What Is The Definiton of the BEST Team

[b4uplayball]

You hear opinions all the time about who is the best team. For example, based on the regular baseball season the Cubs and Angels appeared to be the "best" teams respectively in each league.

But do you measure a team by the regular season stats or is it the team that wins it all? Or do we need to qualify the definition? For example "The best team during the regular season"? or "The best team on paper". What do you think?

[Drivenbyjeter2]

You hear opinions all the time about who is the best team. For example, based on the regular baseball season the Cubs and Angels appeared to be the "best" teams respectively in each league.

But do you measure a team by the regular season stats or is it the team that wins it all? Or do we need to qualify the definition? For example "The best team during the regular season"? or "The best team on paper". What do you think?

The cubs and the angles are nowhere near the best team. They lost in the first round of the playoffs to teams they should have beaten or swept.
They are not the best team, case closed.
the best team is not a team that has the best offense, or pitchign staff, the best team is the well rounded teams...in that case the Rays. And im serious, this is coming from a diehard yankee fan, so this is tough to say after hating them this whole year. So yes THE RAYS ARE THE BEST!

But Yankees will be next year :)
With C.C. , AJ burnett, and prince fielder (via trading hughes and melky) We are gonna kick ass :) hahaha
Go YANKS

[plask_stirlac]

The schedules aren't balanced unfortunately.

The playoffs are entertaining but insufficient to tell which team is better. It's like asking five questions in Jeopardy and declaring a winner.

Sports are for entertainment. They whack a ball with a stick and run to the bases.

[philkid3]

The cubs and the angles are nowhere near the best team. They lost in the first round of the playoffs to teams they should have beaten or swept.
Why should the Angels have beaten the Red Sox? Most people with any sort of educated baseball opinion though the Red Sox were the better team.

I also don't see how 3-5 games can determine the best team. Anything can and will happen in such a small sample size.


Anyway, the definition of the best team is the team that is the best at playing baseball. That's it. Finding a definitive evaluation of who is the best is the hard part.

If you're looking for a firm evaluator, I'd probably lean towards something like third order record (pythagorean record using adjusted equivalent runs).

[DownUnderDodger]

In the regular season the Angels and Cubs were the "best" teams in the fact they won most games they played in the AL & NL respectively...regardless which division they played in, they won the most games. Surely that constitutes being the best, based on results. However in the overall scheme of things, the team which wins the WS is the best team because they took the trophy. They may not have won the most games during the regular season, and their players may not have better overall stats than players from other teams, however, they will have done all that is required of them by winning thru to and then winning the WS. There cannot be better than that!

[philkid3]

In the regular season the Angels and Cubs were the "best" teams in the fact they won most games they played in the AL & NL respectively...regardless which division they played in, they won the most games. Surely that constitutes being the best, based on results. However in the overall scheme of things, the team which wins the WS is the best team because they took the trophy. They may not have won the most games during the regular season, and their players may not have better overall stats than players from other teams, however, they will have done all that is required of them by winning thru to and then winning the WS. There cannot be better than that!

I disagree that the team with the best regular season record is the best. Too many flukey things can happen in a season and the schedule isn't balanced. There's a good chance the team with the best record is the best, but not absolutely.

I strongly, STRONGLY, disagree that the World Series winner is necessarily the best. Though they often are, the playoffs are a crap shoot. Any team can have three bad games against an inferior team, and that's all it takes for the best team to not win the title.

[hudsonharden]

"Best" is a far too subjective word. Each person's definition could be different. Some will say that the world series winner is the best team, some will say its the team with the most wins, other will say its the team with the best overall team statistics.

[ReignInBlood]

The best team is the team that wins on a consistent basis throughout the season and doesn't "fluke" on a best of five series. So in other words, I believe the World Series champions are truly the best team, since I think handling postseason pressure and performing to the fullest when it matters the most are also traits of the best team in the league.

[nyyfan]

Not really a "best" team now in my opinion. I think that a "best" team plays in a tough division where all the teams finish .500 or near it. They also do not rely on one star player but have a lot of players that make up the team.

