The Giants Have Been Way Off BaseRuns

Darren Yamashita-Imagn Images This season was supposed to be something different for the Giants. Following last year’s 81-81 finish, president of baseball operations and franchise icon Buster Posey went outside the box to hire manager Tony Vitello straight from the college ranks, and added free agents Luis Arraez and Harrison Bader to upgrade a couple of the lineup’s dead spots. Throw in a full season of mid-2025 acquisition Rafael Devers, and the team had reasonable hope of reaching the playoffs for the first time since 2021, and just the second time in the past 10 seasons. Instead, the 2026 Giants haven’t spent a day over .500, and at 58-83, they own the National League’s second-worst record. Like the Tigers, they’re in danger of making some dubious history, in their case by falling short of their BaseRuns-projected win total by the largest margin of any team since 2002. As I explained on Thursday, the Tigers are nearly 11 full wins short of their Pythagorean-projected win total, an estimate based upon their totals of runs scored and runs allowed using the formula Winning % = RS^2 /(RS^2 +RA^2). Out of all the teams playing full seasons in the Wild Card era (not the strike-shortened 1995 season or the pandemic-shortened 2020 season, but including 2026 for the purposes of comparison), that’s the third-largest shortfall. Where Pythagorean projections use actual runs scored and allowed to calculate an expected winning percentage, BaseRuns uses estimated runs scored and allowed, derived from familiar statistical components such as hits, walks, hit-by-pitches, stolen bases, and so on. Those run estimates are then plugged into the Pythagenpat formula — a variant of Bill James’ Pythagorean formula where the exponent itself is a function of the scoring environment via the formula X = ((RS + RA)/G)^0.287 — for a second-order estimate of winning percentage. Both the Pythagorean and BaseRuns estimated winning percentages provide useful if imperfect ways of measuring teams’ underlying performance and helping to identify outliers in either direction. Our historical data for BaseRuns — which you can access through our Projected Standings page — only goes back to 2002, but for that timeframe, the Giants have the fourth-largest margin between their actual and expected win totals. They have some ignominious company alongside a couple of other teams from this season: Largest Margin Between Actual and BaseRuns-Projected Win Totals Team Season G W L W% BR W BR L BR Win% +/- Cubs 2002 162 67 95 .414 80 82 .496 -13.35 Athletics 2015 162 68 94 .420 81 81 .498 -12.68 Rays 2016 162 68 94 .420 81 81 .498 -12.68 Giants 2026 141 58 83 .411 71 70 .501 -12.64 Twins 2016 162 59 103 .364 71 91 .436 -11.63 Indians 2006 162 78 84 .481 89 73 .550 -11.10 Diamondbacks 2004 162 51 111 .315 62 100 .382 -10.88 Angels 2026 140 53 87 .379 64 76 .456 -10.84 Nationals 2009 162 59 103 .364 70 92 .431 -10.82 Tigers 2003 162 43 119 .265 54 108 .331 -10.62 Yankees 2017 162 91 71 .562 102 60 .627 -10.57 Tigers 2026 139 64 75 .460 74 65 .536 -10.50 Tigers 2004 162 72 90 .444 82 80 .507 -10.13 Royals 2023 162 56 106 .346 66 96 .408 -10.10 Rockies 2014 162 66 96 .407 76 86 .469 -9.98 The Giants’ season started so poorly that it took them until their third game to score their first run, by which point, Vitello had already made headlines for getting “all fire and brimstone” while addressing his players in a tone that may have impressed 20-year-old kids concerned with keeping their scholarships but not seasoned professionals. Bad play and bad news continued to follow for reasons as varied as their absurdly low walk rate, the slow starts of Devers and Willy Adames, Bader’s alcohol-related scooter crash, in which he severely injured his left foot while already sidelined by plantar fasciitis, and — most damaging from a public relations standpoint — a Pride Night cap controversy. The last of those alienated fans, damaged Posey’s reputation and riled up another franchise legend, retiring