You proved my point with the Mariners. In the first 15 games the only guy they beat that was any good was Sale and Giolito. And Sale sucks this year. As soon as they saw Cole, Verlander, Bauer, Bieber, and Carrasco, they lost their next six. It takes a head to head series in the playoffs to get tested against the best. It takes getting to October to see the best teams in the NL. The Mariners could never make it through October, let alone get there. Whoever wins the world series in the best team because they earned it, and the Astros were the best team in 2017.
I don't think this is the hill you want to die on @PhiSlammaJamma. The variance in baseball is crazy high. It's way higher than basketball (which is super predictable), but less than say, poker. (which can have crazy things happen) There is a lot of data to back this up. Here are some articles for you: UNDESERVING CHAMPIONS: EXAMINING VARIANCE IN THE POSTSEASON The inevitable variance of postseason baseball Calculating Skill and Luck in Major League Baseball How do the season's 'best' teams fare in the playoffs? In conclusion, baseball is a crapshoot. I would give the Astros something like a 30-35% chance to win the Series again this year, and that's a crazy high number.
I never said the Mariners would win the World Series. But they were a bad team capable of beating other bad / mediocre teams. A good team -- which describes all of the teams in the playoff picture -- is capable of getting hot and beating teams that are objectively better. 2019 Astros are an undeniably elite team with a great shot at winning the World Series. But if they get unlucky (or run into a team that gets a little bit lucky), they may not win it all.
Let's look at that though. Since 1995, as the article denotes, what seasons in the last 22 years would you really consider a crapshoot? Maybe two. I mean really, it's not. 1995 ATLANTA BRAVES VERDICT: There were no upsets on the way to the World Series. Cleveland had the better record, but were also in a different league and Atlanta had the best ERA and FIP in the Majors as a team, I think that this was a deserving title. 1996: NEW YORK YANKEES VERDICT: New York didn’t beat any teams that they shouldn’t have on the way to the World Series. Atlanta were the favorites but from a different league, and New York went on to win 3 more World Series from 1998-2000. I think that this was a deserving title. 1997 FLORIDA MARLINS VERDICT: Florida’s Pythagorean W-L récord was 88-74 and San Francisco’s was a shockingly bad 80-82, so the NLDS result should’ve been expected. The win over Atlanta was an upset but terrible umpiring played a big part. The win over Cleveland however wasn’t an upset. Depending on how you feel about the win over Atlanta, this was either a deserved championship or not. 1998: NEW YORK YANKEES VERDICT: No surprises here, a well-deserved championship. 1999 NEW YORK YANKEES VERDICT: Atlanta’s Pythagorean W-L récord was 98-64 and New York’s was 96-66, which is a very small difference. Looking further, New York had scored more runs per game (5.56 to 5.19), while Atlanta had a better team ERA (3.63 to 4.13) and FIP (3.85 to 4.35). The two teams faced each other in the 1996 World Series with similar rosters and New York won at the time as well. This was a well-deserved championship. 2000: NEW YORK YANKEES VERDICT: There’s no getting around that at face value New York’s every series win was an upset. That said, this team won the World Series the previous 2 years. Experience and other unmeasurable values likely led to the championship. I don’t think that this was a fluke. 2001 ARIZONA DIAMONDBACKS VERDICT: Arizona’s Pythagorean W-L record was 95-67, better than the Pythagorean W-L record of every team that they beat. It looks like a deserved title. 2002 ANAHEIM ANGELS VERDICT: Anaheim’s Pythagorean W-L record was an even better 101-61. New York’s was 99-62, Minnesota’s was 86-75 and San Francisco’s was 98-63. This seems to be a deserved championship. 2003 FLORIDA MARLINS VERDICT: Our first fluke? Florida had a better team FIP than San Francisco (3.80 to 3.83), but there’s no sugarcoating that this title seemed to be the result of a hot streak. I think that Chicago’s morale dropping due to a belief in being cursed, and New York’s overconfidence and constant lineup shuffling played a part, but it does seem as a flukey championship. 