The Team Projections and You, Again
Hello, and welcome to something we’ve already done. Two months ago, I asked you what you thought of the American League team projections, then I followed that up by asking you what you thought of the National League team projections. Shortly thereafter, I analyzed all the results, and, what fun we had. What number of things we learned, about ourselves and one another.
I had an idea then I’d be re-doing the same project. Max Scherzer, for example, was still a free agent at that point. Same with James Shields. There have been trades and injuries. There’s been some added roster clarity. There’ve been a couple months of critical thought. And, very importantly, our projections page now includes ZiPS, in a 50/50 blend with Steamer. Previously, everything was based on Steamer and Steamer alone, and I know some of you have very strong opinions about that. Now Steamer’s been balanced, and our numbers reflect the new inputs.
So now I’m curious where you stand — even more curious than I was at the end of December. These are the current projected standings. They’re based on two projection systems and on the depth charts maintained by a group of FanGraphs authors. You can navigate to all the individual depth charts here, and while there will surely be injuries and while there will surely be waiver claims, it’s unlikely the league landscape changes significantly before Opening Day. So how do you feel about your favorite team’s projection? Does it seem right on, a little off, or somehow outlandish? There are polls, so many polls, embedded below, just begging for your participation, but hopefully I have made this post pretty easy to follow. Even though this time around I’ve combined both leagues into one huge polling maelstrom, if you get overwhelmed, I think it’s your own fault.
I’ll analyze the results before very long. There will only be results if you guys help me out! Do that, please. Participation was awesome the last time around. I’m hoping for a repeat.
To proceed directly to a specific team poll, click on the team’s name below. The polls themselves — you can probably figure out the polls themselves.
Angels, Astros, Athletics, Blue Jays, Braves, Brewers, Cardinals, Cubs, Diamondbacks, Dodgers, Giants, Indians, Mariners, Marlins, Mets, Nationals, Orioles, Padres, Phillies, Pirates, Rangers, Rays, Red Sox, Reds, Rockies, Royals, Tigers, Twins, White Sox, Yankees
=====
Angels
Astros
Athletics
Blue Jays
Braves
Brewers
Cardinals
Cubs
Diamondbacks
Dodgers
Giants
Indians
Mariners
Marlins
Mets
Nationals
Orioles
Padres
Phillies
Pirates
Rangers
Rays
Red Sox
Reds
Rockies
Royals
Tigers
Twins
White Sox
Yankees
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.
For the ZiPS/Steamer 50/50 projections, did you literally just add all the stats together and divide them by two? If it was something besides that, are the 50/50 projections publicly available?
Currently they are not publicly available but I think we’re working on that.
Well, they’re not publicly available on one page. They are available, by team, on the depth charts.
Any chance we can get them (the 50/50 steamer/zip with FG staff adjusted playing time/IP) all together in one download?
I think the projections have gotten a lot more into line so to speak with where I’d have them.
“And, very importantly, our projections page now includes ZiPS, in a 50/50 blend with Steamer.”
beauty.
though you guys still seem to be giving a free win to the red sox on the projections page comparing uehara/tazawa to their player pages.
I don’t know what that’s about, or which page is correct.
I’d think a better way of asking would be whether you think they’re good within 3 games either way, too high or too low. Isn’t 3 games a bit like splitting hairs?
Yeah, but I wanted to capture a little more. I think when people see a projection, they figure it’s either way too low, a little too low, right on, a little too high, or way too high. I think this reflects that a little better, although it’s not a perfect way to get to mathematical groupings. Mostly I was just trying to stay consistent with the previous edition.
Can someone explain the optimism for the Rangers?
They need at least two starters.
Upvoted for a non-troll comment.
Suddenly I feel neglected.
I do not expect them to set the world afire, but I think they will play around .500 assuming bounce backs by Fielder and Choo.
Plus their best two starters combined for like 21 starts last year, I think. (But yes, I agree that they still need some starters even if those guys are healthy.)
Everyone stole my robot gig. I was there first. Beep boop sad robot beep.
You mean two starting pitchers? You mean like Yu Darvish and Derek Holland? Or serviceable Gallardo and Lewis? Or the like twenty young pitchers that now have major league experience? Or 2 possible All Stars in Perez and Harrison? Talk about left field, dh, the bullpen, Prince Fielder in two years, but the starting rotation barring another apocalypse should be fine
The most interesting answers in these polls are always for the teams bunched around .500, I think. The projection systems are far less likely to predict extreme outcomes than humans are, so with teams like the Nationals and Phillies, the poll results are pretty obvious. We’ll be less conservative than the math. I assume almost everyone thinks DC will win more than 93, and most people think Philly will lose more than 92.