broadcaster Mike Krukow. The highlight of the team’s season might be the high marks it received for the prospects acquired when trading Arraez, Heliot Ramos, and Robbie Ray ahead of the August 3 trade deadline. Picking apart a team’s performance relative to its Pythagorean record generally starts with checking its records in blowouts and one-run games. On Thursday I noted that the Tigers have been very good in the former (23-14 in games decided by five or more runs for a .611 winning percentage, fifth in the majors) but very bad in the latter (13-23 in one-run games for a .361 winning percentage, second-worst in the majors). The Giants don’t have as interesting a contrast, in that they’re an unimpressive 21-26 (.447) in blowouts and a major league-worst 12-25 (.324) in one-run games. That’s left them “only” 4.77 wins short of their Pythagorean projection. 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. Diving into BaseRuns discrepancies generally means focusing on sequencing. This many singles, doubles, triples, homers, walks, stolen bases, double plays grounded into, and so forth usually averages out to this many runs, but — for example — a team hitting poorly with runners in scoring position and piling up solo homers is likely to undershoot that estimate. Oddly, the Tigers’ actual runs scored and allowed per game (4.39 and 4.05, respectively) are just a hair’s breadth from their BaseRuns estimates (4.37 and 4.04, respectively), but for the Giants, that’s not the case. They’ve scored 4.16 runs per game, 0.22 less than their projected rate and 23rd in the majors overall; meanwhile, they’ve allowed 4.67 runs per game, 0.3 more than projected, and 21st overall. Pinpointing where they’ve gone wrong, at least on the offensive side, is more of a challenge. Here’s a table showing some key situational splits: Giants Situational Batting Splits Split Tm PA BB% SO% AVG OBP SLG wOBA wRC+ wRC+ Rk Overall Avg Team 5321 8.9% 22.1% .244 .319 .400 .317 100 — Overall Giants 5284 7.4% 21.3% .247 .308 .405 .312 98 20 Empty Avg Team 2988 8.5% 22.8% .236 .309 .392 .311 96 — Empty Giants 3047 7.1% 21.4% .240 .299 .406 .310 97 14 Runners On Avg Team 2333 9.4% 21.1% .255 .331 .411 .324 105 — Runners On Giants 2237 7.7% 21.2% .258 .321 .405 .315 100 23 RISP Avg Team 1356 10.5% 21.6% .252 .335 .407 .321 103 — RISP Giants 1271 9.6% 21.2% .264 .339 .422 .327 107 10 Low Leverage Avg Team 2668 8.8% 22.1% .242 .316 .398 .316 99 — Low Leverage Giants 2783 7.3% 20.9% .243 .304 .401 .309 96 19 Medium Leverage Avg Team 2142 8.8% 22.1% .247 .320 .405 .319 102 — Medium Leverage Giants 2076 7.2% 21.8% .252 .312 .420 .319 103 12 High Leverage Avg Team 511 10.2% 22.0% .245 .327 .386 .309 95 — High Leverage Giants 425 8.5% 21.6% .256 .321 .364 .298 88 19 Adjusted for their ballpark, the Giants’ offense has been two points of wRC+ below league average overall. They’ve been a point better than the league average with the bases empty and four points better with runners in scoring position, but five points worse than the league average when considering all runners on base. While they’ve been a point better than average in medium-leverage situations, they’ve been three points worse than average in low-leverage sitautions, and seven points worse in high-leverage situations. While that may not look like it should add up to much of a shortfall, the key here is opportunity. The Giants walked a ridiculously low 5.7% of the time through the end of May, two percentage points lower than any other team this year to that point, and lower than any team in the integration era — in a season when the league-wide rate (8.9%) has been higher than any full season since 2009. The Giants have since improved in that department to the point that their major league-worst rate is only 0.1 points below the 29th-ranked team (the Blue Jays), but that has still cost them not only runners on base, but also the plate appearances that come from keeping the line moving in those advantageous situations. You can see that the table shows