Who\u2019s going to win the World Series? In 2026, that\u2019s a complicated question.<\/p>\n
Every time we think we have a handle on this season, the landscape shifts. That was true from the early stages \u2014 when the standings bore greater resemblance to 2024 than 2025<\/a>, a rarity compared with most of baseball history.<\/p>\n And it continued to be true when the month leading up to the All-Star break completely flipped who was winning and losing<\/a> \u2014 with some of the best teams from before June (Atlanta Braves, Cleveland Guardians, San Diego Padres, New York Yankees) suddenly falling apart, while previously struggling teams (Miami Marlins, Detroit Tigers, Houston Astros, Texas Rangers, Philadelphia Phillies) posted the best records in baseball.<\/p>\n The question of who is \u2014 or is not \u2014 a legitimate contender is wide open. Yes, the two-time defending champion Los Angeles Dodgers are heavy betting favorites at +180. But beyond the Dodgers, it\u2019s anybody\u2019s guess.<\/p>\n To help cut through the fog, we\u2019ll revisit a concept from around this time last year<\/a>, when we looked at statistical cutoffs that separate real contenders from the rest of the pack. The idea is to find a series of rules to match the patterns of previous champions.<\/p>\n That\u2019s still a useful approach \u2014 even if we were a bit rigid about requiring every team to check every box. This year, we\u2019ll be more flexible.<\/p>\n For each team with at least a 2 percent chance to win the World Series in BetMGM\u2019s futures odds (after converting them to normalized probabilities), we\u2019ll look at 13 major categories to see if they pass or fail various tests. These tests are based on where eventual World Series teams since 2002 (discarding 2020 and weighting more toward champions) have tended to show separation by the All-Star break. We\u2019ll tier the categories by both their importance and how strongly they historically separated World Series teams from everyone else, then assign points and add up who passed the most tests.<\/p>\n Simply put, these factors should help us identify the teams that can win it all.<\/p>\n * All data is as of the 2026 All-Star break.<\/p>\n Tier 1 testOverall quality (Runs\/game differential): 18 points<\/p>\n Average weighted rank for WS teams: 6.1 2026 contenders who passed: Dodgers (first), Brewers (second), Braves (third), Yankees (fourth), Cubs (fifth), White Sox (seventh), Rays (eighth), Red Sox (ninth), Mariners (12th) Because of this year\u2019s topsy-turvy nature, the run-differential ranking<\/a> contains a fascinating mix. Mostly, it tells the story you\u2019d expect: The Dodgers are No. 1, with the Brewers, Braves, Yankees and Cubs \u2014 all contenders \u2014 rounding out the top five. But there are also some big names who don\u2019t fare as well, including last year\u2019s AL champion Blue Jays and especially the Phillies, who have the biggest gap in the league<\/a> between their actual record and the one we\u2019d expect from their negative run differential.<\/p>\n The bad news for the less-impressive teams is that runs per game differential is the single best midseason differentiator of World Series teams; almost all of them ranked within the top 14 at the All-Star break.<\/p>\n What tool would the All-Star Game players take from each other?<\/p>\n Jayne Orenstein, Rebecca Tauber and more<\/p>\n Tier 2 testsOffense (Batting Win Probability Added): 12 points<\/p>\n Average weighted rank for WS teams: 7.1 Passed: Dodgers (first), Cubs (second), Yankees (third), Brewers (fifth), White Sox (sixth), Braves (seventh), Phillies (ninth), Rays (14th), Rangers (17th), Mariners (19th) Outside of the overarching team-quality categories such as run differential and winning percentage, the most significant predictor of Fall Classic qualification at the break is Win Probability Added (WPA) at the plate<\/a>. That\u2019s a bit counter to the prevailing wisdom, which emphasizes pitching and defense \u2014 but it makes sense, as an offensive outage can derail a team (and WPA accounts for both the quality and timeliness of a team\u2019s hitting).