Effectively Wild: A FanGraphs Baseball Podcast - Effectively Wild Episode 1002: Mike Trout Turns Around

Episode Date: January 5, 2017

Ben, Carson Cistulli, and Eric Longenhagen scrutinize an unearthed video of Mike Trout taking batting practice in high school from both sides of the plate. Then Ben and Carson discuss podcasting, umpiring, Jeff Sullivan and more.

On the other side, on the other side, I know what's waiting for me, on the other side. Hello and welcome to episode 1002 of Effectively Wild, the, for now, joint baseball prospectus and fangraphs podcast. I am Ben Lindberg of The Ringer, and I figured that seeing as this podcast is about to be hosted at Fangraphs, it would be appropriate for me to talk to a Fangraphs host, namely Carson Sestouli. Hello, Carson. Hello.

Hello, Ben Lindberg. Good to have you back on the program. And I figured the loose plan would be that we would just chat a bit since I'm about to move on to your turf, in a sense. And you could kind of give me the lay of the land and give me maybe a psychological profile of Jeff Sullivan so that I know what I'm getting into and the listeners know what they're getting into. But then something more pressing came up. So I think we'll still get to those things. But first, we have some scouting discussion to do. So we have invited someone who is qualified for that sort of discussion, namely the lead,

or as Carson would say, led prospect analyst of Fangraphs.com, Eric Langenhagen. Hey, Eric. Hello. Yeah, I'd argue Carson is the parasite and Fangraphs is the host. But I think it's important to be nice to Carson. I do too. He makes fun of himself sometimes and that suffices. So a couple episodes ago or three episodes, I guess, Sam and I were discussing one of the weird hypothetical tangents that we tended to get into. And our friend and listener, Tim Livingston,

sent us an email to ask what Mike Trout would be as a left-handed hitter or how he would perform. And we just wildly speculated basically based on how good he is as a right-handed hitter and his general freakish talent and athleticism. But we had nothing really to go on as far as hard information. And so we just kind of concluded that he would be completely terrible at first, like in his first 50 at bats or so, if he just tried to do this in the middle of a season with no preparation, he might hit like 50 for those at bats, you know, just like hit a couple squibbers that he beats out, but he'd have no power, that sort of thing. And then we

figured that maybe eventually he could get to the point where he is rosterable. And Sam was more optimistic than I was. And Sam thought he could maybe even get back to an all-star level just because he's coming down from like best of all time, that he could be less than half as good as he was before and still be really good, I think he would still be employable. But again, we had nothing to go on. And then after that episode, someone sent me a story about how in high school, Trout's teammates had forced him to take BP and participate in some sort of home run derby left-handed

just because he was too good right-handed. So that was the first evidence that he had actually done this in some capacity. And then an anonymous benefactor who heard that episode emailed me and Sam a video of Mike Trout taking batting practice in high school. It's about a three-minute long video, and I will post it in the Facebook group and in the blog post at BP, all the usual places, so you can watch and critique along with us, but it's about three minutes. He hits from the right side for the first minute and a half, and then he turns around and he hits lefty for the second minute and a half, which gives us

concrete video evidence to go on here. Has either of you ever seen Mike Trout take batting practice in high school before? No. No. I think no. I mean, until this moment, no. Yeah, no. This is a new experience to all of us, and we're just looking at this for the first time. We haven't had a ton of time to break it down. But I want to ask Eric, I think, first of all, I mean, just to set the scene, this is his high school field.

It's a nice sunny day. It looks like it might be the fall. There aren't many leaves on the trees. Yeah, that's the first thing I noticed too. I'd say that it's probably early spring. That could be. The scouts and people that are watching him swing around the field don't have the layers on typically associated with a fall in New Jersey. It looks like, you know, it's starting to warm up and they're sort of used to the cold and can

throw on a polo shirt and go to the field without anything else on. So I'd bet it's probably early spring. People want to see if this raw 80 runner can maybe switch hit. That's sort of the situation. Yeah, good point. You're already picking up on aspects of this that could completely pass me by. So you think those are scouts? They look like scout type people. They're sort of reclining and slouching and they have their hands folded across their chest in maybe a scout sort of way. They strike you as scouts? sort of way they they strike you as scouts sure yeah the there's uh there's everyone's got their personal space it's pretty uh it's male dominant there aren't like groups of people that look like they have relationships with one another beyond scouting so yeah i'd assume that this is like one

of those scenarios where you see this a lot with high school prospects where scouts say hey will you take bp before or after your game today with a wood bat so we can sort of see how the raw power works with wood. So I've seen that before, just not, you know, with Mike Trout. Right. A scout would not request that a hitter hit left-handed, right? This is purely a for fun or recreational or show-off sort of thing? Or you think there might actually be some sort of utility here? No, no, I definitely think with someone who ran like Trout did in high school, if you thought that he was raw offensively as a natural right-handed hitter and wanted to just see what it'd be like from the left side, see if it was workable, if he was going to be a long-term

project anyway, then yeah, you ask him, like, maybe take some cuts from the left side just so we can see it's just more information. There's really no harm in it. And it's not like these kids are in a position to just say no to that sort of thing. There's no downside for them either. So I wouldn't surprise me if somebody asked him to take some swings left-handed that this just isn't a fun exercise. Mm-hmm. Okay. And so when I saw the right-handed hitting portion of this, I mean, he looks very much like Trout to my untrained eye. I don't know about you, Carson, but he looks like a less beefy version, still pretty beefy for a high school-aged person, but he looks like Trout and he swings like Trout. And if you had sent me this video and said, here is an unidentified baseball player taking BP, I would have been able to identify it as Trout.

But Eric, to you, does anything stand out as dramatically different from the right side, from the side we're used to seeing Trout? No. I guess, you know, it's probably better to see in-game swings from the right side i know that like his footwork and the way he used his uses his lower half has improved since high school um and he might just based on the video we're seeing here i think he might load his hands up a little bit higher now than he used to you know this is like a freak talent we're talking about here obviously so some of the the scouting tropes about swing path don't necessarily apply to mike trout uh so but yeah like loading your hands higher in general is is not something that i think is is a

good thing i like guys who lower who load their hands a little lower because just the bat is on playing with the ball a little earlier but again we're talking about a complete freak here so other than that I agree with you that it's more or less the same guy from the right side that it is now

can I ask a question from the left side from the left side he seems to drop his hands in sort of an awkward way occasionally what is that mechanical movement called uh you could just i just note it as his hands drop yeah his hands drop okay very technical term yeah very technical but it seems like they don't really do anything right like they just sort of they don't, you like to see hands load back, usually parallel vertically with the back foot and anything deeper than that, you risk barring that front arm. So it

loses its like flexibility and it can take longer to get back to the ball. But you do like to see the hands go back, like someone's drawing the string on a bow back. And you know, that's called the load. And from the left side, you're right, Carson, they don't load. They just sort of drop down because it's clearly just not something that he's very comfortable with doing, swinging, you know, left-handed. Yeah. Yeah. And we should say, you know, caveat on all of this. It's a short video. It's somewhat grainy. It is not high definition. It is not a high pressure situation. He's just taken some swings in BP, although if those are scouts, then he is presumably trying.