[Evangelion]

If using wins to determine the best pitcher is a bad statistic to use to gauge how good a pitcher is. Then why are wins being used to determine the best team in the regular season?

[STLCards2]

If using wins to determine the best pitcher is a bad statistic to use to gauge how good a pitcher is. Then why are wins being used to determine the best team in the regular season?

Here is my opinion as to why:

Both do not account for some factors , pitcher wins does not acount for run support, quality of defense, leveraging, bullpen support. That is a huge chunk of what happens during a game and a season.

For team wins- pitching, hitting, and defnese are all included. The one area that is not factored in to team W-L is quality of team faced. If playing is a dividion like the horrible NLwest, that could be a big thing. Most teams however, get there fair share of good, poor, and mediocre teams.

Bottom line, while neither evaluation tool is perfect, pitcher W-L has a lot more outside factors working against it than team W-L.

Also, 162 games is a much more accurate sample size than 35 starts.

[spark240]

The schedules aren't balanced unfortunately.

The playoffs are entertaining but insufficient to tell which team is better.

I agree in a way... given the vagaries of chance in baseball, you could say that the truest test would be to have all 30 teams play a balanced schedule against each other--no leagues, no divisions and no postseason. The best record at the end of the season is the best team.

Really, there's no logical reason to have a postseason unless the teams are not playing the same schedule. The original postseason series were meetings of champions from entirely separate leagues. Today's playoffs between champions of different divisions are a descendant of this concept.

Playoff series have turned out to be a lot of fun, though, so I don't see them being abolished. Given that, we should have a structure in which the playoffs make some kind of sense; leaving aside the wild card, the present playoff system makes sense as testing of champions from different contexts, different divisions playing different schedules.

What team is the "best"? Surely the team which accomplishes its objective is the better. What is each team's objective? In the present system, ostensibly, the objective is to play well enough through the season to qualify for the postseason, and then to win each of three successive playoff series.

Sure, a five- or seven-game series isn't "enough" to measure certain kinds of team quality... but the long regular season measures those, does it not? The postseason measures somewhat different qualities. MLB gives the trophy to the team which has met both kinds of tests.

[philkid3]

If using wins to determine the best pitcher is a bad statistic to use to gauge how good a pitcher is. Then why are wins being used to determine the best team in the regular season?

Because wins are a team effort. Thus they're more useful when judging a team than judging a player.

Doesn't mean I think they're the only way to judge teams, of course.

[DownUnderDodger]

"Best" is a far too subjective word. Each person's definition could be different. Some will say that the world series winner is the best team, some will say its the team with the most wins, other will say its the team with the best overall team statistics.
Spot on HH. If we wanted to go into statistics and look really deeply into who played who in the regular season, and what happened in the playoffs, who did what against who, etc. we will never ever decide on the 'best' team. Therefore the use of the term "best" is totally subjective.

However.......when someone looks back into the past and sees that ????? won the WS in year ???? they will probably presume that team was the best under the circumstances that prevailed. The team in question did all they had to do to be the Champion team of that year....therefore to the rank and file, they were the "best" team. Best pitchers...maybe not. Best offence....maybe not. Best defence....maybe not. We could go into as many stats as we like, but the bottom line is that the team has WS rings, therefore they took advantage of what they had to do to get those rings, and therefore they were the "best" team of that season.

[Los Bravos]

They whack a ball with a stick and run to the bases.

Sometimes they win, sometimes they lose, sometimes it rains :baseball:

[F1ghtinPhils]

What is the definition of the best team ?

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i303/OldReading/billy.jpg

Well that depends on what your definition of IS, is.

[b4uplayball]

"Best" is a far too subjective word. Each person's definition could be different. Some will say that the world series winner is the best team, some will say its the team with the most wins, other will say its the team with the best overall team statistics.

I agree! That's why I think you need to qualify the definition of "Best".
But I know people feel strongly about who they think is the Best.
This topic caused a big fight between me and my bro! - But I got the BEST of it!

[slugger33]

The best team is the team that wins the World Series. It is that simple.

[philkid3]

The best team is the team that wins the World Series. It is that simple.

