The World Series That Wasn't

Think back to the World Series of 2005 when the White Sox swept the Astros in four games. The cumulative game tally failed to capture the intra-contest drama of that Fall Classic.

Chicago won Game One 5-3 with a score in the 8th; Game Two 7-6 by overcoming a 4-2 deficit with four in the 7th, then watching Houston knot it with two in the top of the ninth before walking off on an unlikely one-out Scott Podsednick homer off Brad Lidge. Game Three took 14 innings to settle 7-5 and Game Four went to the eighth scoreless until a two-out single plated the game's only run.

The Series might not have been very competitive but each individual game was a barn burner.

Ditto for the 2015 Series. Many have noted that if baseball were an eight-inning affair the Mets would have won in five. The Royals saved their hitting for the final at bats, like a virgin awaiting marriage, despite a strong NY bullpen anchored by one of the league's best closers.

Of course, it wasn't all that surprising the KC owned the games' ends. Their pitching staff is built backwards, after all, which means they are more likely to relinquish runs in the initial six frames than in the final three (or beyond). Like most teams, the Mets are the opposite: their four stud starters were thought to be their golden ticket.

All of which gave rise to several false narratives during the World Series, narratives being the stock in trade of baseball broadcasters whose ability to transform a sporting competition into human drama with a moral component is critical to the enjoyment of the casual fan.

But we were put on this patch of outfield grass to bust myths, so let's get to it:

Myth 1: Terry Collins lost this World Series with his overuse, and then underuse, of Jeurys Familia
Reality: Without defending his decisions to wring two innings from his closer in a blowout and then keep him on the bench in the ninth inning of an apparent win, it's worth noting that the Game 5 choice of Harvey to complete the game is not only totally defensible -- he was dominating KC batters -- but also only marginally different than bringing in Familia. Without knowing what was going to happen, even a purely rational calculation would have pegged the odds of the Mets winning the game as only slightly worse with Harvey on the mound, if at all. The Mets lost that game because they hit safely four times in 12 innings.

Myth 2: The Royals won because they are built a new way -- to make contact and "keep the line moving."
Reality: The Royals are built to get hits and steal bases, and not to strike out, walk and hit home runs, mostly because that's the best strategy (the walks aside) for their bulbous home outfield. But their middle-of-the-pack run scoring ability among AL teams hardly screams "revolution." And remember how they rarely swung and missed in the first two games against Harvey and deGrom? In Game Five, Harvey fanned 11 in eight innings.

Myth 3: Kansas City won the World Series because they -- take your pick: Never Say Die, Hit Better In The Clutch, Have some special bond among the players, blabbity blab blab.
Reality: When a team stages one 11th-hour rally after another -- they led all of 14 innings in a World Series in which they won four times -- it's tempting to assign meaning to it. Very possibly there is some meaning; perhaps the Royals are supremely confident even when down, particularly knowing that their bullpen is superior to the opposition's. But the narrative you heard was all ex-post facto explanation for what was more likely somewhat random and inexplicable. I'll believe Fox's line of logic when it's predictive.

Myth 4: Kansas City's superior advance scouting won the series. They knew to run on Met pitching and Lucas Duda's arm, and to test NY's defensively challenged defensive middle.
Reality: Wow, how exactly did they crack that code? Did they ask a random Met fan on the street? Or a hot dog vendor at Citi Field? Those discerning horsehide experts must have attended two Met games in order to draft that insight.

It was a great postseason packed with teams whose fans have long-suffered. It followed an inspiring season that belied prediction. It was full of team surprises, wild individual accomplishments, rousing young talent and the unique rhythm of a sport played outdoors in Spring, Summer and Fall. It was wholly satisfying even if you're a fan of the fallen.

Let's do it again next year.

You Couldn't Make This Stuff Up

Baseball: you've gotta love it:

• The first pitch of the first game thrown to the home team turns into a four-base error generously credited as a the first inside-the-park home run in roughly a century of World Series. 
• The centerfield defensive replacement and the backup shortstop combine to produce the go-ahead run.
• A Gold Glove first baseman makes a miscue that allows a run to score and appears to cost his team the game. 
• The surprise fourth starter pitches three innings of relief and is the star of the game.
• A pitcher who allowed 24 free passes in 194 innings walks three batters in two innings to lose the game.
• A red hot batter with a record seven home runs in his last six contests off the best hurlers in baseball comes up empty in two games against Edinson Volquez, Chris Young, Luke Hochevar and Johnny Cueto.
• A Cy Young contender allows four runs and three walks in five innings.
• A struggling starter hurls a complete game two-hitter.
• The controversial leadoff hitter with a sub-.300 OBP breaks the record for postseason hits with at least two more games to play.
• The TV crew loses power to their truck so the lords of baseball delay the game while fans in attendance wonder what's going on.
• The vaunted starting staff that was the linchpin of one team's World Series run gives up seven runs in 11 innings. Known for their blazing heat and confounding secondary pitches, they punch out just five batters.

