Major League Baseball’s best team can’t stop pretending to be the underdogs heading into World Series
The article argues that successful post-season teams should not be framed as underdogs, even when they rely on less famous players. It points to the Milwaukee Brewers’ sweep of the Los Angeles Dodgers as evidence that strong teams can win through varied performances, while cautioning against treating a few games as proof of a repeatable formula.
In the National League Championship Series, Milwaukee’s relievers allowed two runs in 15.2 innings, and its starters gave up three earned runs. The Brewers hit seven home runs to the Dodgers’ one, despite claims that their success came from prioritising contact; they also finished the 2026 regular season with baseball’s best run differential, at plus 214. The article also notes that the American League Championship Series was tied 2–2, with Drew Rasmussen and Parker Messick set to start Game Five.
- The Brewers swept the Dodgers in the NLCS.
- Milwaukee’s bullpen conceded two runs in 15.2 innings.
- The article argues post-season winners are not underdogs.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Calling a dominant team an underdog can obscure what it has earned: Milwaukee had baseball’s best regular-season run differential and outperformed the Dodgers across both pitching and home runs in the series. The label may also give too much weight to star power and reputation, when less famous players can contribute to a team that is strong in its own right.
The case against
“Underdog” can describe how a team is perceived relative to a better-known opponent, rather than its actual results or quality; Milwaukee’s less celebrated players may help explain that perception without denying the team’s strength. A short series also cannot establish that its approach is a repeatable formula, so caution about drawing broad conclusions from the sweep is reasonable.