Bottom line: The Giants, Tigers, Mets, Valencia, and Venezia all finished well below what run differentials and expected goals said they earned.
As of October 5, 2026, five teams across two continents and three leagues share a quiet, statistical humiliation. The San Francisco Giants, Detroit Tigers, and New York Mets have closed their MLB seasons with records that look worse than the runs they scored and allowed would suggest. Across the Atlantic, Valencia sit near the bottom of La Liga and Venezia occupy the absolute bottom of Serie A, both carrying expected-points tallies that paint a more competitive picture than the actual table. Their mlb luck index scores and expected goals luck gaps, respectively, tell the same story in different units: these clubs deserved better than they got.
1. San Francisco Giants - MLB
The Giants finished 65-97. Their Pythagorean win expectation, per Baseball Savant, projected roughly 72 wins based on their season-long run differential. That seven-win gap is the kind of variance that turns a bad team into a historically bad one.
A luckscore of -59 led all teams in our cross-sport index this week. San Francisco's underlying production was not good, to be clear, but it was the production of a team that loses 90 games, not one that loses 97. The difference matters when you're trying to diagnose what actually went wrong in the offseason.
The culprit, as usual, was close games. The Giants were among the worst teams in baseball in one-run decisions, converting competitive nights into losses at a rate their pitching and offense alone cannot explain.
2. Detroit Tigers - MLB
Detroit's case is the most striking on this list. The Tigers went 76-86, a record that screams mediocrity. Their Pythagorean projection says they should have been around 89-73, which would have put them firmly in the postseason conversation.
Thirteen wins. That is the gap between what Detroit's run differential earned and what its record reflected. Per Baseball Savant's season-end data, the Tigers outscored opponents by a margin typically associated with a winning team, then somehow finished ten games under .500.
| Category | Actual | Pythagorean |
|---|---|---|
| Wins | 76 | ~89 |
| Losses | 86 | ~73 |
| Luck Index | -59 | — |
A 13-win Pythagorean gap is rare enough that it invites scrutiny of bullpen usage, managerial sequencing, and plain old timing. Detroit got the production. It just never got the results.
3. New York Mets - MLB
The Mets posted a 74-88 record against a Pythagorean expectation of approximately 78 wins. A four-win gap is modest by the standards of this list, but a luck index of -50 suggests the damage was concentrated in specific, high-leverage moments rather than spread evenly.
New York's season was defined by an offense that produced in the wrong situations, stranding runners at a rate that suppressed actual wins relative to total runs scored. The result is a team that looked mediocre on the field and slightly less mediocre on the spreadsheet.
Not exactly a rallying cry for the offseason. But it is a relevant one.
4. Valencia - La Liga
Seven matches into the La Liga season, Valencia have one win, one draw, and five losses for four points. According to FBref data, their expected points tally based on match-level xG sits at 6.7. That gap of 2.7 points may sound small, but in a young season it represents the difference between the relegation zone and the fringes of mid-table.
Valencia's expected goals luck has been notably poor. They have conceded goals from low-xG chances while failing to convert higher-quality opportunities at the other end, a pattern that compounds quickly over a short sample.
5. Venezia - Serie A
Zero points from five matches. Venezia's actual record is as bleak as it gets. Their xPoints figure of 4.9, however, suggests a team that created enough to have at least a draw or two in the bank.
Five points from nothing is a meaningful difference. It does not make Venezia a good team, but it makes them a team whose early-season collapse has been aided by variance as much as quality.
The thread connecting all five clubs is the same one it always is: finishing variance and close-game sequencing. Whether measured in Pythagorean wins or expected goals, the gap between production and results is real, quantifiable, and, for now, unresolved.