Whereas with the Yankees or Rays, these poll results will be a lot more fun to watch.
Anyway, just spitballing. Feel free to tell me I’m dumb here.
I think I actually disagree a bit. I’m guessing most people vote based on outcomes (division winner, WC, in the chase but miss, terrible), not win totals. With a team projected for 84 wins, it’s easy enough to squint and see them doing just about all of those, whereas the Dodger/Nats projections basically scream “DIVISION”, and there’s more room for disagreement. But I don’t really have anything to support that notion, just a guess.
You “think you disagree a bit”? Wow dude, grow some balls and stand up for your position instead of that tippy-tap prissy-boy BS.
Yeah WEAK SAUCE BROSEPH!!1!
*Downs three five-hour energy shots and works on my guns for an hour*
I think you’re basically correct. However, what you’re describing is a logical fallacy. The logic goes something like this:
1. The best team is projected to win 93 games and worst is projected to win 70.
2. In just about any given year, there are a few teams better than 93 wins, and a few worse than 70
3. Therefore the best projected team will probably actually win more than 93, and the worst fewer than 70.
Premises 1 and 2 are sound, but the conclusion is not valid. The fallacy is the assumption that the teams we currently project to be the best/worst will be the outliers. WAS is just as likely to win more than 93 games as it is to have a bunch of things go wrong and win fewer. There will probably be a team that wins more than 97 games, and probably one that wins 65 or fewer, but it is only marginally more likely to be WAS/PHI that do so than say, LAD/ATL.
So the chances that someone wins more than 93 games is pretty high. The chances WAS does it is probably about 50/50.
This is why I voted “Good” less than apparently everyone else.
I get that the projections will always have teams more clustered than in reality but does it bother anybody else that there are no AL teams projected to get more than 87 wins?
No, as long as you understand how projection systems work and what they are saying.
Are the projections saying that it’s most likely that no AL team wins more than 87 games? No. What they are saying is that no individual team is more likely than not to win 87 games. However, taken as a whole, it is basically guaranteed that there will be some teams with more than 87 wins, and that is not at odds with the projections.
Bip your comments here and above are spot on. Well said.
Thanks, I knew I took all that college math for a reason!
Agre with JasonB here, probabilities for “this team” vs. “any team” are so frequently mixed. Succinct explanation here and above. WAS may have the highest likelihood of being >93, but there’s at least the tiniest of chances that *the Phillies* could win >93.
That’s the thing. I understand it’s probabilities. I don’t know if it’s OCD or what but it just irks me for some reason.
Sorry, not sure where else to note this, but I’m noticing the ZiPS projection for Delino DeShields Jr. is linked to the original Delino DeShields.
…also that Delino DeShields Jr. is coming up as Delino Deshields without the extremely necessary capital S in Shields.
Um… I’m sorry if nobody cares about the second part too.
Yay ZiPS though!
Look just fine to me!
As of this comment’s writing, there are just 5 team projections that “Good” is not the majority vote.
Of these teams, the most optimism seems to be surrounding the White Sox and the Orioles, both of whom have have more support for both “low, by up to 3 games” AND “low, by more than 3 games”. Over 60 % of people think the Orioles Projections are low and a whopping 76% of voters have the White Sox projection as too low.
The Orioles aren’t surprising; we’ve seen them beat their projections regularly the past few years and the votes seem to reflect that.
I’m more excited to see how the White Sox do. They definitely put their chips on the table and there are lots of opinions on whether the moves they made were enough.
I totally think that White Sox projection is way too low, myself.
I tried to make a similar White Sox comment earlier but reCAPTCHA was being pissy this morning. The projection systems don’t give them a lot of credit for their offseason moves; add a quality SP, 1B, OF, two good RP, and now they’re…projected the same as the Rockies 🙁
Then again they have a LOT of question marks – SP4, SP5, 2B, 3B, C…I can conceivably see them winning 76 or 86 depending on how things break (but would lean toward an 81ish projection between the two).
And I would hasten to add I wouldn’t care as a fan if my team was projected to win 4 games, or 40, or 120, if they actually made the postseason.
Highlight and Google: reCAPTCHA please don’t be a bitch this time
The projections are what they are, but how the Reds are predicted to have the 5th worst offense (in runs scored per game) in all of MLB … while playing in that stadium … with every expectation that Votto & Bruce should be healthier … with a league average LF this year …
… call me optimistic, but I’m voting that the projections are at least 3 wins under where they end up.
Sure, but they may be selling off assets by the all-star game. It’s a confounding factor which almost makes me wish we were trying to project the first half rather than the whole year.