<\/p>\n This year, the usual suspects mostly grade highly in batting WPA \u2014 even the Phillies, who rank 24th in runs per game<\/a>, are saved by their league-leading \u201cclutch\u201d figure<\/a> \u2014 but the Blue Jays, Guardians and Red Sox (one of the league\u2019s least-clutch teams<\/a>) are all below the threshold where 95% of World Series teams sit.<\/p>\n Pitching and defense (Pitching WHIP+): 8 points<\/p>\n Average weighted rank for WS teams: 9.7 Passed: Dodgers (first), Brewers (second), Rays (third), Mariners (fourth), Yankees (fifth), Braves (seventh), Red Sox (eighth), Rangers (10th), Guardians (11th), Cubs (13th) Among the broad, overall pitching stats, that old standby WHIP (walks plus hits per inning pitched) was a better separator of contenders from pretenders at the break than runs per game allowed, ERA, WPA or WAR \u2014 especially when adjusted for park and league<\/a>. At its core, WHIP measures which staffs avoid traffic on the basepaths, and all but a quarter of historical World Series squads ranked among the top 14 in the first half of the schedule.<\/p>\n This year, that cutoff excludes the Blue Jays, Phillies and White Sox, whose staff-wide walk rate allowed is 11% higher than average<\/a>.<\/p>\n Tier 3 testsStarting pitching (Rotation ERA-): 5 points<\/p>\n Average weighted rank for WS teams: 10.4 Passed: Dodgers (first), Brewers (second), Rays (third), Yankees (fifth), Red Sox (sixth), Guardians (seventh), Mariners (eighth), Braves (ninth), Phillies (10th) It might be surprising that a strong rotation isn\u2019t a better signal for future World Series potential, as only a little more than half of them rank top 10 at midseason. Still, it is a red flag to rank in the 20s here; 85 percent of historical World Series squads ranked 19th or better, which you can\u2019t say about the Blue Jays or Cubs\u2019 starters at this point \u2014 and the White Sox and Rangers aren\u2019t far from that threshold either.<\/p>\n Defense (Fielding Runs): 5 points<\/p>\n Average weighted rank for WS teams: 10.4 Passed: Cubs (first), Red Sox (third), Dodgers (fifth), Blue Jays (sixth), Braves (eighth), Guardians (ninth), Yankees (12th) Similarly, a strong defense is just as much of a nice-to-have as a starting rotation, and 80 percent of World Series teams ranked 17th or better in fielding value at the break. That\u2019s not great for the White Sox, Brewers and Rangers, and it\u2019s outright bad news for the Phillies, Rays and especially the Mariners, whose defense grades out as the worst in baseball per FanGraphs. Second baseman Cole Young is their only primary fielder who doesn\u2019t rate as either average or worse by the metrics.<\/p>\n Relief pitching (Bullpen \u201cMeltdown\u201d Avoidance): 4 points<\/p>\n Average weighted rank for WS teams: 11.0 Passed: Braves (first), Mariners (second), Rays (fourth), Red Sox (fourth), Yankees (sixth), Dodgers (seventh), Rangers (11th), Brewers (13th), Phillies (14th), Cubs (17th), Blue Jays (22nd) Unlike a team\u2019s rotation or defense, relief pitching shows up here as one of those weak-link stats that can break a team\u2019s chances if it gets really bad. That’s especially true of the category’s most predictive metric: avoiding “meltdowns<\/a>” when a reliever squanders a lot of WPA in an appearance. Almost all World Series squads ranked at least 22nd in fewest meltdowns per game, which you can\u2019t say about the White Sox or Guardians<\/a> in the first half of 2026.