Well regular season wins don't really mean a lot. I think the media basically figured the Tigers couldn't lose the two Verlander starts, so then it was just a matter of winning two of the other five games. (Ironically, now Verlander might not even get to pitch twice.) I was a little surprised they acted like the Giants had no offense. And (as usual) they acknowledged one team had better defense but never really seemed to let that factor into their picks.
I'd agree with that, except that Detroit was an 88-win team in a bad division for a reason. They would've been one of the worst records to win a WS, so it'd be odd for so many professional analysts to pick them, if not for bias.
As much as the Verlander factor, I'm sure they were also blinded by Detroit obliterating The Most Important America's Team and Incarnation of Everything That is Baseball.
Oh, I'd be complaining about how crappy and biased most baseball coverage is regardless of whether it was my team they were ignoring. Especially ESPN. It's fun.
I'm perfectly capable of multitasking!
Besides, right now, I'm mostly trying to avoid counting chickens that aren't hatched.