And I wish there were a way for me to sort of make you forget that this was Mike Trout. I don't know that there's any way to do that. I wish that I could have you come to this fresh somehow and give me a scouting report on this player not knowing that this is one of the best players ever just because we're used to hearing about how scouts underrated Trout and how he obviously was drafted late in the first round despite being this incredible talent. And Sam has told the story. I think there's a Mike Socha quote maybe that says something about how the angels can't take any credit for Trout. Only God can take credit for Trout. Or if you're more of an evolutionary theorist, you could say that evolution can take credit for Trout. But he kind of came to them maybe not as a finished product, but

as a really great product already. And maybe he kind of made himself into the finished product. And so presumably this version of Trout is not so different from the version of Trout who became the best prospect in baseball very quickly, and very quickly after that, the best player in baseball. in baseball very quickly and very quickly after that, the best player in baseball. And here he is sort of taking laid back BP swings on a high school field in possibly spring in a t-shirt and shorts. So maybe it's hard to see that, but I don't know, like if you could imagine being at a game and someone is taking BP and you don't know who it is, but you just see this, what would your impressions be? If you can somehow try to wipe the fact that you know how this story ends from your mind? Yeah. I mean, the first thing that you know, I mean, I think that it's beneficial to see the

right-handed swing first, just to know that this isn't his natural hitting side. But like, if you were just to look at it in a vacuum, I think you'd identify that the footwork, his footwork's bad. There's not a whole lot of weight moving forward. It's just the front foot picks up and gets put back down. And as the video goes on, he does sort of look more comfortable with everything. He has some back control.

You can see him move the barrel around and make contact with the ball in a couple of different places. I think he sort of gets his hands in to get the barrel on a pitch that's in at one point during the video, which is pretty interesting. And like, it is kind of terrifying that in a half dozen swings, you can see more visible comfort starting to come yeah also the thing that and it's that would probably be different independent of context is like trout from the right side that the top hand does not come off the bat during his follow-through he rips both wrists through contact constantly like that that's just, you know, he's top hand dominant in that way.

But from the left side, like that, that left hand is comes off the bat pretty early. He's just not comfortable doing that with that top hand from this side. But again, like if you didn't know that this was a right hand dominant hitter that was just trying this, that maybe that's not a thing that you would have noticed as much,

but yeah, I mean maybe that's not a thing that you would have noticed as much. But yeah, I mean, it's not great. This certainly isn't someone whose field hit from the left side is interesting on its own. If you told me that he were an 80 runner who could play center field at this age, then I'd still probably be pretty interested in him as a prospect. But I wouldn't have guessed that this was Mike Trout. Hey, question for either of you, unless Ben, you were trying to shut Eric Logganeg up so he leaves. No, go ahead. What do we know about players who have abandoned switch hitting? And Eric, I would defer to you

in particular, because you might know about guys who maybe were switch hitters through high school or through college and then abandoned it. Any prominent cases for you? I mean, the one that I was just talking about, this guy last night with somebody is Brian Hernandez from the Mariners who was just down here in the AZL. He's very young, 17, 18-year-old who just sort of gave it up. I know of – what's the guy that was taken in the role? Ji-Man Choi just recently like picked up switch hitting very late in his career.

So I mean, I think that it's just at size. I know Shane Victorino kind of ditched it for a while. Oh, that's right. And I think there's been conversation, yeah, about Pablo Sandoval maybe doing a similar thing. Yeah. I think it's just at some point where you think you're doing more harm than good from your weak side and that the benefits of of seeing opposite-handed pitching are usurped by just how crappy your your swing from that side is josh bell i guess would be a guy off the top of my head who i think is like a candidate for something like that but yeah i mean it definitely happens and i think it's just you're just so bad from one side for one reason or another that it's not worth doing anymore.

Especially guys who don't benefit from, say, having a bad left-handed swing, but also being fast and maybe being able to get away with it because of their speed. There's generally, I've heard it said, and I don't remember who, so I'm attributing it to the ether, essentially, that it's difficult maybe for players. to the ether, essentially, that it's difficult maybe for players. Players who are switch hitters develop more slowly because they're essentially attempting to develop two swings simultaneously. But I would also have to think that there's enough similarity, sort of brain memory that occurs between swings from the sides. It's not like it takes twice as long to develop. So do you have a, if you were to come up with it, like a generic multiplier for how much longer it takes to develop two swings than one, do you have the power to do that? Or would you care to speculate wildly? I guess, yeah, no, I think you're right.

I think there certainly is a learning curve that's different for switch hitters than there is for, you know, other guys. But probably maybe, you know, like 50% longer, you know, because I think that ultimately your left-handed swing is going to get more reps, and maybe it depends on which side is your natural side. If you're a natural left-handed hitter and are learning from the right side, maybe that, I think it's probably less likely that the right-handed swing develops at all because you're just not getting as many reps from that side because you're just seeing less left-handed pitching.

And so it might vary from player to player based on their background. But yeah, if you're just going to ask me to put a number on it, I'd say maybe there's an extra 50% worth of development time for that player's bat just because the reps are split between both sides. Here's a more frivolous question. I would assume that most hitters have experimented with hitting from the opposite side. Like even I, you know, when I used to play baseball at very low levels, I used to just for fun, see how I would do and I would do very badly. And so I assume that, you know, most high level high school hitters would have some experience just messing around with this in BP.

Do you think that Trout's lefty swing is better relative to his righty swing than the typical player's swing from his opposite side would be, if that question made any sense? Yeah, I do. Yeah. Yeah. And I think that's just part of it is because we're talking about someone with exceptional talent. And yeah, just like I said, the fact that there is some semblance

of back control in that video, I know it's not a full speed, like it's BP. I have back control from the left side when I'm just goofing around, and I do. But like at a full game speed, it's probably much different.