So in a close series, one flukey play is not a fluke but a definitive measure of who is better at winning baseball games?

[sflnyc]

In the pre-1969 days, it was a lot more simple. The best team finished first and played the best team from the other league. Yes, there may have been a 2nd or 3rd place team in the other league that finished with a better record than one of the World Series entrants, but IMO that didn't weigh as much as the sole team left standing on top after a season long struggle.

With the playoff format, it's basically an entirely different season and the winner of that season (whether it be by flukes, good luck, etc.) is the ruled as the best team.

So basically, the team that wins the World Series (regardless of their win-loss record) is the best team in baseball last year.

Granted, the NFL is different because of single-elimination, but you still have people saying that the Giants weren't the best football team last year and they just got hot at the right time. Same thing could be said of the 2005 Steelers. Regardless, the team that wins the championship (MLB or NFL) is the best team. If the other so-called superior teams (2007 NE Patriots or 2006 Detroit Tigers) that lost were indeed the best team, then they would have beaten all comers.

:twocents:

[philkid3]

Granted, the NFL is different because of single-elimination, but you still have people saying that the Giants weren't the best football team last year and they just got hot at the right time. Same thing could be said of the 2005 Steelers. Regardless, the team that wins the championship (MLB or NFL) is the best team. If the other so-called superior teams (2007 NE Patriots or 2006 Detroit Tigers) that lost were indeed the best team, then they would have beaten all comers.

:twocents:

The Giants didn't beat all comers.

[Lafferty Daniel]

Some combination of the following:

Best stats
Win %
World Series champs

[yamsi12]

the "best" team is the one that is at its peak during the playoffs. Dodgers as an example. They are playing great ball right now and the cubs were not. The angels and red sox as well. The angels were just starting to play like they were in july when they were unstoppable, and the manager made a bad call with a squeeze that cost them the season. If they would have won game 4....I would have bet they were gonna win the series. Didnt happen.

[Pete Rose Rounding Third]

When a team finishes the year with, say, one of the top two or three records AND wins the World Series, then there's no doubt. But if some team barely squeaks in and gets hot at the best possible moment, I have a hard time recognizing that team as "the best". I believe that if the 2003 World Series had been played 10 times, the Yankees would have won six of them. But they only play one, and the Marlins won that one. But there are often cases where the best team and the championship team do not correlate. As a player, I would surely prefer to play for teams that happen to get hot at the right time. Luck beats a shotgun, as they say.

[MagsMigs]

So who was the best team in 2006? 2003? 2001? 2000? 1997? 88? 87? 85?

Because apparently, it wasn't the champions of those years. I disagree. They won the championship. Was a 100-game winner/division champ/best regular season team/heavy favorite/team with the best player, who didn't win in these years the BEST team?

Then how come they lost when it mattered most?

[spark240]

I believe that if the 2003 World Series had been played 10 times, the Yankees would have won six of them. But they only play one, and the Marlins won that one.

And who "would have" won if the series was played on the moon? Who cares? The objective is not to win a series on the moon.

But there are often cases where the best team and the championship team do not correlate.

So how exactly do we recognize the best team, if the actual outcomes of actual games and series isn't it?

[b4uplayball]

Again, don't we need to qualify the "best"? And another thing ... Woulda, Coulda, Shoulda, just doesn't cut it.

The best team is the one that wins the big games. Whether it's pure skill, talent, mental toughness, or even "luck"; or a combination of them all!

There is a lot of superstition and "baseball karma" that cannot be gaged. How do you account for a team "like the Angels", who seem to have a "voodoo curse" against the Red Sox in the playoffs.

FYI, have you seen the results of the Angels vs Red Sox in the regular season vs playoffs? It is staggering. The Angels won 8 out 9 in the Regular season but lost the last 11 or 12 in the playoffs.

[philkid3]

Then how come they lost when it mattered most?

Because upsets in all sports are possible, and they're just as possible in an elimination game as they are in any other game. The difference is that they end the better team's season if they're an elimination game.