the average number of plate appearances each team has taken in a given situation. The Giants have 59 more plate appearances than average with the bases empty, 85 fewer than average with runners in scoring position, and 96 fewer than average with men on base. They have far more low-leverage plate appearances than the average team, and far fewer high-leverage ones. So their almost-average offense isn’t giving itself as many opportunities in important situations, and in some of those, it’s also underperforming substantially. On a league-wide basis, teams hit for a wRC+ that’s nine points higher with men on base (105) than with the bases empty (96), but for the Giants, the margin is only three points (100 to 97). On an individual basis, three of the five hitters with the most plate appearances with runners on base have a wRC+ that’s at least 21 points lower in that context than with the bases empty, namely Devers, Adames, and Bryce Eldridge: Giants Situational Hitting, Bases Empty vs. Runners On Base Empty On Base Player PA HR AVG OBP SLG wRC+ PA HR AVG OBP SLG wRC+ +/- Rafael Devers 323 22 .244 .328 .533 137 279 10 .262 .341 .455 116 -21 Jung Hoo Lee 324 6 .269 .312 .393 97 200 3 .308 .350 .445 121 24 Willy Adames 313 14 .254 .307 .474 115 192 7 .190 .260 .339 68 -47 Casey Schmitt 219 12 .233 .265 .448 95 190 9 .316 .342 .525 136 41 Bryce Eldridge 220 12 .254 .359 .508 141 174 3 .270 .351 .368 104 -37 Matt Chapman 182 3 .170 .275 .252 55 170 4 .304 .376 .493 140 85 Luis Arraez 301 3 .314 .346 .432 117 163 1 .346 .389 .459 127 10 Drew Gilbert 200 5 .227 .320 .375 98 150 3 .244 .331 .378 97 -1 Heliot Ramos 177 5 .250 .288 .417 95 129 4 .283 .326 .433 109 14 Daniel Susac 80 1 .197 .238 .289 47 81 2 .294 .342 .471 121 74 Christian Koss 82 0 .211 .268 .263 52 64 1 .186 .200 .254 24 -28 Meanwhile, four of the top nine players in terms of plate appearances with runners on base, all with a higher wRC+ in that context than with the bases empty, are no longer with the team, namely the since-traded Arraez and Ramos, and the injured Schmitt and Chapman, both of whom are out for the season; Schmitt underwent surgery to repair the torn meniscus in his left knee on July 31, while Chapman underwent core muscle surgery in mid-August. On the subject of shutdowns, Adames, who has struggled this year while battling back woes, may now be done for the year after spraining the ulnar collateral ligament of his left elbow in late August. A couple other things stand out about the Giants offense, the first of which applies to the table above. This season, 57.8% of all home runs have been hit with the bases empty, but for the Giants, that rate is 62.4%. Devers (68.8%), Adames (66.7%), and Eldridge (80%) — three of the four Giants with double-digit totals — have solo homer rates much higher than average, while the fourth, Schmitt, is right around average (57.1%). All of this has seeped into the situational table, but it bears repeating: The timing of their home runs could be better. My final point on the offense is that while stolen bases and caught stealing are accounted for in BaseRuns, other aspects of baserunning, such as taking an extra base, are not. As a team, the Giants have a 77% success rate on steals, right at the major league average, but they’ve stolen only 67 bases, the majors’ fifth-lowest total. They’re 6.1 runs below average in terms of their overall baserunning, the third-lowest mark in the majors. At Baseball Reference, we can see that while they’re above-average in the number of times they’ve advanced from first to third on a single, they’re below average when it comes to scoring from first on a double or from second on a single, and overall, their 40% rate of extra bases taken is two points below average. I think you can see that there are ways the Giants offense has missed the mark. Using the same type of comparison, it’s not hard to see where the Giants’ pitching has gone wrong: Giants Situational Pitching Splits Split Tm PA BB% SO% AVG OBP SLG wOBA wRC+ Overall Avg Team 