 years ago
Reply to  victorvran

They were at 108 BaseRuns wins last year, but yeah most of the starters have had more-than-expected regression, most notably in the walk/control department (and in the last week, HR/9 allowed has been atrocious). Sullivan even indirectly commented on the loss of control, not to mention of course that all 5 starters seem to have lost a couple of ticks of velocity.

Honestly I consider it a minor win that after what we’ve seen so far, the Cubs are above .500 and the division odds haven’t gone down since then. (It helps that the Cards and Buccos have had more-unexpectedly-bad starts than the Cubs.)

snapperMember since 2019
9 years ago

As a Yankee fan, I certainly feel the improvement. The rotation was a huge question mark, and now feel pretty solid with Severino and Pineda throwing well, and Sabathia showing his junk-baller reinvention has some legs.

Headley’s shown he’s not toast, Castro is looking like his old-old self, and Judge looks like a real-deal MLB power hitter.

Add in the expected returns of Sanchez and Gregorius, and you’ve got to feel like this is a legit playoff contender.

bndj88Member since 2017
9 years ago

Orioles off to great start as a team. But yesterday an out-of-towner asked about who on the team is scorching hot that’s making this happen, and, well… “Bundy! He’s great. Bullpen set-up guys have been steady. Uhhh, Schoop’s hitting well, Jonesy is solid, and Seth Smith is pretty good.”

It’s so strange to see us winning without anything from Machado, Trumbo, Tillman, Gausman, and Britton. Pythag and BaseRuns have us as a ~.500 team right now, but this 14-6 start is already banked. We’ll see if they can keep the magic going, which they’ll need to with the Yankees and Red Sox looking strong in the East.

JoserMember since 2021
9 years ago
Reply to  bndj88

Who is making this happen for Baltimore? Going forward, I have no idea; but to this point, the Blue Jays have made this happen for Baltimore. The AL East birdfight has already occurred 6 times, and the Jays have been the losers in 5 of those games. I don’t know what the pre-season projections were for these two teams, but given that they’re still reasonably close, I think it’s safe to assume the head-to-head match-up was expected to be closer to a .500 split. And that could still happen, though it seems unlikely; as you say, that hot start is already in the bank (just as the Jay’s cold start is). But if you’re looking for the one thing that kindled Baltimore’s hot start, you need to look not on their roster but towards the Great White North.

rosen380
9 years ago

Funny just did something similar with 2016 data [from way back machine], but comparing to actual records going forward up to the trade deadline

I compared the 4/27/2016 RoS to the 3/31 RoS– the eight teams with the biggest negative difference had an unweighted projected RoS of .492, but put up a .514 w% from that point to the deadline.

The eight teams that were way ahead of the preseason projections were almost exactly reversed, .513 RoS but were .496 to the deadline.

The middle teams were pretty flat at .494 and .498 respectively.


Thoughts on why teams that started out poorer than expected then went on to beat projections while the teams that started out hot [relative to the projections] did the opposite?

Is this just noise or is there something in particular you’d attribute to it?

I was thinking that perhaps teams that start out hot are generally better teams and given that might take the start of the season slowly and perform a little worse [maybe more apt to give their top starters an extra day off here and there]. Lesser teams that suspect that every single win is more vital their chances of the post-season, don’t hold *anything* back.

Jimmy DuganMember since 2025
9 years ago
Reply to  rosen380

The Gambler’s Fallacy IS real!!

tung_twista
9 years ago
Reply to  rosen380

I think it might have to do with opposition power.
My guess is that the projections do NOT take into account the strengths of opposing teams.
Teams that are under-performing their projections are more likely to have met strong opposition.
However, the projection system does not know that and ding their chances more harshly than it should.
Of course, that means that those under-performing teams that have met strong opposition have a relatively weaker schedule left.
Not sure if that is sufficient to explain the gap but at least on paper it makes sense.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
9 years ago

Since Bumgarner went down, I feel like every time I see something about the Giants my first thought is something like: They’re in that “middle” range where they’re going to wind up as neither buyers or sellers. So an 80 win projection doesn’t surprise me. Just good enough that if they sell the fans will howl, just bad enough that deep down inside it’s hard to imagine they’ll make it.

Birdsplat
9 years ago

Just putting this out there from a recent article in the Baltimore Sun:

If nothing else, the people at FanGraphs who predicted another losing season for the Orioles have updated their projection to reflect the strong start and now have them winning 84 games, which must come as a great relief to Showalter.

“If we lose the next nine or 10 games, will they readjust it and then say, ‘We were right?’” Showalter said. “I’ve got to get in that business. That’s a hell of a business. You can never be wrong.”

rosen380
9 years ago
Reply to  Birdsplat

That is just ignorance of how it works.

(1) On 4/3, the last day before a MLB game was played, Fangraphs had them at .502 pre-season, 81-81– is that a “losing season”?

(2) Now they have them at a near identical .497 RoS. The projected full-season is now 85-77 because the 14-6 happened. Fangraphs stance on the team going forward is virtually unchanged.

It is like if I have a perfectly fair coin that I’m going to flip 100 times. If in the first 20 flips I get 14 heads, I’m now going to predict 54 heads and 46 tails for the 100 flips.

