But Sean, Isn't Your Theory Obvious?

Thinking about things while Nelson Cruz renders my ALCS MVP prediction utterly moot, and the Tigers fight for their season...

For the 3rd game in a row, my NLCS theory has been *tentatively* proven correct. In the Cardinals' 4-3 Game 3 victory, these were the lineup stats minus Murderers' Row and the 1-2 Punch, respectively.

STL: 7-22 (.318), 2 runs, 2 RBIs (although Yadier Molina technically drove in a run on a double play)
MIL: 5-24 (.208), 3 runs, 3 RBIs

So actually, maybe it's better to say that in this case - because it was more or less even, with a better average and more hits for the Cards, but more production from the Brew Crew - my theory continues to not be proven wrong.

I can hear the hypothetical pushback, though, and it's something I've turned over in my head the past couple of days. It seems to make too much sense that the team whose 2/3 or 7/9 of a lineup hits better would win, right? Obviously, the more batters that hit better, the better a chance that team has to win. By that line of thinking, my theory isn't so much a theory as a fact.

Although I buy the seeming truth in that statistical statement, I think there's a deeper explanation to it beyond just the numbers and a greater importance. Think about it like this - it's a strategy that's often repeated by analysts, but that I really understood for its importance for the first time while playing pickup basketball at BC.

When I would play, I would often get stuck guarding the best guy on the other team, simply because I'm 6'5" and a pretty good defender. The problem, however, came when the other guy was bigger and better than I was. So me guarding him wasn't going to do much more good than anyone else guarding him. Meanwhile, we'd have an average defender guarding their second-best guy, who I might match up better against. Thinking that we could take the hit from me switching off their best guy and taking the second-best guy, while our average defender (who would sometimes match up physically better than me anyways) took their best guy, I would often recommend doing exactly that. And it usually worked. Their best guy got his points that he would've gotten anyways with me guarding him and maybe a few more, but not a substantial amount. I, meanwhile, was locking down their secondary threat. My teams may not have always won, but we always made it much more competitive than it would have otherwise been.

Likewise, think about a game in the NBA. LeBron James (Cavs-era) is going to get his points, no matter if you triple-team him or otherwise. If you key your entire defensive strategy on stopping him, you allow his teammates plenty of room to pick up the slack. LeBron will still get 30 points, but his starting teammates may all get 20. That leaves you - as the other team - staring down an opposing score of 110. If you let LeBron do his thing, however, and concentrate on stopping the rest of the team...he may score 45, but the rest of the starters may well only score 10 apiece. This leaves the opposing score at 85, which is much more manageable than 110.

The numbers are arbitrary to a point and I realize that baseball is a wholly different sport than basketball, but you get the gist of the argument. Albert Pujols will hit no matter what. Ryan Braun will hit no matter what. Obviously, if they always have nights like Pujols did in Game 2, it doesn't much matter what their teammates do (which is why I don't buy that the rest of your lineup hitting better equals a win is necessarily a fact). But usually, if you can shut down the rest of the lineup, the superstars can only hurt you so much. Which is why I still stand by my theory - in the end, my theory isn't so much about the statistical relevance of more runs, actually. I suppose that it's not so much that "any team that has the rest of its lineup hit better will win" as it is "it's especially important in this series, given the superstars present, for the rest of the lineup to hit well." In the interest of full disclosure, however - and also because I'm now curious - what I may do is go back through each of their 18 games this year after the series is over, and see if there was any further merit to my theory.

Also, with regards to the Red Sox...I may put up a lengthy post about that this weekend. I may not. Just know that I'm disgusted if all that stuff turns out to be true. And I hope Theo, as part of the negotiations for him going to the Cubs, is forced to take Lackey with him.