But yeah, it's, we're talking about one of the best players of all time. And so I'm not surprised at all that I'm not, uh, affronted by his left-handed swing from high school when I'm watching it. It's kind of interesting. So if you would care to project a hypothetical projection for a Mike Trout, let's say you've, you've seen him now,

I don't know what, seven, eight years ago, taking some swings from the left side and not looking completely incompetent doing so. If Mike Trout were to decide tomorrow that he is a left-handed hitter now, I don't know what would prompt him to do that. But say he did, what do you think he would hit this season? This season? Oh, I mean, there's not going to be any power. Yeah. First of all, how quickly do you think the improvement would come? Like,

would it all be concentrated early on or would it be over a long period he would continue to get better? What would the kind of curve look like? I think he probably developed some, what are probably bad habits long- term in order to survive initially. And that would probably – the cement would probably be dry on whatever he was doing left-handed before those improvements would be made. That's the – like the Rick Porcello corollary, which Carson and I have talked about on the podcast where guys just sort of need to survive and maybe sacrifice something that developmentally would be beneficial long term, but it allows them to compete right now. I think that's probably the situation you'd see with Trout if you asked him to hit left-handed at the big league level initially. So yeah, I think you'd see some improvement at one point and then it would plateau. So give me a peak projection. Well, all right, give me a 2017 projection if he decides to do this tomorrow,

and then give me a peak projection, and that can come whenever you think he would reach his peak. Yeah, I think you're looking at him slashing. Is he allowed to bunt? Yeah, I guess so. But of course, if he bunts all the time, then it won't work anymore, probably. I guess so. But of course, if he bunts all the time, then it won't work anymore, probably. I'd say he'd end up hitting something like 190 with a sub 300 on base and probably a sub 300 slugging percentage. I think if anything, his approach would probably improve the most over time as he got better at identifying balls and strikes from the other side of the plate. And peak projection, maybe it's like 220, 320, 380. I just don't see any way for him to develop power from this side.

He relies too much on the strength of that top hand from the right side. That's how I think he generates a lot of it. And it's just not possible to do that from the left side when your right hand's on the bottom of the bat and you'd have to almost have a complete like swing overhaul. He'd end up having to swing like Ken Griffey Jr. or something like that. So yeah,

I, it's, it's interesting. It's an interesting exercise. Obviously it's preposterous, but yeah, that's like if that's probably what I think he'd max out at something like that and and would that peak projection change demonstrably if this video had represented

the beginning of his left-handed career and he had never played right-handed again but he had devoted himself full-time to being a lefty hitter from that day forward probably yeah yeah um but uh you know it's interesting because i think the fact that he was asked to do this and i do think he was asked to do this you know the mat he's hitting on is to keep the chalk nice and neat on the like they what there was effort put into setting this up for him to do. So I think that he was probably asked to do this, which is just further evidence of how he was mis-evaluated at the time. I think that we probably overstate how he was mis-evaluated. The people I've talked to about why he went as late as he did say that a significant reason was because it was just wet. It was a wet spring in New Jersey. And the people who make decisions at the very top of the draft, general managers and scouting directors and vice presidents and such, don't have time to schedule a flight to South Jersey and not see a game that

day because it rained. And it was just abnormally wet and guys didn't get in there to see Trout play as much as they would have had it been nicer. And when you're making a multi-million dollar decision at the top of the draft, you want to pick a player you have confidence in, someone that you've seen a lot. And Trout just wasn't that guy. And there were probably concerns about his – the level of competition he faced. Was he at showcases? Yeah, I assume that he was at least at area codes, but not that I was going to at the time. I was still in college.

But yeah, so there were circumstances beyond just people missing. But you know, the Angels called Randall Gritchuk's name first with those back-to-back picks. They didn't even pick Trout first. So it's not like they necessarily knew what they were getting either. Sam always stands up for Gritchick

and says something about how they picked him first, not because they thought he was going to be the better player, but for some other unrelated reason. Not that the Angels did necessarily know that Trout was going to be the best player ever, I'm sure. They have said, I think, that they had him at the top of their board, which is easy to say in retrospect. But even if it's true, you know, you don't project anyone to be this great. But obviously there were, if you could transport yourself to this grainy, possibly spring day, and you saw him hitting right-handed, is it not the sort of right-handed swing that just blows you away and says, this is a number one pick in the country. This is a

future hall of famer. Is it just, you know, cause like, obviously it's, it's tough to tell without seeing him against very high level competition, which was another reason that people maybe mis-evaluated him. But I guess you always sort of hear the scouting stories about, you know, the first time you saw the guy swing or the first time you heard the ball off his bat or whatever you knew. And that wasn't the case with Chad for most scouts. How do you look at the best player of all time and not know immediately? Yeah, I mean, like looking at his, I'm watching it right now. Like I've just been watching it on a loop while we've been talking. Yeah.

I like it. It's hard not, it's hard to eliminate like the bias that, you know, it's Mike Trout when you're watching it. Yeah. Like I said, I mean, just the scouts who are probably here for this are area guys who ultimately don't make those decisions at the top of the draft. So even if they were pounding the table for this kid, like it's just not a thing that executives are going to pull the trigger on. It's really not. And yeah, I mean, I wonder how he performed at area code games

against more advanced pitching than he saw in high school in New Jersey. That probably had a lot to do with it, if he, you know, how he performed at the showcases. Because there are just some guys who go from playing, you know, I came up watching amateur ball in Eastern Pennsylvania, and it's just, it's awful. And there are just some guys from that area who you can't bridge the gap developmentally between what they're seeing in high school

and what they see in pro ball. It's just too big of a gap for them to make those adjustments to. So I understand the concerns that people may have had, but, and yeah, and it's hard to see how much raw power there is here. Cause you don't get to see like where the ball is going, but,

but yeah, like I think it's a very visually pleasing right-handed swing. And yeah, I certainly think that he looks like a first rounder to me, but again, I think it's a very visually pleasing right-handed swing. And, yeah, I certainly think that he looks like a first-rounder to me. But, again, I know it's Mike Trout. Right. It's a considerable advantage knowing the future. All right. Carson, do you have any other questions about this video?

Well, just one note. Do you know that Mike Trout has zero bunt hits over the last four years? I mean, there's not a lot of reason, I guess, for him to be bunting these days. But to the best of my knowledge, he's not even attempted one, it appears, given the data. He's not hitting lefty, I guess, is the reason. Right. Also, I did a little research, and it appears as though this video was shot by Abraham Zapruder's grandson. I heard Abraham Zapruder's granddaughter interviewed on The Gist just a few days ago.