And all that tells us nothing about Game 3. Play ball!

World Series: It's a Tossup

"Predicting the future is easy. Getting it right is the hard part."

Just as you predicted, the Mets and Royals meet for the World Series title. At season's start, projection systems rated the Mets above average. Indeed, Baseball Prospectus's PECOTA system had NY winning the first Wild Card. Alas, it also pegged KC 20 games under .500.

Since those projections were made, each team added some pieces. The Royals nabbed Johnny Cueto and Ben Zobrist, and over to Flushing went Kelly Johnson, Juan Uribe and most notably Yoenis Cespedes. But they are basically the teams that started the season. Particularly in Kansas City's case, it's hard to argue that their trade deadline pitching acquisition (4-7, 4.76) is responsible for their success.

So if you had this quinella in March, please email me immediately with this week's winning Powerball numbers. One hundred dollars on these two teams to meet in the World Series would have yielded you $78,400. Place your bets!

Which leads to the question, who has the edge? Will this be the first championship for a team since 1985 (Royals over Cards) or 1986 (Mets over Red Sox)?

Who Will Win
The answer, as usual, is, "who knows?" It's a seven-game series. The Phillies took five of seven from the Cubs this year. Whatever else you read here is simply subtext.

That said, the Mets and Royals are both acceptable representatives of their leagues, the Royals because they were the best team wire to wire and the Mets because they took off once Cespedes joined the squad and Matz returned from injury. And Wilmer Flores cried.

The dominant narrative is the Mets' power arms against the Royals' broad skill set and experience. That's a simplification, of course, but it is true that New York is much less balanced then Kansas City. Should any two of the Mets' hurlers stumble, it would likely spell disaster for them. You can't fall behind early against the Royals, especially if Ned Yost has "accidentally" given Ryan Madson the wrong directions to the ballpark.

The Edge Goes To...
Starting rotation is the big edge the Mets have, and much is being made of that. But that would be true of any team against KC because they are purposely constructed backwards on the mound. No team is more lethal than KC if their starters can muddle through two-thirds of the game with a lead. This strategy has worked for two seasons and is particularly effective in the playoffs, given the short leashes starters generally have now. Ignore that at your peril.

One more thing about the Mets' rotation. It is over-rated right now. It is over-rated because its youth and promise account for some of its allure, but the World Series is being played this week. We're all projecting out what deGrom, Harvey, Syndergaard and Matz could be, and the possibilities make us drool (particularly when we recall that Zack Wheeler will join them next year.)  But the Thor who will face Lorenzo Cain had a 3.25 ERA and a susceptibility to gopher balls.

I've debunked much of the home advantage in the playoffs in this post. (Spoiler alert: it comes into play in a seven-game series only if it goes the distance.) But in this particular case, there is a slight edge to Kansas City. No team is woven more snuggly to its home ballpark than the Royals, who value speed and athleticism over pure power in their wide-gapped stadium. Of course, Citi Field is no homer dome either, so some of that small advantage is offset.

There's always talk about it, but there's no evidence that experience is of any value, particularly now that both teams have run the playoff gauntlet. It is worth observing that no deficit appears insurmountable to the Royals, and whether that's a function of team psychology or skill set, it's a good quality to have. 

Rust, on the other hand, is measurably detrimental to playoff teams. The Mets will have spent nearly a week waiting for the Series to begin by the time they get underway Tuesday. Long rest can help an older team with a key player hobbled by injury and a clear ace they would like to line up for three starts. But none of those advantages accrue to the Mets.

Both teams are managed by men who appear to do a great job molding coherent units out of disparate parts. Terry Collins's in-game strategy gets the edge over Ned Yost's because everyone's in-game strategy gets the edge over Ned Yost's. 

Again, absolutely anything can happen on the road to four wins. Noise is just so loud at that level that a few missed notes here or there might not matter. That said, the Royals have some small advantages and I would rate them slightly more likely to win their first World Series in 30 years. Then again, Al Weiss...