2004BOSTON RED SOX VERDICT: Boston’s Pythagorean W-L record was 96-66 while New York’s was 89-73. St. What about the World Series? Boston was better than St. Louis at scoring runs that season (5.86 to 5.28), and had a better team FIP (4.03 to 4.17). The W-L record difference can be explained by them playing in different leagues. Boston deserved the championship. 2005 CHICAGO WHITE SOX VERDICT: No upsets here. Sad. But no upsets. 2006 ST. LOUIS CARDINALS VERDICT: They won the pennant two years earlier with largely the same roster and were in the NLCS for the third season in a row. It seems that experience carried them to the title. Does it mean that they deserved it this year? That’s debatable but hardly a “crapshoot”. 2007 BOSTON RED SOX VERDICT: Boston’s Pythagorean W-L record was 101-61, Cleveland’s was 91-71. Boston definitely deserved the championship. 2008 PHILADELPHIA PHILLIES VERDICT: Philadelphia’s Pythagorean W-L record was 93-69, Tampa Bay’s was 92-70. I think that Philadelphia’s title clearly wasn’t a “crapshoot”. 2009 NEW YORK YANKEES VERDICT: The best team won the World Series. 2010 SAN FRANCISCO GIANTS VERDICT: The only upset here is their win over Philadelphia, or is it? San Francisco’s Pythagorean W-L record was 94-68, Philadelphia’s was 95-67. Looking deeper, San Francisco had a better team ERA (3.36 to 3.67) and FIP (3.74 to 3.93). Philadelphia scored more runs (4.77 to 4.30). This was close and in all honesty either team could’ve won. I think that San Francisco’s title can’t be seen as a fluke. 2011 ST. LOUIS CARDINALS VERDICT: There is no getting around the fact that St. Louis shouldn’t have won the World Series. They did however finish the season by going 23-9. 2012 SAN FRANCISCO GIANTS VERDICT: There were no upsets except the win over Cincinnati. San Francisco was better at scoring runs (4.43 to 4.13), but was behind in team ERA (3.68 to 3.34) and FIP (3.78 to 3.72). This was also largely the same team that won the World Series 2 years earlier. I think that it was very close (the series did take all 5 games after all), but San Francisco’s championship isn’t a fluke. 2013BOSTON RED SOX VERDICT: No randomness here. Boston’s Pythagorean W-L record was 100-62, St. Louis’s was 101-61. That said, they are in different leagues and Boston was better at scoring runs (5.27 to 4.83). It was close and Boston deserves the pennant so I don’t think that this result can be considered a fluke. 2014 SAN FRANCISCO VERDICT: San Francisco’s Pythagorean W-L record was 87-75 and Kansas City’s Pythagorean W-L was 84-78. There’s no sugarcoating San Francisco winning the pennant however, but once again we see an experienced team that won recent championships have an unimpressive regular season only to win the World Series. Do they deserve it? That’s debatable, but winning 3 championships in 5 years isn’t a “crapshoot”. 2015 KANSAS CITY ROYALS VERDICT: No upsets here, a well-deserved championship. 2016 CHICAGO CUBS Verdict: They were the favorites in every series, this was a well-deserved championship. 2017 HOUSTON ASTROS VERDICT: There were no upsets on the way to the pennant. Did they deserve to win the World Series? Houston scored more runs per game than LA (5.53 to 4.75), and they’re in different leagues.
Debating whether the World Series champion is deserving is a straw man - whoever wins ran the gauntlet, they deserve it. It still takes some cards to fall right. = As examples, you listed the 2001 Arizona team as deserving. They were favored in every matchup, sure -- but they got to miss the team that won the most games in the 100 years of baseball. That doesn't discredit their team. The 2015 KC Royals were a very good team. They had a bit of luck. They were down 4 runs in the 8th inning of an elimination game - they had a 3% win probability and managed to pull it out. https://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/HOU/HOU201510120.shtml The 2017 Astros would probably say the same - the World Series went 7 games and included 2 extra-inning wins (and a loss and a blown save by the guy who was objectively the best closer in baseball that year). The 2018 version of the Astros won even more games, but things didn't quite break their way to the team that eventually won it all (most notably, the Altuve non-HR call). The Astros, Dodgers, and Yankees all have great cases this year - nothing would be a fluke about any of them winning it (or frankly most of the other playoff teams either). Whoever does win it is probably going to have some timely hitting or an unexpected pitching performance along the way.