She just wrote a book about that video. Yeah. So someone could write a book about this video, and I'd probably read it. But I think we've covered this ridiculous hypothetical question pretty adequately. So it sounds like the answer to the ridiculous hypothetical, I think, was less important than the journey we went on to get there. But I think you came to a similar conclusion that I did with no evidence, which is that he would probably have a place in Major League Baseball, even as a left-handed hitter. It would not be nearly as prominent a place. But if Mike Trout could have a 320 OBP and still be a great runner and

a great center fielder, someone would find room for him somewhere. Yeah. Ben, I think that if you had said it was going to be a 420 OBP, Eric would have responded more quickly. Maybe if you'd stipulated that it was central time. Yeah. he got pretty excited when I said joint podcast at the beginning. I guess he did. All right. All right. Well, I will share this video with everyone. You can come to your own conclusions.

And Eric, I appreciate your expertise, and I suppose you have fulfilled your obligation to this podcast. So people can find Eric on Fangrass and also on Twitter at Langenhagen. Thank you, Eric. Thank you for blowing my cover. Bye. All right. So we're alone now.

How did you feel that segment went? I thought it was great. I really enjoyed talking with Eric. Always because he has a, let's see, he is a good, I think he's an accomplished taxonomist, which is to say he's good at identifying, because we saw in this case certain types of swings, and he's got a talent for that, but he's always willing to get weird as well. And I know that, I think that there is something that's probably essential. It's an essential skill to have, I think, to be a truly well-rounded talent evaluator because you have to be able to

accept the fact that you know that you're I mean you see Yon Mankata and you're like yeah Yon Mankata is really good but then you also have to acknowledge the fact that Jose Altuve is really good and Kyle Hendricks is really good and Matt Carpenter is really good and if you're not prepared to

if you're not prepared to embrace the weird or the unusual, then you're never going to hit on those guys. and in guests. So this is good. I'm excited about the move to Fangrass, although BP will still sort of be involved, so it's not necessarily an either-or situation. But this is something that I think probably couldn't have happened when I started this podcast. I think relations between the two sites were such that we probably would not have had a podcast moving freely from one to another. I remember the first time that you and I did, and Sam did a joint simulcast podcast sort of thing, which I think was in 2013. And it was with some trepidation that I proposed that to my superiors. And it was never any animosity on our parts or on the part of most people at either site.

But I think there was just sort of some, I don't know, institutional sense that there were competitors and maybe they didn't freely fraternize. I guess it's like old school baseball where managers used to get mad at players for talking to the other team, that sort of thing. Whereas now everyone just sort of pals around and it's nicer that way i think i think you're right i think right and i would uh very much echo the fact there's never been any animosity between you or i or sam i think we've all gotten along very well but it's not it's perhaps not very surprising in the sense that's uh well in the sense it's dramatized both in literary form and cinematic form by Moneyball, where you have baseball analysts coming along who are threatening the, I guess, in that case, the very livelihood of the scouts who are working in that particular case for the Oakland A's. But it was, of course, something that has unfolded to varying degrees in all front offices. But at the same time, there was probably more concern about turf, about who was inventing, for example, a better ERA estimator

or maybe producing better prospect lists or something along those lines. But yes, I would echo the fact that I did not think that that really exists anymore, as far as I know. Yeah, I mean, teams have hired more scouts since the time when everyone was worried that they would fire their scouts, and hopefully that means that people will continue to hire more baseball writers and

podcasters, or let's hope that's the case. And some BP stats even will soon be appearing at Fangraphs, from what I understand. Yeah, I think that's true. I heard, well, I think was it Jonathan Judge? Did he mention in the... Yeah, R.J. Anderson's piece about him. Yeah, I think that's true. I heard, well, I think, was it Jonathan Judge that he mentioned in the... Yeah, R.J. Anderson's piece about him.

Yeah, right. Booked that news, I think. Yeah, that's right. I think DRA, if nothing else, will certainly appear. And I know that at Fangraphs, we freely cite the catcher framing metrics at BP. And in addition to stat corner, because Matthew over there, Matthew Cruz, I think does those. I think Jeff Sullivan is somehow involved still, too, although I don't know to what degree. Yeah, right. So you and I, I think our podcasts have been going for a combined something like 12 years now, I think, because Fangraphs Audio predates Effectively Wild. And I think between

the two of us, we have amassed, what, something like 1700 episodes now? Yeah, I'm gonna say too much, too much content is what it is. I think probably. And it's, it's sort of strange, because if you were to meet either of us, or certainly if you were to meet me five years ago, I don't know that either of us would strike someone. You wouldn't emerge from a conversation with either of us and say, you've got to give that guy a show. I don't think you know how you meet certain people and you think someone should give them a show, whether it's a reality show or a podcast or whatever, either they're just so compelling and have such a way with words, or they just talk so much that you think you should maybe stick a microphone in front of them at some point. And I don't know if either of us has that quality. I certainly didn't when we

started this podcast. I don't think anyone should have given me a show at that point. And really, no one did give me a show. I kind of gave myself a show. You took it. Yeah. Now, without gazing too intensely at our respective shoes, what do you think, or navels perhaps, I forget which, whichever. Yeah, shoes is music, right? Navels is what we're doing. Galaxy 500, is that right? Yeah.

That's shoegazing music, isn't it? Yeah. Okay, fair enough. That's shoegazing music, isn't it? Yeah. Okay. Fair enough. What do you find are the skills that have most benefited you, skills or traits most benefited you and or which you have perhaps strengthened through your thousand episodes?

