Based on preseason expected wins, the Tigers were about 15 games worse than predicted, yet they're in the world series. Two teams had better records while playing in tougher divisions and missed the playoffs, so your "balanced schedule" argument holds no weight there. I would say that the Reds had a better season relative to expectations than the Tigers, yet they didn't get out of the first round of the playoffs.
Regardless, you're once again completely missing my point and hanging on one or two words. Not worth taking any further.
What is the best team? Purely an opinion. It is a fine thing to have an opinion. The reasons given for an assumed better team losing is all the calls going against them, the lucky breaks, didn't have home field advantage, etc. That could be true for the one game play in, but are there any statistics that show your point? No. It is subjective. The point of the regular season is to get into the playoffs, not be the subjective best team. If a team plays up to their full potential for 12 games in late October, then they proved they are the best team. They overcame the flukes and excuses.
Most teams had a better year relative to expectations than the Tigers. Any none 90 loss team did. In the end the Tigers bats went collectively cold again. In regards to best season in regards to expectations I would think that would fall to the Nationals. They did not even expect to be where they were or they would have used Strasburg differently.