Anyone who says that another WS win is in the bag for the Astros just needs to stop. I mean, don’t you watch baseball? The game shows us time and time again that the unexpected can happen. I love the Astros chances if healthy, but it will not be easy. Can’t we just enjoy the ride?
It's only in the bag if we are the best team. but that's not clear. We'll find out in October. But I do believe the best team will win it. The ride is always fun.
Four teams max are currently tanking. Problem is that there are a lot of teams trying to compete that can't get pitching or depth because better teams were picking those guys up in 2017 and 2018. Some teams are also delusional.
So we're gonna ignore all the times in which the statistically best team was eliminated by a team that didn't win the WS.
Shhh. Stats only matter if they support who won. You have to start with who won World Series, and then pick a metric that supports it. When the next year come, you can ignore the stats that you used the previous year and pick whatever metric supports your opinion that year.
Make your statistical cases in addition to those I noted for how a team just got hot and won it and I'm sure folks will chime in. I put my rationale down as to why each was deserving and as as to why each team was the best. I might even give you one. The Mariners are the most legitimate case made so far in that regard, but they lost to the 3 time defending world series champions in the playoffs right, so that's not really a crapshoot, or luck, or a hot streak. The Yankees didn't just get hot. They'd been playing that way for more than 4 years and were clearly the better team taking 4 games to 1. The Mariners couldn't get past the three time defending champs. And the Diamondbacks were the favorite in each of their series.
Year Pyth. Win Leaders, win WS? 2018 Hou N 2017 Cle N 2016 CHN Y 2015 Tor N 2014 Oak N 2013 St. L N Using Vegas odds or Fangraphs Playoffs End of Season odds would be better, but even then likely 30% is best you will get from an independent metric. As long as the best team doesn't win every game, there will be an element of luck in wins a playoff series. Playoffs would be boring if best team always won.
Would agree that the Vegas odds are more reflective of current trends in playoff baseball than the pyth, since the pyth is more about building a roster at the trade deadline and your luck factor, poor Harvard, however, those vegas odds are really just designed to get people to lay money right? So how reliable can that be given there is a financial incentive. It's less analytical than it is about what the average bettor is thinking about and how do we get them to bet money. At least that's how I understand it from the outside looking in. For example, LA is likely going to be 75% odds for any given series, but only 25% odds to bet the entire world series caboodle. It has to be less to get people to bet.
I'd say Vegas favorites prior to 2010 may be weaker, but recently they've made it near impossible to make money on MLB games using statistical approaches. If Vegas wasn't sound statistically at predicting games, statisticians and people with free access to their stats would take their money with the amount of data out there now. Vegas doesn't like to lose money. Considering that Vegas has more money than FanGraphs, BP, etc., I'd trust their favorite more than the baseball sites. Granted, I'm just poor Harvard who wishes he bet more in college and right after college than just beers between friends. If you don't like Vegas, pick any independent metric, analogy you want and at best that metric will predict WS champ about 30% of the time.
This is true. I bet in Vegas almost every day, including today, and it’s damn hard to beat them long term. You may get lucky once in a while, but trying to consistently win money betting baseball takes a level of knowledge and luck that 99 percent of the public just doesn’t have. Myself included!
Lighten up. It’s a fan message board where people predict things n such. Why on earth would anything on here make you not “enjoy the ride”?
What!?!? This is a fan message board?! I thought I was in the barber shop with some of these great takes! Who knew!? Thank you for your great wisdom. For the record, I’m light as a feather.
Marwin, Kirk Gibson, Jim Edmonds' catch. Yes, one play can impact a game.... and one game can most certainly impact the dynamics of a short series (and they're all short in baseball).