Well, my delivery has definitely improved and I don't know to what extent. There's only so much I can do. I'm never going to sound like Grant Brisby, much as I might try. But if you go back and listen to episode one of this podcast, which is still possible, it's still on the internet, unfortunately, I sound like I just woke up and also have a terrible illness. And that's kind of how I talk in person. I'm sort of a low affect person. And so I've learned that in order to make it tolerable for people to listen to me, I have to project a little more energy than I normally would. And I was, I was going to ask you whether your curiosity has ebbed at all in the process of doing the show. Cause it's a, it's a lot of shows and a lot of emails and a lot of guests and the same

questions come up over time. And in some cases the, the answers are different now than they were at the beginning of the show, just because some years have elapsed and we know more now, but we, you know, cover the same ground a certain number of times. And maybe you start to feel like there's less to learn or, or you've already, you're repeating yourself now. And, uh, I feel that sometimes. And so I try to bring in new voices where I can, who will hopefully have new stories and new opinions and new anecdotes. Has your enthusiasm ebbed or flowed at all? Yeah. I don't know if the enthusiasm has

changed that much. I think it's always been, it's been low the whole time, but I would say that, like, for example, it depends on the guest. And I think that, I think you've probably done more work with strangers than I do. I mean, I have, I talk to Dave Cameron every week. And the thing that I've learned about speaking with Cameron is that I don't need to know anything before the conversation starts. It's better if you don't sometimes. Yeah. And Cameron has, Cameron has, I mean, he's a, he's, he's wonderful to talk to for this reason. I think he's maybe a little bit on the spectrum. He has a nearly, you know, he has an encyclopedic memory for like the terms of contracts. Yeah. him and he also remembers you know most studies that have been conducted relating to especially in the economics of baseball or he sort of internalized them even if he doesn't know who necessarily authored the original studies so so one so when so we're talking with cameron

yeah curiosity is the only thing i bring uh because i just you know just start asking him questions yeah and i think that that's that's always the best one. And then I think with the, and I'm sure that you have developed this with Sam, not only through the podcast and other working relationships, but also, of course, through writing a book together, which I have to imagine is the sort of singularly unpleasant experience that brings people together like brothers. Yeah. But like, of course, we have Kylie on, Kylie McDaniel on as a prospect guy for some time. And now Eric has been doing it for the last four months, roughly. And that's more the other person, having fun, and being able to communicate the fact that you are having fun doing it. I think you probably, intelligence from speaking with Eric here is a lot of fun to speak with, so benefit from that.

And, of course, I typically have Jeff Sullivan on once a month, and that's someone who you'll be having on very often. once a month, and that's someone who you'll be having on very often. Yeah, I enjoy those appearances very much, although at times you challenge that necessity to have topics in those episodes at times. Yes, actually, I don't think I'm telling tales out of school when I suggest that I was virtually taken aside by David Appelman, and it was suggested to me that we could at least, when I have Sullivan on, at least have the pretense of discussing baseball, if not in practice, you know, or maybe begin with that. But I will say, as soon as Alvin said that, it just so happened that I think it was, maybe it was game five of one of the National League series. There was a fantastic game, is the point. And I think we spoke about the game for a full hour,

Sullivan and I did. Which, of course, it's rarely during the regular season are you watching all the same exact games as anyone else. Right. It's unusual probably to do that because Sullivan's on the West Coast, for example, I'm on the East. And I think he has

still at least the seed of a rooting interest in the Mariners or if I accidentally watch a game it's probably going to be the Red Sox there's there's a lot that's not in common there but that's the nice thing that I've actually come to appreciate the playoffs more than when I started writing for Fangraphs because there is a there is a text there that's kind of available for everyone at the same time, whereas you don't get that during the regular season. Yeah, and it's the only time I really feel any tension now when I watch a baseball game, or suspense usually, just because I don't really have a rooting interest anymore, whereas in the playoffs I might still not have a rooting interest,

but the stakes are just sufficiently elevated that you kind of feel that refracted tension from everyone else who is very tense watching the game. So I enjoy kind of just getting a whiff of that, which I used to have more acutely than I do now. Yeah. You know, it's interesting. I feel embarrassed that I only found it maybe in the second half this past year, but I believe is it Dan Hirsch who runs Baseball Gauge or Seamheads? Yes, yes. And I kind of came late to it too. And once I discovered it, it's an amazing site.

I use the site and I've used Dan's expertise several times for articles. It's sort of a unique site. It has things that other sites do not have. Right. And he has, I think he carries, is it the championship leverage index? Yes. And yeah, championship win probability added. Right. Which is a great device. You mentioned you're watching games for that sort of suspense. If you're attempting to decipher what game to watch during the regular season, seeing what the implications are for a

championship, that's certainly one way to do it. Obviously, there are other contributing factors. If you have a great pitching duel, that's another consideration. But the championship leverage index is excellent for that. And then, and I believe you're the one who, I think I learned about it reading your article about the program or the app or the widget or whatever it is that he developed. Oh yeah. The game changer. Yeah. Right. That allows you to go back and forth. You know, if like a Jarrell Cotton is starting and you really want to see Jarrell Cotton pitch. You can put all kinds of criteria in and it will just automatically switch from one feed to the next based on your settings,

which is, yeah, really revolutionized my baseball viewing. Oh, I absolutely, yes. It actually, that changed things a lot for me because that's the thing even, well, I guess they're really, what is that called? Whipping around? Whip around? Whip around on Fox, right? And there's the quick pitch on MLBb network which is not live usually or it runs sometimes in the early morning hours and just kind of does quick highlights from each game but it's

not necessarily in real time right and of course their criteria are going to be different yes right i i suppose they're somewhat related to what the leverage index of a game if if only if accidentally but um but you know yeah if you there you might actually have uh there might be a rookie making a debut who's you know somewhat obscure or i don't know does anyone really want to watch a brock stewart pitch i mean besides me i don't know do you is that appointment viewing for you brock stewart probably not no. It's not high on my hierarchy of needs. What would be Abraham, a different Abraham, not Zapruder, Maslow? Yes. Yeah. Can we get a third Abraham in here?

What about the one who just goes by Abraham? Yeah, the big one. Yeah, the original. He was the original Abraham. What did Abraham do? You know, growing up Catholic, we only kind of, he doesn't, you know, you only have half the time for the Old Testament. Right, yeah. So we only, you know anything good?

Yeah, I went to Catholic schools for 20 years, and it never really took root in me at all. But presumably I've heard all of these things at some point or another. I mean, he almost killed his son that one time. He was willing to. Oh yeah, that's right. And what, he should have, right? Well, he was prevented from doing so, but he was ready to follow through if called upon. I think that's what he is most known for. Yeah. Yeah, it should have. Yeah. Well, all right. Yeah. Well, I listened to you and Jeff talk about the Trojan horse for 20 minutes or so

recently, which I think was an episode from maybe August or so. And I enjoy those episodes that kind of range far afield. So I hope that me talking to Jeff about baseball on a regular basis will, if anything, free you up to explore other subjects with him if you keep having him on. Well, the same, the way, the thing, because I think, and I'm interested for your opinion on this. So I think that, right, the subject is baseball, right? On the one hand, the subject, the content, the raw material is baseball but i would say that the the thing that got me excited about sabermetrics originally was because yes i was drawn to the raw material but it was the way it was the method of approaching the game right yeah which i have i think which i have i have benefited from applying that, which essentially what it's the scientific method or, you know, it's, you know, something like emphasizing the process over the product.

