Miami Marlins at Chicago Cubs, MLB forecast
Win probability
Starts from the pregame forecast, then moves with the score and the time left after each inning. Above the line favors CHC.
Game center
From the ESPN box score.
Top performers
- Kyle StowersBatting2-4, 1 HR, 2 RBI
- Janson JunkPitching5.0 IP, 0 ER, 6 K
- Pete Crow-ArmstrongBatting2-4
- Shota ImanagaPitching5.0 IP, 1 ER, 7 K
Scoring summary
- 12
Mack singled to center, Lopez scored and Stowers scored, Sanoja to second.8–2 - 12
Sanoja singled to right, Hernández scored, Stowers to second, Lopez to third.6–2 - 12
Stowers walked, Marsee scored, Lopez to second, Hernández to third.5–2 - 12
Marsee singled to center, Conine scored.4–2 - 12
Conine singled to left, Ruiz scored. Miami Marlins challenged: call on the field was overturned.3–2 - 6
Happ singled to right, Suzuki scored, Busch to third.2–2 - 6
Busch grounded into fielder's choice to first, Crow-Armstrong scored on error by catcher Mack, Suzuki safe at third on error.2–1 - 6
Stowers homered to left center (372 feet).2–0 - 4
Ramírez singled to center, Stowers scored, Sanoja to second.1–0
The pick
Reconstructed from what was known before the game: the ratings at that point and the closing line.
Cubs 66%
Forecast Elo ratings alone
How often that comes true: MLB favorites the forecast gave 65–70% have won 69.7% of 518 graded games.
- Market
- CHC 66%
- ML MIA +181 / CHC -223
- Pre-line forecast
- CHC 65%
- Elo + market-implied
- Elo ratings
- CHC 64%
- Ratings vs. market
- −2.5 pts
- CHC: Elo 63.5%, market 66.0%
- Fair odds
- CHC -194
- MIA +194 · the forecast as odds, no margin
- Pregame projection
- MIA 2.5 – 4.0 CHC
- Margin from the forecast, posted total 6.5
How the number is built
Elo inputs in rating points (higher favors that team; 25–28 Elo is about a point of spread in football and basketball), then how the pieces combine.
| Factor | MIA | CHC | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| Team rating | 1489 | 1548 | Elo entering the game; 1500 is league average |
| Home field | — | +18 | Worth 18 Elo in MLB |
| Starting pitchers | −10 | +10 | MIA: Janson Junk: team allows 0.50 more runs than with its usual starter (≈10 weighted starts) · CHC: Shota Imanaga: team allows 0.49 fewer runs than with its usual starter (≈10 weighted starts) |
| Elo ratings | CHC +96 Elo | CHC 63.5% | |
| Market-implied ratings | CHC 64.7% | Team strength as past closing lines priced it, same game context | |
| Pre-line forecast | CHC 64.5% | 15% Elo, 85% market-implied (log-odds blend) | |
| Forecast | CHC 66.0% | Follows the market (vig removed): in testing, adding the ratings made it less accurate | |
Tale of the tape
This season coming into the game, regular season, each number with its league rank (the longer the bar, the higher). Home and road: the host's record at home against the visitor's on the road. Opponent Elo: how strong the teams each has played are, 1st the toughest.
| MIA | Stat | |
|---|---|---|
| 17th of 304.4 | Runs scored | 5.41st of 30 |
| 17th of 304.5 | Runs allowed | 4.412th of 30 |
| 16th of 300.0 | Margin | +1.03rd of 30 |
| 17th of 304–6 | Last 10 | 6–47th of 30 |
| 25th of 3031–47 | Road vs home | 45–337th of 30 |
| 9th of 301502 | Opponent Elo | 150113th of 30 |
| 20th of 301489 | Elo rating | 15484th of 30 |
Rating history
Each team's Elo over the last two seasons. Hover or drag to compare on any date.
Recent form
Last five results, and whether the forecast hit.
Against the line
How each team has done against the closing spread and total, coming into this game.
| This season | ||
|---|---|---|
| Run line | 77–79 | 78–78 |
| Last 10 | 6–4 | 5–5 |
| Favorite | 29–37 | 43–62 |
| Underdog | 48–42 | 35–16 |
| Overs–unders | 80–72–4 | 85–62–9 |
| Overs–unders, last 10 | 7–3 | 7–2–1 |
Against each game's closing line. Books set every line knowing these records: across 3,901 past games, the team with the better record against the spread so far that season covered 51.2%, short of the 52.4% a standard −110 bet needs, and over/under streaks held 48.0% of the time. They describe the past.
Head to head
MIA 10–12 CHC in their last 22 meetings; the forecast called 15 of 22.



