Also, I think its worth mentioning that WAR is adjusted for quality of opponent. As a result, many teams with strong schedules have more WAR than actual wins, while many teams with weak schedules have more wins than WAR. And this doesn't show a failure of WAR, it just shows that the best teams don't necessarily have the most wins because of schedule differences between teams.
Evidence of this is that the 3 luckiest teams (PHI, PIT, STL) measured in wins minus WAR, are all members of the weaker national league.
Most fans of sabermetrics, including myself, would argue that WAR is far more effective than wins in judging a team's talent level.
I'm going to make a broad generalization here, but let's assume that all AL teams have a stronger strength of schedule than NL teams just for the sake of time. AL teams should be expected to have more WAR than actual wins, and NL teams vice versa.
Thus, the true "luckiest" teams in terms of wins vs cumulative WAR are AL teams with more wins than WAR, and the unluckiest teams are NL teams with more WAR than wins.
From this excersize, one can conclude that the Yankees and Indians are due for fewer wins next season based on luck alone, while the Rockies, Cubs, Giants and Mets are due for more wins next season, assuming similar 2014 strength of schedules.