I think that has made me utilizing playful scrutiny to other topics is also the subject matter. And so, right, so then you come across something like the Trojan horse, which is it's an accepted wisdom, right, that this is what happens. But if you begin asking questions about it, right? It all falls apart. It does. It all falls apart. Still have not figured it out because in any other historical text, is anyone else giving each other a giant wooden horse and the other parties accepting it with something like glee? No. I mean, as you discussed, maybe once Troy fell for it with circumstances that, you know, didn't work out to

its favor, then if word spread about that particular gift, then you'd imagine maybe other cities not falling for the same thing. On the other hand, I don't know how quickly word spread in the ancient world. So you think it might've worked a few more times at least before it got around. Here's the other thing that reminds me of that. How many people do you think named their children Adolf? Like in the direct, like it, I other thing reminds me that how many people do you think named their children adolf like in the direct like it i mean how popular or how unpopular do you think the name has been since like the since after world war ii i would suppose extremely unpopular but i think probably probably not extinct right i'm sure there are there are probably pockets here and there of people who would uh still a son after the actual Adolf, right?

Yeah. But probably some of those children might not keep the name. Maybe go to the middle name there after a while. I wonder what Adolf Rupp was. He was an American college basketball coach, I believe. He was born in 1901. Yeah, right. He has a good excuse. basketball coach, I believe. He was born in 1901. Yeah, right. But I wonder if he,

maybe if he went to his middle name following, you know, following the events of the mid 40s. Hey guys, maybe... Well, he spelled it differently. So maybe he felt that the PH instead of the F was sufficiently different that it was not an obvious homage. Right. Yeah. But how do you decide how much baseball to inject into your podcast? Because that's something that I've been thinking about in the aftermath of Sam's departure and a lot of people paying tributes to Sam and remembering their favorite moments or favorite Sam quotes. And very few of them are, you know, Sam predicting a division winner accurately or Sam, you know, picking a breakout player who turned out to really be good. Almost none of them really is baseball related.

They're mostly meandering observations or ruminations about life or the futility of it or something that kind of, you know, tells you, gives you some insight into Sam's character or to life in general. And that seems to be what most sticks in people's mind. But I think if that were the entirety of the podcast, people probably wouldn't stick around or maybe they would if they already had some affection for me and Sam, but I don't think we would have attracted them with that. They come because it's a baseball podcast and they're interested in baseball and then hopefully they get to know and like the hosts and they want little glimpses of their personality, but there's probably a point at which they do want us to stick to baseball, which I imagine Jeff and I will be doing mostly with some

deviations for flavor. Yeah, I know. I think that you have, you're right. You stick to the topic at hand because, of course, that's the reason it exists. But probably, right, you also allow room for digression because that feels like, it feels a little bit naughty, maybe. You know, you're, oh, we're not on topic, but you don't have to be because, feels like, it feels a little bit naughty maybe. You know, you're, oh, we're not on topic, but you don't have to be because, you know,

there's not going to be a test at the end of it. So you can do that. And that's probably why the, what, the flourishes, the personal flourishes, all right, are naturally what I'm sure, I mean, in addition to other people remembering, is probably what you remember about doing the program with Sam. Yes. But I think that, right, there has to be a proportion.

I probably, well, I'm almost certainly been guilty of not abiding by that rule. But it's not because I want to talk. Well, never because I want to talk about myself. But I don't know. The answer is I don't know, Ben. Yeah. That's the answer. In fact, I submit that know, Ben. Yeah. That's the answer. In fact, I submit that answer to all of the preceding questions as well.

And any subsequent ones perhaps also. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Whatever is it. I think that's the safest answer. It does not get page views, I will tell you. When you say, yeah, maybe this. No. Yeah. when you say, yeah, maybe this. No, yeah.

Well, maybe it's just that your curiosity is so boundless that to confine it to baseball would be too much to ask. If you get to know a guest who is a regular on your show, then it's hard to restrict yourself solely to a very limited number of topics just because that is your job. You naturally want to range a little bit. Yeah. Well, so the biggest exception, of course, is any program on which Dane Perry appears. Right.

And that is a different sort of search. Now, the pretense here is that Dane is also a baseball writer. But we're performing very important work when Dane is on because we're investigating a broken man. It's essentially a long PSA to help people avoid ending up in a ditch, metaphorical or literal. And so it's essentially supported by a lot of Better Business Bureau, American Psychologists Association. There are a lot of people who support that program because it's saving lives, saving marriages, saving children, if not always directly. And we do come across some gems. And we do come across some gems.

There was, for example, one episode where we accidentally fell into the world, discovered the world of truck nuts. Yes, I heard. Which is ripe for exploration, and we did not know that. And then the most recent appearance by Dane, he railed against judges for an extended period of time. Dane does not like judges. It came out and he was expressing the pleasure he feels in voting against judges. That was his big takeaway from election 2016. Just straight down the ticket, he votes against all of them? He actually said he did research and he found that if anyone from any political party had endorsed a judge, that was immediately grounds for Dane not to vote for that judge. He did not want a judge who had been endorsed by anyone.

He wanted a universally reviled judge. And I don't know if that's true. I don't know. That's like accepting umpires who were only disliked both by players and managers, maybe. Or by all teams equally. Well, that makes sense, right? You'd want umpires who are respected by both sides, but

probably disliked by both sides in the moment, or in certain moments. You wouldn't want him to favor one team or another or one player or another, but you'd also want their judgments not to be so off base that you would respect their work less. But in the heat of the moment, you would want everyone to be mad at an umpire, which is generally the case. To the best of your knowledge, you've done, you've performed wide ranging work. Is there any evidence that an umpire favors or the opposite of favors a particular team? I have not seen that. No, I've seen research into whether umpires favor

certain races. I've seen that some research papers, you know, whether they favor members of their own race, for instance, I've seen whether they favor the home team, which does seem to be the case, I think. And maybe also some research into whether they favor long tenured players or players of a certain stature within the game or, or a certain performance level. But I haven't seen anything about sort of a longitudinal study about whether an umpire always favors a certain team. I haven't seen that. I don't know whether there'd be a substantial enough sample to come to that conclusion. Yeah, I don't know.