[MVP31]

I recently read an interesting article in which the author ranked the top 50 Los Angeles Dodgers teams of all time. Ironically, his number one team ended up being a team that didn't even win the World Series. He chose the 1974 team, and after doing a bit of research, I think I'm inclined to agree with him. They finished 102-60 (with a Pythagorean of 106-56), had the best offense in baseball (118 OPS+), and arguably the best pitching in baseball (115 ERA+). They ended up losing in the World Series, probably due to inexperience since the starting lineup consisted of only one player over the age of 30.

Now, I don't think that just because they didn't win the World Series that they're not necessarily the best Dodgers team all time. I would have to look further into it, but at this point I'm actually inclined to agree that that '74 team was the best despite not going all the way.

World Series Champions does not automatically equate to the best team in baseball.

[sflnyc]

When a team finishes the year with, say, one of the top two or three records AND wins the World Series, then there's no doubt. But if some team barely squeaks in and gets hot at the best possible moment, I have a hard time recognizing that team as "the best". I believe that if the 2003 World Series had been played 10 times, the Yankees would have won six of them. But they only play one, and the Marlins won that one. But there are often cases where the best team and the championship team do not correlate. As a player, I would surely prefer to play for teams that happen to get hot at the right time. Luck beats a shotgun, as they say.

The reference to 2003 (not the World Series in particular) reminds me as a Marlins fan, why I'm always amused when people think the Marlins upset the Cubs in the NLCS. The nation may have wanted the Cubs to play in the World Series, and the Marlins were a WC team, but the Marlins played in a tougher division than the Cubs, and had a better record than the Cubs (91-71 to 88-74). Because of the playoff format, the Cubs had the homefield advantage, but the Cubs would have finished 3rd in the NL East that with that record, so were not the better team during the regular season or the post season.

[sflnyc]

I recently read an interesting article in which the author ranked the top 50 Los Angeles Dodgers teams of all time. Ironically, his number one team ended up being a team that didn't even win the World Series. He chose the 1974 team, and after doing a bit of research, I think I'm inclined to agree with him. They finished 102-60 (with a Pythagorean of 106-56), had the best offense in baseball (118 OPS+), and arguably the best pitching in baseball (115 ERA+). They ended up losing in the World Series, probably due to inexperience since the starting lineup consisted of only one player over the age of 30.

Now, I don't think that just because they didn't win the World Series that they're not necessarily the best Dodgers team all time. I would have to look further into it, but at this point I'm actually inclined to agree that that '74 team was the best despite not going all the way.

World Series Champions does not automatically equate to the best team in baseball.


Using that system, one could possibly say that the 1976-77 Phillies were far superior to the 1980 team that actually won the franchises only championship. But history shows that those teams were not as complete (1-6 in NLCS play) or good when it mattered the most as the 1980 group.

During that same time, it is generally considered that the 1976 Big Red Machine (102-60 + 7-0 Post-Season) is one of the greatest baseball teams of all time, even though their W-L record was 6 games behind that same team's 108-54 World Champs the previous year of 1975 (7-3 in the post-season).

[MVP31]

Using that system, one could possibly say that the 1976-77 Phillies were far superior to the 1980 team that actually won the franchises only championship. But history shows that those teams were not as complete (1-6 in NLCS play) or good when it mattered the most as the 1980 group.

The '76 team was, in fact, superior to the 1980 team.

[spark240]

I recently read an interesting article in which the author ranked the top 50 Los Angeles Dodgers teams of all time. Ironically, his number one team ended up being a team that didn't even win the World Series. He chose the 1974 team, and after doing a bit of research, I think I'm inclined to agree with him. They finished 102-60 (with a Pythagorean of 106-56), had the best offense in baseball (118 OPS+), and arguably the best pitching in baseball (115 ERA+). They ended up losing in the World Series, probably due to inexperience since the starting lineup consisted of only one player over the age of 30.

Now, I don't think that just because they didn't win the World Series that they're not necessarily the best Dodgers team all time. I would have to look further into it, but at this point I'm actually inclined to agree that that '74 team was the best despite not going all the way.

World Series Champions does not automatically equate to the best team in baseball.