Does Buck think that this means the coin is rigged?

bndj88Member since 2017
9 years ago
Reply to  rosen380

See I love this from Buck. He is super intelligent – he understands perfectly well how projections work I’m sure. But playing the “can’t get no respect card” has won him big loyalty from us Baltimore fans. Plus I suspect it may actually play well in the clubhouse too (Jones talks about it all the time). Now, the “projections-hate-the-Orioles” thing is baked in and is an established talking point. Even I like it, despite being a stats-first O’s fan. “Us against the world” is kinda fun, even if you know it’s not exactly true.

victorvran
9 years ago
Reply to  bndj88

You like a narrative you know isn’t true?

bunslow
9 years ago
Reply to  victorvran

Humans are notoriously fickle and emotional beings

bunslow
9 years ago
Reply to  bndj88

I’m sure there’s tons of people who genuinely believe that in KC (in addition to those like you who just go along for the fun of it) — I wonder how they feel about the Royals this year?

The Ghost of Stephen Drews BatMember since 2026
9 years ago
Reply to  bndj88

If I remember correctly, a man won an election using this tactic.

Birdsplat
9 years ago
Reply to  rosen380

Re (2), saying the projections going forward are unchanged ignores the fact that season projections have been adjusted based on the games played. I think that’s the point of Showalter’s comments, that there’s no accountability for pre-season projections being off and it appears to be a bit slippery to make an adjustment informed by real games being played without acknowledging or trying to explain why the initial projections don’t line up with what happens during the season.

rosen380
9 years ago
Reply to  Birdsplat

” I think that’s the point of Showalter’s comments”

That is the coin flip example I gave.

Before I flipped any coins, I would project 50 heads and 50 tails. Twenty flips in, at 14 vs 6, I still project 50% heads going forward, so 40-40.

My new prediction for the end result is 54-46. It isn’t that I’ve changed what I think the coin will do, but that I can’t change what it’s done when it does something different than I expected.

Perhaps, I’d be a little suspicious of the 14-6 coin being fair and adjust my odds to 52%/48% to account for the possibility of a biases coin. Fangraphs does do this, which is why over time their projected RoS changes.

Maybe it’d be better if you could see the projected standings for any given date in the past [or a graph like the post-season odds maybe]. But like I did above, the wayback machine makes frequent copies of most of the internet so it’s not like it’s really ever lost. It is just lost to people who can’t be bothered to look.

bunslow
9 years ago
Reply to  Birdsplat

That’s almost as funny as Dave Stewart trying to take credit for the Dbacks hot start

rbemont
9 years ago

Be interesting to see how % playoff odds have changed for teams.

Seems like the biggest reductions are coming from teams expected to compete for the playoffs, and the most increases come from teams not really expected to repeat. Naturally.

So, teams like ARZ and COL may have bumped a few of the expected contenders.

rosen380
9 years ago
Reply to  rbemont

If you are interested, just look at the playoff odds graphs here.

This is the AL East:
http://www.fangraphs.com/coolgraphs.aspx?lg=AL&div=E&stat=poff&year=2017

Lanidrac
9 years ago
Reply to  rbemont

Interestingly, despite the Cardinals’ mediocre start, their playoff odds are currently nearly even compared to the start of the season due to the Mets, Pirates, and Giants having even worse problems so far.

RyanMember since 2016
9 years ago

How do the Pirates not drop more in the 2nd chart as a result of the Marte suspension? They lose almost 2 wins in replacing him with someone around replacement level.

MGL
9 years ago

One of the important takeaways should be how little the true talent estimates of the teams have changed. The y-axis on the second graph is really stretched out to make it look like it has changed a lot, but it hasn’t. Other than the Giants, no team’s estimate of true talent has changed by even 2%.

MickO
9 years ago

So the Phillies were projected to have the 4th worst wins in the majors. With a current run differential of +10 and a change in projected wins very slightly up, the projection now is that they will actually have a worse winning pct. than originally thought. I’m not saying that there is anything wrong here, I am just curious how that came out?

DDMember since 2020
9 years ago
Reply to  MickO

It’s saying their RoS is slightly worse, because they have produced an unsustainable start, and regression puts their RoS at lower than it was originally projected. Overall (good start plus slightly lower RoS) they end up slightly better than start of the season.

Ender
9 years ago

Thames is part of it for the Brewers but the pitching looks much better than expected as well. I don’t know if any of it is for real as this bunch has never been able to sustain anything good, but there is some reason to hope that every one of them but Davies has improved.

John Autin
9 years ago

A historical tangent on the now 6-16 Blue Jays:

No team since the 1914 “Miracle” Braves has lost at least 16 of their first 22 games and wound up with an 88-win pace (a good benchmark for making the playoffs).

From 1913-2016, of the 95 teams that lost 16 or more of their first 22, only 4 finished over .500. After those Braves, it’s the ’86 Reds (from 6-16 to 86-76), the ’96 BoSox (6-16 to 85-77), and the ’40 Pirates (6-16 to 78-76).

Signed,
A Mets fan desperately seeking distraction

MadMonkMember since 2016
9 years ago

the Padres, we are good for something. you are welcome, Jeff.

Famous Mortimer
9 years ago

I don’t like projections because they don’t seem a great deal better than an educated guess. I feel sites like this aren’t allowed to say that because projections give you a lot of your off-season traffic. You prove the worth of projections, then I’ll care about them.