Blake Snell Says He's 'Not Falling For' the Brewers' 'Average Joes' Narrative. The Data Says He's Right.
===============================================================================================================
In the world of high-stakes competition, narrative is a weapon. It’s a tool for managing expectations, for psychological positioning, and, occasionally, for outright misdirection. The Milwaukee Brewers, under manager Pat Murphy, have crafted a potent one this season: they are the "average Joes," a collection of overlooked, hungry players who are succeeding against all odds. It’s a compelling story. It’s also, from an analytical perspective, a deeply misleading one.
Los Angeles Dodgers pitcher Blake Snell, a man whose profession depends on a clinical assessment of his opponents, appears to see right through it. Ahead of his Game 1 start in the NLCS, Snell stated he’s "not falling for the average Joes" mantra, a comment highlighted by Newsweek in Dodgers Star ‘Not Falling For’ Brewers Mantra Heading Into NLCS. He called the Brewers a "really good team" with the "best record in the NL."
This isn’t just standard athlete-speak. It’s a public refusal to engage with a flawed premise. Snell is looking at the data, not the marketing copy, and the data tells a story that is anything but average.
Deconstructing the Anomaly
Let’s first address the core of the Brewers’ narrative, as articulated by Murphy himself: “It’s a bunch of guys nobody’s ever heard of... A bunch of average Joes.” This is a qualitative claim designed to evoke an emotional response—the underdog we can all root for. The problem is that it collapses under the weight of quantitative results.
The Brewers finished the regular season with the best record in the National League. This is not a footnote; it is the single most important data point. A 162-game season is an enormous statistical sample. Luck and randomness can influence a week or even a month, but over six months of play, the standings are a brutal and efficient reflection of a team’s true quality. An average team might win about 50% of its games—to be more exact, it would hover around a .500 winning percentage. The Brewers did not do that. They won more games than any other team in their league.
To call a team with the best record "average" is a logical fallacy. It’s akin to looking at a hedge fund that outperformed its benchmark for five consecutive years and calling its manager "lucky." At some point, consistent overperformance ceases to be an anomaly and must be recognized as the product of a superior process.
And this is the part of the analysis I find most compelling. The data set becomes even more damning when you narrow the focus to their direct competition with Los Angeles. The Brewers didn't just play well against the Dodgers; they achieved absolute dominance. In their two regular-season series, they compiled a 6-0 record. A perfect head-to-head record over six games isn't statistical noise; it’s a clear signal of a systemic matchup advantage. Does that sound like the work of "average Joes"? Or does it suggest a team whose specific methodology is uniquely effective against a high-payroll, star-driven roster?
A Methodology of Pressure
So, if not luck, what is the process? The Brewers’ success is not built on the high-variance model of waiting for a three-run homer. Their identity, as observed throughout the season, is rooted in a specific and repeatable methodology: grinding out tough at-bats, prioritizing contact, and applying relentless pressure on the basepaths. This is a strategy designed to manufacture runs by creating chaos and forcing defensive mistakes. It’s a high-floor approach that generates consistent offensive threats, even without a lineup of household names.
You can almost picture Snell at the podium, the low hum of the conference room lights overhead, calmly deflecting the narrative bait because he’s done the pre-start calculus. He understands that this Brewers lineup, which he described as "very energetic," presents a different kind of threat. It’s a death-by-a-thousand-cuts offense, and that requires a different level of focus than facing a lineup that simply tries to hit the ball out of the park.
The Brewers' strategic sophistication is further evidenced by their decision-making for Game 1. They aren't sending a conventional starter to the mound. They’re deploying an "opener," with a "bulk" pitcher like Jose Quintana or Quinn Priester to follow. This is not a sandlot strategy. It’s a modern, analytically-driven tactic (a tactic designed to disrupt lineup construction and gain early matchup advantages) employed by forward-thinking organizations. It’s the move of a team that understands probabilities and exploits every possible edge.
What does it say when a team actively promotes a narrative of being simple, lunch-pail underdogs while simultaneously employing some of the game's more complex strategic maneuvers? It suggests the narrative itself is a piece of strategy.
The Narrative is a Diversion
Let's be clear. The "average Joes" story is a brilliant piece of psychological positioning. It frames every victory as an upset and every loss as an expectation, creating a no-lose scenario in the court of public opinion. It’s a calculated undersell designed to disarm and, perhaps, to lull an opponent into a false sense of security. Blake Snell isn't just being respectful by calling the Brewers a "really good team." He is making a conscious, data-driven decision to ignore the diversion and focus on the tangible threat. He sees the 6-0 record, the best-in-the-league finish, and the sophisticated strategy. He is refusing to play their game off the field, so he can beat them on it.