Sure, he can say the best Dodgers team ever may not have won the Series. There's no logical problem there, because the teams being compared, Dodgers in different years, never faced each other or competed in the same context.

That's a completely different assertion than saying that, in one given year, the team that wins the Series isn't the best of that year's teams.

[willshad]

I think theres three factors to consider when deciding the 'best team'.

1) regular season record

2) talent

3) Post season record.

These are ranked in order of importance. Sorry, but theres no way one can realistically consider the team that has the best post season record as automatically being the 'best team'. Its too small a sample size and too few variety of opponents for that. In fact, I consider post season achievements as 'icing on the cake', for rating how good a team is, just like how I use it when ranking players...i may or may not give them credit for it if they are good, but i wont penalize them for it if they perform badly, if they have amazing regular season stats.
The only way I think a team can be called the 'best in the game' without doubt is when they are undoubtedly best al all three of these catgegories. The 1927 or 1998 or Yankees, Big Red Machine, 1989 As, and a few others spring to mind.
I also consider the surrounding seasons. If a team was in last place the previous season, then wins the world series this year, I take into account that it may be a fluke. If a team consistently makes the playoffs of has a winning record, then they are given credit for it. For instance, I consider the Mets to be the best team in baseball right now. This is due to their consistent performance during the last few seasons, and also on their talent level. Certainly they are world ahead of a team like the Dodgers, post season notwithstanding. The Red Sox are the only team Id consider as being in their league, and maybe the Yankees.

[spark240]

Because upsets in all sports are possible

An "upset" is when the team that is expected to win, loses. That means that the hypothesis--they were "better"--has been tested and found flawed.

Insisting that the loser is still better, despite the experimental evidence, means you don't believe that a baseball game is the way to test the quality of baseball teams.

So I say again, if not game results, then what? What is the basis for your belief?

2) talent

And what is that? Not the ability to win baseball games, evidently. Number of "all stars" on the roster? (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=83745)

[willshad]

An "upset" is when the team that is expected to win, loses. That means that the hypothesis--they were "better"--has been tested and found flawed.

Insisting that the loser is still better, despite the experimental evidence, means you don't believe that a baseball game is the way to test the quality of baseball teams.

So I say again, if not game results, then what? What is the basis for your belief?



And what is that? Not the ability to win baseball games, evidently. Number of "all stars" on the roster? (http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=83745)


Yours is a very simplistic black and white way of thinking. Youd like to think it was that easy....who is better? Well we will play one time, or best 4 out of 7, and whoever wins is better! In sports they try to make it seem like this is the case, with the World Series and the Superbowl, but This way of thinking has no basis in the real world.This is not a scientific experiment, where you perform an experiment and get a result, and then make a conclusion. There are many variables, and the result will be drastically different every time.

According to you, how many wins over another team does it take to 'prove' one team is better than another? Certainly you cant go by one single game..because one team may win 10-0 one game then lose to the same team 10-0 the next game. So who's better? What about a situation where a team has great record, but is like 1-8 against the team with the worst record in the league? Which team of those is better? What about when one team dominates another statisitcally throughout the game, yet loses on a fluke home run in the ninth inning, or even worse, a play where luck was the main factor? What about when one team has beter pitching, hitting and fielding stats than another, yet still loses to them? What about when one team can beat another time after time, yet the other team has one unhittable pitcher who shuts them out 3 times and beats them 3 out of 5? Are they really the better 'team'? The talent at this level is so close, that it takes many many sample cases to determine who is better in most cases. It is like judging how good a hitter is by one single at bat. You cant do it. You cant judge him by one at bat or 10 or even 100.

[spark240]

There are many variables, and the result will be drastically different every time.

Of course. But a sports championship is simply a measure of who is best at the time that the games are played. How could it be anything else?

Certainly you cant go by one single game..because one team may win 10-0 one game then lose to the same team 10-0 the next game. So who's better?

Well, if the structure that the two teams entered into was just a two-game set, you'd have to say they were equal. If the structure was larger than that, you'd have to say it was as yet undetermined.