5321 8.9% 22.1% .244 .319 .400 .317 100 Overall Giants 5364 9.8% 19.8% .249 .329 .387 .318 99 Empty Avg Team 2988 8.5% 22.8% .236 .309 .392 .311 96 Empty Giants 2908 9.3% 21.3% .239 .316 .379 .310 95 Runners On Avg Team 2333 9.4% 21.1% .255 .331 .411 .324 105 Runners On Giants 2456 10.3% 18.0% .261 .345 .399 .327 106 RISP Avg Team 1356 10.5% 21.6% .252 .335 .407 .321 103 RISP Giants 1481 11.9% 18.2% .264 .358 .419 .338 114 Low Leverage Avg Team 2668 8.8% 22.1% .242 .316 .398 .316 99 Low Leverage Giants 2748 10.1% 19.6% .238 .319 .361 .304 91 Medium Leverage Avg Team 2142 8.8% 22.1% .247 .320 .405 .319 102 Medium Leverage Giants 2102 8.6% 21.1% .256 .328 .417 .328 108 High Leverage Avg Team 511 10.2% 22.0% .245 .327 .386 .309 95 High Leverage Giants 514 12.6% 15.8% .283 .388 .411 .348 123 Giants pitchers have held opposing batters to a 99 wRC+ overall. They’ve been one point better than the league average with the bases empty, one point worse than the league average with runners on base… and 11 points worse with runners in scoring position, where they’ve given the opposition 135 extra opportunities relative to the average team. Giants pitchers have been very good in low-leverage situations, but six points worse than average in medium-leverage situations, and 28 points worse than average in high-leverage situations. Good grief. As for individuals, here’s a similar table to the one for the hitters, but comparing their bases-empty performance with that when runners are in scoring position, since that’s an area where the team has been significantly worse than league average. Since we don’t present situational pitching wRC+ on the site, I’m sticking with wOBA here: Giants Situational Pitching, Bases Empty vs. Runners In Scoring Position Empty RISP Player PA HR AVG OBP SLG wOBA PA HR AVG OBP SLG wOBA+ +/- Logan Webb 367 6 .223 .278 .331 .272 151 4 .258 .340 .394 .327 .055 Landen Roupp 353 6 .212 .303 .321 .284 139 4 .270 .374 .417 .351 .067 Adrian Houser 265 8 .275 .332 .459 .345 123 3 .206 .262 .346 .265 -.080 Robbie Ray 305 9 .250 .341 .403 .332 101 4 .183 .263 .354 .267 -.065 Trevor McDonald 171 4 .247 .304 .399 .310 88 2 .250 .391 .353 .343 .033 Caleb Kilian 89 2 .241 .292 .337 .282 76 2 .231 .320 .323 .282 .000 Tyler Mahle 251 8 .252 .327 .403 .323 70 3 .288 .343 .542 .368 .045 Keaton Winn 87 1 .247 .299 .383 .300 64 1 .220 .359 .300 .303 .003 Sam Hentges 60 0 .180 .317 .200 .257 60 0 .304 .433 .370 .355 .098 Erik Miller 59 0 .184 .322 .224 .267 57 1 .178 .333 .289 .280 .013 JT Brubaker 145 4 .211 .303 .367 .300 57 0 .256 .368 .326 .315 .015 Ryan Walker 68 1 .200 .353 .273 .301 55 3 .341 .392 .614 .402 .101 Dylan Smith 61 1 .259 .344 .389 .328 54 2 .233 .327 .395 .294 -.034 Matt Gage 52 2 .227 .346 .432 .345 53 4 .310 .404 .667 .440 .095 Ryan Borucki 40 2 .324 .375 .622 .425 51 1 .279 .373 .395 .336 -.089 Carson Whisenhunt 89 2 .266 .348 .405 .336 41 2 .294 .366 .559 .386 .050 Reiver Sanmartin 37 3 .222 .243 .528 .326 32 0 .333 .419 .481 .385 .059 Jason Foley 37 0 .243 .243 .297 .237 30 1 .348 .467 .609 .434 .197 Carson Seymour 47 3 .317 .404 .610 .434 29 0 .280 .379 .320 .324 -.110 Blade Tidwell 108 1 .198 .287 .260 .256 26 3 .409 .462 .864 .538 .282 While the subpar performances of the two starters with the most plate appearances with runners in scoring position (Webb and Roupp) are offset by those of the next two (Houser and the since-traded Ray), only three of the other pitchers have a lower wOBA allowed with runners in scoring position than with the bases empty. Five relievers are at least 95 points worse, including Walker and Hentges, two of their top setup men. It’s not great. The Giants didn’t look like world-beaters coming into the season, but even matching their projected win total of 82 would have constituted a mild improvement, and with Playoff Odds of 31.4%, they had a reasonable chance to take an even bigger step forward. Instead, they’ve been an absolute mess from the outset, and particularly bad timing on both sides of the ball is just one more reason why.