MLB WS Predictions

[ceeboo]

To the last I grapple with thee.

Wow, what a series. This is exhausting! On to the 14th!

The Battle in Seattle!

WOW!

What. A. Game!

[Whiskey]

Wow, what a series. This is exhausting! On to the 14th!

The Battle in Seattle!

WOW!

What. A. Game!

More respectable than the Phillies ending. But that HBP in the 15th? Can't be doing that.

[Res Ipsa]

What a game! Respect to the Tigers.

[Bret Ripley]

What a game! Respect to the Tigers.

No kidding. The thing that sucked about the ending is neither team deserved to lose.

It looks like Woo will be on the ALCS roster (yay) but not available for the first few games. Bryce Miller probably gets the start for game 1, and I still have time to order Tums for next-day delivery.

[Dr. Shades]

What a game! Respect to the Tigers.

No kidding. The thing that sucked about the ending is neither team deserved to lose.

I disagree. The team that scores fewer points automatically, and by definition, deserves to lose. That's why scores are kept.

[Bret Ripley]

No kidding. The thing that sucked about the ending is neither team deserved to lose.

I disagree. The team that scores fewer points automatically, and by definition, deserves to lose. That's why scores are kept.

I've been wondering what the scores were all about. Say, can you tell me who's on first?

[Bret Ripley]

Fangraphs currently shows the following probabilities:

Win World Series

20.8% Mariners
15.9% Phillies
15.6% Dodgers
10.5% Blue Jays
9.8% Yankees
7.0% Brewers
5.8% Padres
4.0% Red Sox
3.8% Tigers
3.8% Cubs
1.5% Guardians
1.5% Reds

Seattle with a 20.8% chance to win it all? I just kind of want to live here for a while.

Updated FanGraphs probabilities to win the World Series:

43.2% Dodgers
27.8% Mariners
17.2% Blue Jays
11.7% Brewers

There's a perverse part of me that would like to see a Brewers vs. Mariners World Series only because the Brewers made their MLB debut in 1969 as ... (cheesy overlong drumroll) ... the Seattle Pilots.

[Res Ipsa]

Rest? We don’t need no stinking rest!

[Dr. Shades]

I disagree. The team that scores fewer points automatically, and by definition, deserves to lose. That's why scores are kept.

I've been wondering what the scores were all about. Say, can you tell me who's on first?

Please educate me: How can the team that lost possibly not "deserve" to lose?

[Bret Ripley]

I've been wondering what the scores were all about. Say, can you tell me who's on first?

Please educate me: How can the team that lost possibly not "deserve" to lose?

My apologies -- I didn't realize you were being serious. It is an observation about the exhibited level of play separate from the outcome.

There is an element of luck in sporting events, and sometimes outcomes can be attributed to luck as much as (or more than) they can be attributed to a disparity in skill or effort. In a competitive context, so say that someone didn't deserve to lose means they played with sufficient skill to win but the outcome was decided more by chance than by having been outplayed. In another contest, an identical display of skill could reasonably result in victory.