The Taylor Swift/San Francisco Giants conspiracy, explained

Taylor Swift has dominated the album charts — and the news — this week, with the release of her fifth studio album 1989. But did you know she might also control the beloved American pastime of baseball? Or, at the very least, the fortunes of the San Francisco Giants?

Last night, the Giants won the World Series in game seven, eking out a 3-2 win over the Kansas City Royals just three days after Taylor Swift released her album. The Royals ended the game with the tying run on third, so clearly the Giants were blessed by some benevolent, powerful being. Could that being have been Taylor Swift?

The rabbit hole goes ever deeper. When Swift released Red in 2012, the Giants won the World Series one week later. When she released Speak Now in 2010, by golly, they won it then too, just six days after the album's release!

Thus, it was no surprise to those in the know that the Giants beat the Royals again this year. Some thought perhaps Swift's mercy would fall upon the Royals after San Francisco radio stations banned Lorde's song of the same name, since Lorde and Swift are besties. But Swift's affection for the Giants runs deep.

Doubters among you will say, "But Kelsey! Taylor Swift released two more albums, one in 2008 and one in 2006, both years the Giants did not win the World Series." So let us add an important caveat.

Speak Now and Red both sold 1 million copies in a single week. That's called selling an "instant-million" in the record industry, and only 19 albums have ever done it.  After an incredible first day sale of 600,000 copies, 1989 is expected to become the 20th album to instant-million.

Every time Taylor Swift has made album sales history, the Giants have made baseball history.  So congrats to the Giants on their big win, but they should really thank Taylor Swift for her everlasting beneficence.

Will you support Vox’s explanatory journalism?

Most news outlets make their money through advertising or subscriptions. But when it comes to what we’re trying to do at Vox, there are a couple of big issues with relying on ads and subscriptions to keep the lights on:

First, advertising dollars go up and down with the economy. We often only know a few months out what our advertising revenue will be, which makes it hard to plan ahead.

Second, we’re not in the subscriptions business. Vox is here to help everyone understand the complex issues shaping the world — not just the people who can afford to pay for a subscription. We believe that’s an important part of building a more equal society. And we can’t do that if we have a paywall.

So even though advertising is still our biggest source of revenue, we also seek grants and reader support. (And no matter how our work is funded, we have strict guidelines on editorial independence.)

If you also believe that everyone deserves access to trusted high-quality information, will you make a gift to Vox today? Any amount helps.

One-Time Monthly Annual

$5/month

$10/month

$25/month

$50/month

Other

$

Yes, I'll give $5/month

Yes, I'll give $5/month

We accept credit card, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. You can also contribute via