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.