<\/p>\n Tier 4 testsPower hitting (Slugging percentage): 4 points<\/p>\n Average weighted rank for WS teams: 7.9 Passed: Dodgers (second), Yankees (fourth), White Sox (ninth), Cubs (10th), Braves (12th), Rays (13th) For all the talk of playing small-ball in the postseason and scratching for every productive out, power-hitting is actually one of the most significant separators for pennant winners. Nine out of every 10 World Series squads rank at least 15th in slugging, which hurts more than half of our contenders. In particular, the Red Sox, Blue Jays, Mariners and Guardians all rank 24th or worse at the break, a weakness that could be exposed in October.<\/p>\n Plate discipline (On-base percentage): 3 points<\/p>\n Average weighted rank for WS teams: 8.6 Passed: Dodgers (first), Brewers (third), Cubs (fourth), Rays (fifth), Rangers (12th), White Sox (13th), Yankees (15th) That said, the ability to beg, borrow and steal your way on base is also a meaningful differentiator. Almost every future World Series team since 2002 was at least top 20 in OBP at the All-Star break, so something might have to give this year with so many of the contenders ranking poorly in this stat<\/a>.<\/p>\n Contact prevention (Opponent batting average): 3 points<\/p>\n Average weighted rank for WS teams: 9.1 Passed: Dodgers (first), Brewers (second), Yankees (third), Braves (fourth), Rays (sixth), Guardians (eighth), White Sox (ninth), Red Sox (10th), Blue Jays (13th), Mariners (15th), Rangers (16th) The one area where small-ball does seem to factor into differentiating World Series teams is in suppressing contact on the other side of the ball. Almost all World Series teams since 2002 were 17th or better in lowest opponent batting average at midseason \u2014 which would make the Cubs and particularly the Phillies outliers if they go on a run. Even Phillies Cy Young contender Cristopher S\u00e1nchez is below average here<\/a>.<\/p>\n Pitching dominance (K-BB%): 2 points<\/p>\n Average weighted rank for WS teams: 11.3 Passed: Phillies (first), Brewers (second), Mariners (third), Dodgers (fourth), Yankees (fifth), Guardians (sixth), Red Sox (seventh), Rangers (eighth), Rays (ninth), Blue Jays (13th), Braves (14th), Cubs (16th), White Sox (17th) This finding is a bit more in line with conventional sabermetrics wisdom, which holds that pitchers who dominate the strike zone have better long-term outcomes than those who rely on stranding runners and asking for slick fielding behind them. We have great news for this year\u2019s crop of contenders: They all pass this test!<\/p>\n Home-run prevention (Pitching HR\/9+): 2 points<\/p>\n Average weighted rank for WS teams: 12.0 Passed: Mariners (first), Brewers (second), Yankees (sixth), Red Sox (sevnth), White Sox (10th), Dodgers (11th), Blue Jays (14th), Braves (17th), Guardians (18th), Phillies (19th), Rangers (22nd), Rays (23rd) This filter is another one for the \u201cjust don\u2019t be absolutely awful\u201d bucket \u2014 practically no future World Series staffs ranked outside the top 25 in home run rate allowed per 9 innings. That sounds like a low bar, but the Cubs\u2019 extreme gopher-ball problems (only one of their pitchers with 50+ innings, Ben Brown, has a better-than-average HR rate<\/a>) could contribute to their demise in October.<\/p>\n Clutch performance (Batting \u201cclutch\u201d score): 1 point<\/p>\n Average weighted rank for WS teams: 13.3 Passed: Phillies (first), White Sox (second), Braves (third), Blue Jays (fifth), Brewers (sixth), Rangers (seventh), Yankees (ninth), Dodgers (15th), Guardians (16th), Cubs (17th), Mariners (18th) We\u2019ve finally reached the truly marginal categories, which differentiate successful teams merely to a small extent. For instance, FanGraphs\u2019 \u201cclutch\u201d metric<\/a> \u2014 which measures who does better in higher-leverage situations \u2014 is dwarfed in importance by overall hitting quality, but somewhere between two-thirds and three-quarters of World Series teams rank top 20 in it, meaning teams with clutch-hitting shortcomings (cough, Rays and Red Sox) are at a slight disadvantage.