No matter how many games you play, if you want one winner, sometimes it has to come down to one final game (the last of a best-of series, or a tiebreaker after an even-number schedule). So it doesn't really work to say that a single is never enough. Sometimes it has to be.

What about a situation where a team has great record, but is like 1-8 against the team with the worst record in the league? Which team of those is better?

Again, it depends on the structure they have entered into, whether overall record trumps head-to-head.

If you've been reading this thread, you'll notice that my whole point is predicated on the structure in which the teams compete. Of course a different structure could yield a different champion; that's the same as saying that if the standards are different, a different team may be best suited to meet them.

Yours is a very simplistic black and white way of thinking. Youd like to think it was that easy....who is better? Well we will play one time, or best 4 out of 7, and whoever wins is better! In sports they try to make it seem like this is the case, with the World Series and the Superbowl, but This way of thinking has no basis in the real world.

And by the way, I'm saying that it's your thinking which is not based in the real world. I'm talking about reality; you're the one saying that the actual winners of real baseball games are not relevant to the discussion of who's better at baseball. :crazy

[willshad]

Of course. But a sports championship is simply a measure of who is best at the time that the games are played. How could it be anything else?



Well, if the structure that the two teams entered into was just a two-game set, you'd have to say they were equal. If the structure was larger than that, you'd have to say it was as yet undetermined.

No matter how many games you play, if you want one winner, sometimes it has to come down to one final game (the last of a best-of series, or a tiebreaker after an even-number schedule). So it doesn't really work to say that a single is never enough. Sometimes it has to be.



Again, it depends on the structure they have entered into, whether overall record trumps head-to-head.

If you've been reading this thread, you'll notice that my whole point is predicated on the structure in which the teams compete. Of course a different structure could yield a different champion; that's the same as saying that if the standards are different, a different team may be best suited to meet them.



And by the way, I'm saying that it's your thinking which is not based in the real world. I'm talking about reality; you're the one saying that the actual winners of real baseball games are not relevant to the discussion of who's better at baseball. :crazy


OK I get you. Just seems like taking the easy way out. Obviously the way it is set up, the team who wins the world series is determined to be the 'best' team. But it seems like an exercise in futility. For instance, you can say, 'lets play 4 out of 7, because one single game isnt enough to decide who is better'. Then , you get to a seventh game and you STILL have to play one single game to decide it, even though you admitted one single game isnt enough. It is all an attempt to simplify things, and springs out of the need for there to be ultimate 'winners' and 'losers'. In rea life, there are many more factors to consider, and it is a subjective decision.

[philkid3]

An "upset" is when the team that is expected to win, loses. That means that the hypothesis--they were "better"--has been tested and found flawed.
So if the ref decided Eli was in the grasp on the Tyree play -- a very subjective ruling that happens all the time -- than the Patriots are the best team? But since he didn't, the Giants were?

Come on.


Insisting that the loser is still better, despite the experimental evidence, means you don't believe that a baseball game is the way to test the quality of baseball teams.
I think it's one way and probably the best way. Not the definitive way.


So I say again, if not game results, then what? What is the basis for your belief?
A wide range of things. How well do they play the game? And the larger the sample size and the more consistent the testing base, the more you know.

A single game is a single thing. It measures who played better in that game (sometimes not even that), not who's better in general.

[philkid3]

I don't think there's any argument in the world that can convince a team that wins every single game it plays but one, usually by a massive margin, against mostly the same competition of every other team in its league is not the best team because the one game they lose is to a team that had a vastly inferior season and who they'd already beaten before and would have beaten again if not for a one-in-a-million fluke play, that is very often not even possible because of the officiating, actually working out.

[MVP31]

Sure, he can say the best Dodgers team ever may not have won the Series. There's no logical problem there, because the teams being compared, Dodgers in different years, never faced each other or competed in the same context.

That's a completely different assertion than saying that, in one given year, the team that wins the Series isn't the best of that year's teams.

Either way you are dealing with the notion that the best (or better) team must be one that was a winner of the World Series. In that sense it is very much the same.

