So if everything else had gone exactly the same, Easterbrook's strategy of running into the line for no gain on every play of the fourth quarter wouldn't have cost the Cardinals the chance to win, but it wouldn't have allowed them to salt the game away either. What it would have done would be to make it tougher for the Cardinals to mount that final drive, because they'd have had to worry about the clock. Also, if you're running into the line on every single play, the defense is really going to stack up, and you're going to long for the time when you could get back to the line of scrimmage, or not have 10 tacklers teaming up to hold you up and strip the ball on every play.

But we were talking about if everything else goes the same. Of course, I don't think it does. Though Easterbrook's method gains the Cardinals time, it loses them field position, and it's been shown by Football Outsiders and others how important field position is in the course of a game. Our model changed the field position model by 15 yards for much of the quarter, and 20 yards for part of it, and it had the Cardinals punting from their own end zone once and from deep in their own territory another time. It had the Bears reaching the 12, where they more likely would have kicked on 4th and 10, again changing the complexion of the game. And of course we don't know how the play-calling would have changed under Easterbrook's strategy. The Cardinals defense would have gotten shorter rests, for one thing, which may have benefited the Bears defense.

And speaking of the defense, it rests.

So if everything else had gone exactly the same, Easterbrook's strategy of running into the line for no gain on every play of the fourth quarter wouldn't have cost the Cardinals the chance to win, but it wouldn't have allowed them to salt the game away either. What it would have done would be to make it tougher for the Cardinals to mount that final drive, because they'd have had to worry about the clock. Also, if you're running into the line on every single play, the defense is really going to stack up, and you're going to long for the time when you could get back to the line of scrimmage, or not have 10 tacklers teaming up to hold you up and strip the ball on every play.

But we were talking about if everything else goes the same. Of course, I don't think it does. Though Easterbrook's method gains the Cardinals time, it loses them field position, and it's been shown by Football Outsiders and others how important field position is in the course of a game. Our model changed the field position model by 15 yards for much of the quarter, and 20 yards for part of it, and it had the Cardinals punting from their own end zone once and from deep in their own territory another time. It had the Bears reaching the 12, where they more likely would have kicked on 4th and 10, again changing the complexion of the game. And of course we don't know how the play-calling would have changed under Easterbrook's strategy. The Cardinals defense would have gotten shorter rests, for one thing, which may have benefited the Bears offense.

And speaking of the defense, it rests.

Sisyphus: Can you imagine an NBA (or NHL) team that chose to only play defense in the 4th (or 3rd period) because they were already winning?

Don't have to imagine it. It happens all the time. Though I agree with your point.

xjerry: Oh, and uh, King...making your own letter Editor's Choice? THE GALL!

What the red stars mean:

http://tinyurl.com/stofw

Patrick Forman: So maybe what happened is that the reigning defensive player of year (who said after the game, almost puzzled, "They didn't block me") stopped the Cardinals from executing a pretty sound ball-control strategy.

How is a strategy that involves not blocking the reigning defensive player of the year sound?

Hey, does anybody know if Gregg Easterbrook disagrees with me?

Donald: A-Rod detractors (myself included) don't think he sucks--he just sucks when it is most imperative that he not suck ... This year: 1-for-14 with no extra-base hits. 4-for-41 (.098) with no RBI in his last 12 postseason games. That, my friends, is unbridled suckitude.

That, my friend, is 12 games. Ever heard the phrase "small sample size"?

Here's a batting line: 20 games, .239 average, .308 on-base percentage, .282 slugging percentage, 0 HR, 6 RBIs, 9 strikeouts in 71 at-bats.

Know who that is? Willie Mays in the World Series. Suck in the clutch, did he? How about Ted Williams? 5-for-25, 5 walks, no extra-base hits, 1 RBI in seven postseason games. How about this guy:

10 games, .300 average, .333 on-base, .300 slugging (so that's a Neifi-like .633 OPS), 0 extra-base hits, 4 RBIs. That'd be Joe DiMaggio in the 1941 and '42 World Series.

Even counting those last 12 games, A-Rod's career postseason OPS is still .847. Derek "Mr. Clutch" Jeter? .863. I'm not denigrating Jeter. He really has performed brilliantly in the postseason throughout his career. Slightly better than A-Rod, given A-Rod's current slump. I'd call 16 of Jeter's 24 postseason series good, 2 of them so-so and 6 bad. For A-Rod, I'd call it 4 good ones and 3 bad ones. (Plus he made token appearances in two early in his career.) If A-Rod had had a good series against Detroit, he'd have the same success rate as Jeter in the postseason, and probably about the same OPS.

That's a big if, but it's also four games.