<\/p>\n Speed\/baserunning (Speed Score): 1 point<\/p>\n Average weighted rank for WS teams: 13.3 Passed: Yankees (fourth), Brewers (fifth), Phillies (sixth), Cubs (10th), Rays (11th), Guardians (12th) The same magnitude of effect applies to team speed \u2014 as measured by Bill James\u2019 Speed Score<\/a>, which was actually a better differentiator than baserunning runs<\/a> \u2014 except that instead of a weak-link like clutchness, speed is a category that could simply come in handy if you\u2019ve got it. It could prove helpful for speedier teams such as the Yankees, Brewers, Phillies, Cubs, Rays and Guardians.<\/p>\n Who\u2019s left?<\/p>\n Let\u2019s add up which teams passed or failed our checkpoints, weighting for how significant they were \u2014 both in terms of tier and differentiating value:<\/p>\n In the final accounting, seven teams \u2014 the Yankees, Dodgers, Braves, Rays, Brewers, Cubs and Mariners \u2014 scored at least 80 percent on our checklist, with New York passing every benchmark and the Dodgers doing the same except for Speed Score. In terms of October-tested strengths and weaknesses, that core group has the best historical blueprint for postseason survival.<\/p>\n The rest are less assured. The Red Sox, White Sox and Rangers each failed to crack 70 percent success, missing out on some important variables for World Series success.<\/p>\n
Average rank for non-WS teams: 16.1 (+10.1 gap)
Key cutoff: 90% of World Series teams rank 14th or better at the break<\/p>\n
Contenders who failed: Guardians (15th), Phillies (16th), Rangers (19th), Blue Jays (21st)<\/p>\n
Average rank for non-WS teams: 16.1 (+8.9 gap)
Key cutoff: 95% of World Series teams rank 19th or better at the break<\/p>\n
Failed: Blue Jays (21st), Guardians (24th), Red Sox (29th)<\/p>\n
Average rank for non-WS teams: 15.9 (+6.2 gap)
Key cutoff: 75% of World Series teams rank 14th or better at the break<\/p>\n
Failed: Blue Jays (15th), Phillies (16th), White Sox (18th)<\/p>\n
Average rank for non-WS teams: 15.9 (+5.5 gap)
Key cutoff: 55% of World Series teams rank 10th or better at the break<\/p>\n
Failed: White Sox (17th), Rangers (18th), Blue Jays (21st), Cubs (23rd)<\/p>\n
Average rank for non-WS teams: 15.9 (+5.5 gap)
Key cutoff: 65% of World Series teams rank 12th or better at the break<\/p>\n
Failed: White Sox (13th), Brewers (15th), Rangers (17th), Phillies (19th), Rays (20th), Mariners (30th)<\/p>\n
Average rank for non-WS teams: 15.7 (+4.7 gap)
Key cutoff: 85% of World Series teams rank 22nd or better at the break<\/p>\n
Failed: White Sox (24th), Guardians (26th)<\/p>\n
Average rank for non-WS teams: 16.0 (+8.1 gap)
Key cutoff: 90% of World Series teams rank 15th or better at the break<\/p>\n
Failed: Rangers (16th), Phillies (17th), Brewers (19th), Red Sox (24th), Blue Jays (25th), Mariners (28th), Guardians (30th)<\/p>\n
Average rank for non-WS teams: 16.0 (+7.4 gap)
Key cutoff: 90% of World Series teams rank 18th or better at the break<\/p>\n
Failed: Red Sox (19th), Braves (21st), Mariners (22nd), Guardians (23rd), Blue Jays (27th), Phillies (28th)<\/p>\n
Average rank for non-WS teams: 15.9 (+6.9 gap)
Key cutoff: 90% of World Series teams rank 17th or better at the break<\/p>\n
Failed: Cubs (19th), Phillies (26th)<\/p>\n
Average rank for non-WS teams: 15.8 (+4.5 gap)
Key cutoff: 95% of World Series teams rank 20th or better at the break<\/p>\n
Failed: None<\/p>\n
Average rank for non-WS teams: 15.7 (+3.7 gap)
Key cutoff: 95% of World Series teams rank 26th or better at the break<\/p>\n
Failed: Cubs (29th)<\/p>\n
Average rank for non-WS teams: 15.7 (+2.3 gap)
Key cutoff: 70% of World Series teams rank 20th or better at the break<\/p>\n
Failed: Rays (22nd), Red Sox (27th)<\/p>\n
Average rank for non-WS teams: 15.6 (+2.3 gap)
Key cutoff: 50% of World Series teams rank 12th or better at the break<\/p>\n
Failed: Red Sox (13th), Rangers (17th), Braves (20th), White Sox (21st), Mariners (23rd), Dodgers (28th), Blue Jays (30th)<\/p>\n