[AstrosFan]

In a matchup between two playoff teams, any scientist would consider a seven game series a very poor test of which team was better. A much larger sample is needed, and as the sample approaches infinity, we would expect the results to reflect the true winning percentages of each team. However, defining the true winning percentage is almost impossible, because run differential, variance in run differential, strength of schedule, opponents strength of schedule, and so forth, all play a role. So determining the best team is a fruitless effort, since the only true way of ascertaining who is best is to have the two teams play each other an infinite number of times. Of course, after the sample size gets to a large number, the two teams will have won a number of times that is close to corresponding with their true winning percentage. However, such a sample size is unfeasible, as no two teams would agree to play that many games against each other to determine who is best.

Thought this chart would interest some. I calculated the probability of each World Series winner winning the series against the team it was matched up with. I started off by calculating PythagenPat Winning Percentage for each team, and used log5 to calculate the probability of each team winning a single-game match-up. Then I proceeded from there:

Chronologically

Year League Team Prob
1903 AL BOS 0.572
1905 NL NY1 0.697
1906 AL CHA 0.170
1907 NL CHN 0.592
1908 NL CHN 0.620
1909 NL PIT 0.640
1910 AL PHA 0.555
1911 AL PHA 0.541
1912 AL BOS 0.515
1913 AL PHA 0.523
1914 NL BSN 0.337
1915 AL BOS 0.557
1916 AL BOS 0.424
1917 AL CHA 0.520
1918 AL BOS 0.409
1919 NL CIN 0.620
1920 AL CLE 0.583
1921 NL NY1 0.474
1922 NL NY1 0.561
1923 AL NYA 0.549
1924 AL WS1 0.409
1925 NL PIT 0.537
1926 NL SLN 0.512
1927 AL NYA 0.767
1928 AL NYA 0.536
1929 AL PHA 0.619
1930 AL PHA 0.484
1931 NL SLN 0.463
1932 AL NYA 0.710
1933 NL NY1 0.446
1934 NL SLN 0.381
1935 AL DET 0.483
1936 AL NYA 0.719
1937 AL NYA 0.696
1938 AL NYA 0.650
1939 AL NYA 0.792
1940 NL CIN 0.560
1941 AL NYA 0.459
1942 NL SLN 0.483
1943 AL NYA 0.365
1944 NL SLN 0.771
1945 AL DET 0.300
1946 NL SLN 0.472
1947 AL NYA 0.681
1948 AL CLE 0.658
1949 AL NYA 0.459
1950 AL NYA 0.647
1951 AL NYA 0.556
1952 AL NYA 0.511
1953 AL NYA 0.539
1954 NL NY1 0.399
1955 NL BRO 0.494
1956 AL NYA 0.634
1957 NL ML1 0.434
1958 AL NYA 0.559
1959 NL LAN 0.424
1960 NL PIT 0.538
1961 AL NYA 0.710
1962 AL NYA 0.439
1963 NL LAN 0.386
1964 NL SLN 0.363
1965 NL LAN 0.392
1966 AL BAL 0.529
1967 NL SLN 0.555
1968 AL DET 0.598
1969 NL NYN 0.261
1970 AL BAL 0.684
1971 NL PIT 0.443
1972 AL OAK 0.526
1973 AL OAK 0.672
1974 AL OAK 0.368
1975 NL CIN 0.731
1976 NL CIN 0.574
1977 AL NYA 0.472
1978 AL NYA 0.496
1979 NL PIT 0.426
1980 NL PHI 0.473
1981 NL LAN 0.530
1982 NL SLN 0.390
1983 AL BAL 0.615
1984 AL DET 0.676
1985 AL KCA 0.314
1986 NL NYN 0.663
1987 AL MIN 0.334
1988 NL LAN 0.381
1989 AL OAK 0.558
1990 NL CIN 0.399
1991 AL MIN 0.525
1992 AL TOR 0.460
1993 AL TOR 0.460
1995 NL ATL 0.339
1996 AL NYA 0.429
1997 NL FLO 0.535
1998 AL NYA 0.726
1999 AL NYA 0.472
2000 AL NYA 0.479
2001 NL ARI 0.570
2002 AL ANA 0.545
2003 NL FLO 0.373
2004 AL BOS 0.458
2005 AL CHA 0.512
2006 NL SLN 0.329
2007 AL BOS 0.651