Right. Yeah, I think the sample would be the problem. Although you could maybe... I wonder how large the sample would be the problem. Although you could maybe wonder how large the sample would have to be. Has Russell Carlton done any work on when sample sizes become reliable for determining bias in umpiring? Well, if we're only talking about home plate umpiring, which I assume we are, then I would think fairly quickly, right? Because catcher framing is a thing that stabilizes fairly quickly. because catcher framing is a thing that stabilizes fairly quickly.

Of course, catchers are catching every game, whereas umpires are only umpiring one of every several games. And if you're only working a series with that team, maybe once or twice a season, then I think it would probably take too long for that to be a stable thing that you could trust. Do you think that if the same umpire and catcher were always working in tandem, right? Do you think that that would ultimately hurt or benefit the catcher's

ability to steal strikes by way of framing? Or do you think that it would be, it would become nullified, the effect, because the umpire would become so accustomed to, you know, the positioning, would become so accustomed to you know the positioning etc yeah i'd say i'd say the framing would become less effective probably but maybe you'd also build up some rapport which could theoretically help you at times i don't i don't know whether that's the case but catchers seem to talk about that as if it's an important thing, treating umpires with a certain respect and managing to get along with them. So maybe that's the kind of relationship that would build up over time and would offset some loss in framing.

But yeah, there was a theory going around that umpires had sort of gotten wise to good framers and that maybe that was one of the reasons why there's been a kind of compression between the best and the worst framers is that someone like Jonathan Lucroy or Jose Molina, who developed a reputation for being a great framer, umpires would then become aware of that reputation and be more mindful of it. And maybe not give them those calls that they would have given them otherwise. So I think the same principle might be at play there. When do umpires have their meetings? Do they have a meeting where they all get together? I think they do. I think that from what I've heard, umpires get some sort of grade or report on their

performance after each game. So there's a system that MLB uses that was based on PitchFX but was corrected in some fashion also. And the umpires are evaluated based on that system. And I believe they get very quick feedback on how they did. I don't know whether they necessarily take it to heart, but the information is there at least. at least and then I would assume that there is some sort of meeting maybe at the the winter meetings or annual meetings or if there's some change in play there would be memos sent around that sort of thing no I don't know if they go to the winter meetings I don't know if I don't recall seeing it but I wasn't looking for umpires either yeah they probably weren't wearing their

gear no I don't know how many umpires I would Masks and chest protectors Yeah, like I would probably recognize Joe West Yes, of course How about Dana DeMuth? Would you recognize Dana DeMuth? I might, I think I might I might recognize Kerwin Danley Ah, right, okay, yeah Yeah, I don't know, I know all umpire names are familiar to me But I don't know how many of them I could put a face to.

You know, Kerwin Danley and Joe West actually work on the same umpiring crew. Oh, all right. Here's something I didn't know. They have cohesive umpiring crews throughout the whole year. Joe West and Kerwin Danley work on umpiring crew E, according to Wikipedia. Oh, well, I didn't know that they had letters associated with them, but I guess that makes sense. Who's another one? Name a makes sense. Who's another one? Name a big time.

Who's another one? He's a big time guy. Angel Hernandez. Oh, yeah, that's right. But he kind of gets hated on, doesn't he? Yes, very much so. He's on N. Oh, okay.

He's with Ted Barrett. Where are you getting this information? Wikipedia.com. Oh, okay. Yeah. Ted Barrett is head of umpiring crew N With Angel Hernandez, Lance Barksdale, and Will Little Alright, I wonder how many letters there are I don't know, I mean there's gotta be

Well there are what, at least 15 games? I mean there can be 15 games in a night? Mm-hmm So there has to be Yeah, there's gotta be what, 60-something umpires? Yeah, right, at any given time At least, replay umps Yeah, who was Mr. Face Chops? Mr. Handlebar Mustache? James Joyce?

Yeah, Joyce. Jim Joyce. Probably born James Joyce, right? Yeah, probably. Yeah. He's on Elle. Okay. He's with Marvin Hudson, James Hoy, and Chad Fairchild. Uh-huh.

Well, it makes sense for umpires to travel together because it's a lonely life, and it's probably helpful to have a little pack that you travel around with because everyone hates you, as we just discussed a lot of the time. Do you think they get two double rooms, or do you think they get four singles? I would think four singles. Yeah, because I interviewed a bullpen catcher not long ago on my other podcast. And I asked him that question, what his hotel accommodations are. And he said that he gets his own room and he acted as if, you know, that maybe should have been obvious that, of course, he would get his own room.

Not that he was necessarily offended. But I think if a bullpen catcher gets a room, then you'd think that umpires would get rooms, right? Right, but aren't umpires, they're kind of like federal employees, don't you think? Yeah, right. Because we're like a bullpen catcher, it's like you accept the extravagance because it's a private enterprise, right? The Reds are paying for it or, you know, the Dodgers. Whereas you feel like you're paying taxes and the umpires should not have the luxury.

Right. Yeah. You'd think they have such a high-stress job, though, that the least you could do is give them their own hotel room. They also have a union, which is, I think, not something bullpen catchers can say. I really want to know who umpiring crew A is, and if that's somehow... Yeah, I doubt it's a value judgment. It's probably not the higher you are, the better you are. No, I don't think so. But listen, I found all of 2016s. Oh, okay.

I'm Skyping it to you. I know, recognize this is not great. This is not great radio, but I'm Skyping it to you right now. They're all the umpiring crews. The takeaway is that we now know how many is not great. This is not great radio, but I'm Skyping it to you right now. There are all the umpiring crews. The takeaway is that we now know how many crews there are. Yeah, crew S it goes up to. It goes up through S. Yeah. All right.

Good. And it appears as though there are some that, I don't know if it's because umpire is retired, but there are some that have kind of like a fixed call-up umpire. So like crew M. Uh-huh. You know, they only have three members of it. Yeah, I wonder why that is. I know it's difficult to retire umpires if they don't want to be retired. Yeah, and I know Jeff Sullivan has done some research into call-up umpires and found them lacking generally relative to the full-timers.