Most probable to least probable

Year League Team Prob
1939 AL NYA 0.792
1944 NL SLN 0.771
1927 AL NYA 0.767
1975 NL CIN 0.731
1998 AL NYA 0.726
1936 AL NYA 0.719
1932 AL NYA 0.710
1961 AL NYA 0.710
1905 NL NY1 0.697
1937 AL NYA 0.696
1970 AL BAL 0.684
1947 AL NYA 0.681
1984 AL DET 0.676
1973 AL OAK 0.672
1986 NL NYN 0.663
1948 AL CLE 0.658
2007 AL BOS 0.651
1938 AL NYA 0.650
1950 AL NYA 0.647
1909 NL PIT 0.640
1956 AL NYA 0.634
1908 NL CHN 0.620
1919 NL CIN 0.620
1929 AL PHA 0.619
1983 AL BAL 0.615
1968 AL DET 0.598
1907 NL CHN 0.592
1920 AL CLE 0.583
1976 NL CIN 0.574
1903 AL BOS 0.572
2001 NL ARI 0.570
1922 NL NY1 0.561
1940 NL CIN 0.560
1958 AL NYA 0.559
1989 AL OAK 0.558
1915 AL BOS 0.557
1951 AL NYA 0.556
1910 AL PHA 0.555
1967 NL SLN 0.555
1923 AL NYA 0.549
2002 AL ANA 0.545
1911 AL PHA 0.541
1953 AL NYA 0.539
1960 NL PIT 0.538
1925 NL PIT 0.537
1928 AL NYA 0.536
1997 NL FLO 0.535
1981 NL LAN 0.530
1966 AL BAL 0.529
1972 AL OAK 0.526
1991 AL MIN 0.525
1913 AL PHA 0.523
1917 AL CHA 0.520
1912 AL BOS 0.515
1926 NL SLN 0.512
2005 AL CHA 0.512
1952 AL NYA 0.511
1978 AL NYA 0.496
1955 NL BRO 0.494
1930 AL PHA 0.484
1935 AL DET 0.483
1942 NL SLN 0.483
2000 AL NYA 0.479
1921 NL NY1 0.474
1980 NL PHI 0.473
1946 NL SLN 0.472
1977 AL NYA 0.472
1999 AL NYA 0.472
1931 NL SLN 0.463
1992 AL TOR 0.460
1993 AL TOR 0.460
1941 AL NYA 0.459
1949 AL NYA 0.459
2004 AL BOS 0.458
1933 NL NY1 0.446
1971 NL PIT 0.443
1962 AL NYA 0.439
1957 NL ML1 0.434
1996 AL NYA 0.429
1979 NL PIT 0.426
1916 AL BOS 0.424
1959 NL LAN 0.424
1918 AL BOS 0.409
1924 AL WS1 0.409
1954 NL NY1 0.399
1990 NL CIN 0.399
1965 NL LAN 0.392
1982 NL SLN 0.390
1963 NL LAN 0.386
1934 NL SLN 0.381
1988 NL LAN 0.381
2003 NL FLO 0.373
1974 AL OAK 0.368
1943 AL NYA 0.365
1964 NL SLN 0.363
1995 NL ATL 0.339
1914 NL BSN 0.337
1987 AL MIN 0.334
2006 NL SLN 0.329
1985 AL KCA 0.314
1945 AL DET 0.300
1969 NL NYN 0.261
1906 AL CHA 0.170

[b4uplayball]

Very interesting!! Is there a parameter in the equation that could represent "momentum" or any mental statistic?

[Yankeefan94]

It does not matter who is the best. What matters is who wins the World Series. I don't care how well you did all season, it's October that counts.

[philkid3]

It does not matter who is the best. What matters is who wins the World Series. I don't care how well you did all season, it's October that counts.

And I agree with this.

I don't think for a minute the best team wins the championship in every sport every year. I do know, however, I'd gladly trade being the best team for winning a championship in a heart beat, though.