Here's a question, and I don't know if Jeff concluded this or not. Do you think that the part-time umpires are lacking because they do not necessarily see, they're not exposed to this sort of, say, velocity or electric, the sort of quality of stuff that they're seeing? So maybe they see a breaking ball, and they're like, there's no way that's going to be a strike. And they've already kind of tagged it in their mind, and then it ends up being, or alternatively, do you think it's just because they're not as good? I think it's probably both of those things. And maybe it's also a lack of familiarity with the pitchers. Just, I don't know how, you know, if you're a major league umpire, you've umpired for all these pitchers before, and maybe you're familiar with

their motions and you're familiar with the way the catcher sets up, and maybe that helps you anticipate where the pitch is going or focus on the release point better than you would otherwise. And maybe it's also just that the strike zone is called differently. I don't know whether that's the case, but we know that the Major League strike zone has migrated over the last several years, largely downward. And the AAA strike zone, we don't really have data on that, or at least we don't have the same data

on that because we don't have AAA pitch FX, although teams do and the leagues do. So maybe they try to keep it as consistent as possible, but maybe there are still some differences so that a AAA might come up to the majors and look as if he is calling a worse zone, but maybe there's still some differences so that a triple A might come up to the majors and look as if he is calling a worse zone, but really it's just the different zone that he is used to. Last question. Okay. You, in the not very distant past, released video footage of yourself proposing to your girlfriend. Yes, I did. Yeah. When are you guys going to have the wedding? Yeah, we're uh discussing that and i don't know i've kind of deferred on all wedding matters so it uh it probably won't be imminent yeah i'd i'd be okay if it were imminent if it were smaller and i'd be

happy if it were smaller probably but if it's not smaller then i imagine it might wait till next winter, perhaps. Well, listen, I just want to say something to you, Ben, because I don't know if other people have said this to you in your life. It's, don't worry. People might misbehave, your family or other family. People have very strong feelings about it, about what a wedding should look like. And I just want you to know that it could happen. It might happen.

And you also shouldn't worry about it because this is just something that occurs yeah i'm not personally very worried about it i uh i i'd be happy to just uh have it behind me i think i don't know that i i don't know that i'll enjoy being the center of or co-center of attention yeah that way. So I'd be happy to just embark upon married life without too much pomp and circumstance associated with the ceremony. Would you rather have, if you could only have one, would you rather pomp or circumstance? I think I'd rather have pomp.

Yeah, I think everyone wants pomp. Circumstance could be anything, right? It could be a terrible circumstance. It could be a terrible circumstance. It could be a very bad circumstance. I don't know if you could have bad pomp, though. No, it's true. It's true. Once you get pomp involved, everyone's got a smile on their face.

Right. There's really only a few situations where you have pomp, I think, right? Like weddings and graduations and parades and processions, but that's about it. You don't usually encounter pomp in your daily life. No, but there it is nonetheless. All right. And my last question to you is whether you have any pointers on talking to Sullivan or whether you care to warn the audience what they're getting into with Jeff. Because I know Jeff a little bit.

We've met a few times. We've hung out on a few occasions and emailed and talked on podcasts. But I don't know him extremely well. You probably know him better from having talked to him more on podcasts and hung out with him at Fangraph's gatherings and spring training trips and such. And he sort of presents himself as maybe not antisocial but sort of asocial, or at least with people whom he doesn't know well. At least he's not inclined to seek out conversation with strangers. But in my experience, at least, if you do know him, he is very easy to talk to.

Yeah, no, I think he is. Yeah, I think he is. I think, yeah, I think he's a bit of a weirdo in some ways, but that applies to many of us. Yes. No, I think he's good, and he's also good in that you can generally ask him a question, and he will produce something. You know what I mean? He understands that he is there to do the lifting with you. Yeah.

And he will not, as opposed to some people who do not necessarily, or who at least self-identify as asocial, he is able to produce verbal content. That's not a problem. I don't have to name names, but I've had baseball nerds on the program before who, for whatever their virtues as a person, did not necessarily feel comfortable just talking. And I will say one notable example is Matt Claussen, who used to write for Fangraphs. Matt was a – he probably still remains a PhD candidate. And so he refused, probably because this was his intuition this is how he was used to conducting himself he refused to make a statement like he he almost never used the indicative mood it was always the subjunctive or conditional because he would just qualify every statement he made you know

because he's in this rigorous philosophy probably from reading Wittgenstein or something so he was you know he was for him, words were an imperfect way to communicate. And so he would just not make any statements. And so, you know, everything was a qualification. And then, you know, so eventually he would be backtracked from his original er sentence. and then it would be time to end the recording. No, Jeff is, no, but Jeff understands that he's going to have to, you know, use the indicative mood at some point, and he will. Good. Yeah, I value the indicative mood in a podcast host. You have to use it eventually.

You do. You do. And you could say, you could qualify it with saying, I'm probably wrong, but that's fine too. crazy listener question and didn't have an answer prepared, I could read it. And by the time I was finished reading it, Sam would usually have something to say. And then by the time he had finished saying that something, I would have something to say. So it's nice to know that you can rely on the person for that sort of support. Right. Yes anding, it's called. Yeah. Right? Yeah. I think I said yes and, because sometimes I'll ask Dave Cameron a question,

and if he thinks it's a dumb question, he'll just say no, or was there a question there or something like that? And I think I said something to the effect of, Dave, you're supposed to yes and me. And he goes, what's that? And I was like, oh, no. I was like, now I have to explain

improv comedy to Dave Cameron? This is not going to help anyone. We're all going to be unhappy when this is done. And we were, we were. All right. Should we wrap up before we've outstayed our welcome? Yeah, let's do it. Okay. So that is that. I look forward to sharing a website with you and probably doing this more often than the two times we've done it in the past five years or so. So that'll be nice. It'll be nice to be associated with Fangraphs in some capacity.

I've always admired the site and all the work and your work. And so I'm looking forward to it. Oh, I am too, Ben. I think it's only an improvement. And now there will be a podcast on Fangraphs that people will want to listen to. But they'll still have the option of listening to yours. Yeah, that'll still be available. Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, well, yeah. Opperman said, I just want you to know that, you know, Ben Lindbergh is going to do it with Jess Sullivan. And I said, that's fine. And he's like, am I still employed? And he's like, yeah, yeah. I was like, that's no problem. As long as I remain employed, that's fine.

It's good. Everyone wins. Yeah. Thanks for joining me. Everyone wins. Yeah. Thanks for joining me. Yeah, thank you. You can support the podcast on Patreon by going to patreon.com slash effectivelywild. Today's five listeners who have already pledged their support, Ron Koppelman, Jason Bersani, Jim O'Brien, Will Cohane, and Brett O'Neill. Thank you.

You can join our Facebook group, which is fast approaching 5,000 members at facebook.com slash groups slash effectively wild. And you can rate and review and subscribe to effectively wild on iTunes. You can email the show at podcast at baseball perspectives.com. We'll get to a listener email show sooner or later. You can also contact us through Patreon and I and another guest co-host filling in for Jeff Sullivan will talk to you soon.