Effectively Wild: A FanGraphs Baseball Podcast - Effectively Wild Episode 1008: Tenth Time’s the Charm

Episode Date: January 19, 2017

Ben Lindbergh and Jeff Sullivan analyze the Hall of Fame voting results and extend their unlikely Lenny Harris discussion streak, then answer listener emails about restructuring the BBWAA ballot, restructuring Mike Trout, unbreakable records, eclipses, parity, and more. Audio intro: The Minus 5, "The Long Hall" Audio outro: Pink Floyd, "Eclipse"  iTunes Feed (Please rate and review us!) […]

The long haul is its happy times, a visitation realized, the ghosts of there and then, of hollow shining eyes. The long haul holds its memories, the bloodlots and the casualties, the songs of where and when, of laughter and to sing recording and as you all know there are three new hall of famers and that's nice they're all good players players i would have voted for if i'd had the opportunity and in some cases players who've waited a long time for this honor and i think that's always the thing that strikes me when one of these guys who's just kind of been like a a cause for sabermetricians or has been on the ballot for 10 years like tim raines you've been doing this whole baseball thing longer than i have but tim raines being an underappreciated hall of fame candidate who wasn't getting as many votes as he should have is really a constant for my entire

career basically like i guess 2008 was when i first started doing some stuff occasionally for baseball prospectus and that was his first year on the ballot, too. So, like, Tim Raines just being underappreciated has just been a constant for as long as I have been writing or talking about baseball. And now suddenly he is a Hall of Famer. So that's cool. Now that's not even something we have to debate or talk about anymore. Yeah, it feels like his case is just a true testament to the passionate work of one Jonah Carey. And obviously, there are several people

who have been supporting Tim Raines. But I think, you know, with with the Hall of Fame announcement, but also with Ryan Thibodeau's tracker, like a lot of the suspense has been removed from these announcements, because we have aside from like, I guess, the Trevor Hoffman case where he missed by one percentage point, that was going to be toss-up and Pudge Rodriguez is going to be a toss-up but otherwise like we knew we knew a while ago that Tim Raines was going to make it this year in fact you could even argue we knew last year he was going to make it this year because last year he got 69.8% of the vote so the suspense isn't really there and so these things are a little more interesting in sort of maybe big picture or top down perspectives where you look at Tim Raines

and his first two, three years on the ballot. This is just a decade ago. He got less than a quarter of the vote and then less than a quarter of the vote and then 30% of the vote. Those are his first three years. And I don't know much about the voting precedent and players like that getting in. But somewhere around there is when i think jonah carey turned it up beyond even 11 and it worked and that's really impressive and as much as i i guess i haven't been in the position yet where someone i'm really passionate about has made the hall of fame in large part because i'm not that passionate about anybody and the hall of fame but like this day his it it seems as much about Jonah's happiness as it does Tim Raines's happiness.

And I could not be more delighted for for Jonah and this victory, because I think you get often enough to you go to bed at night as a baseball writer and you think, what am I doing? And and this is at least one thing that Jonah did more than anybody else. Although I guess maybe Tim Raines deserves the bulk of the credit, but Jonah's distant second. Yeah. Jonah would definitely downplay his impact here, I'm sure. Whether he had a significant one or not, I'm sure he did. He would probably say that he isn't the one that people should be congratulating because Raines just got in And you know like I'm sure that If we could somehow remove

Jonah from the equation Reigns would have done better over time Like I have no way to Quantify the Jonah Effect he was on my other Podcast and he was talking about how he is Literally just like taken Undecided voters out to lunch and

Like emailed them and gone back and forth with them and tried to persuade them. And I'm sure that that's had a significant effect in some cases. And I think Reigns would have benefited from just the larger trends in the electorate and the way that people evaluate players and the larger trends that have affected just that sort of player who has been more appreciated by advanced stats and people who appreciate advanced stats. But yeah, I don't know if you strip out Jonah and his boundless enthusiasm and energy on this topic. I don't know whether Reigns gets in. So that is really cool. And it's also nice that Bagwell and Pudge got in. I'm surprised that Pudge got in, I think. I would have been surprised a few months ago if you had told me that he got in on his first try just because of all the steroid stigma stuff. And I think that was the larger trend of this voting class was just that the BBWA kind of came down from the high horse a little bit, or at least just resolved to stop selectively keeping players out and putting other guys in and trying to read too much into

rumors and all of that. That's clearly still hurting some players. But as we can see in the rises for some guys who've had that attached to their name, that seems to be straightening itself out a little bit, or at least there's a start to it. Yeah, it felt a little inevitable that I shouldn't say cave, I guess. But in a sense, the BBWA is caving a bit on the PED issue, which is something that was a barrier for years and years and years. And so many people have pointed to Bud Selig making it into the Hall of Fame, even though he made it in without getting voted in by the BBWA. It seems like it would have been easy enough for them to be like, well, that wasn't our fault. So we're just going to keep to our position. But it's almost as if they were looking for a reason,

not to speak of them all with one characterization, but there's there has been so much movement with the suspected players or even the beyond suspected players. And they have like Ivan Rodriguez with all of his rumors get in on the first ballot. It does seem like this year, more than any other year, has been a tipping point, I guess might be the term. And it's exciting a little bit for those who are, again, super passionate about this. I, like many people, I probably at my age are lean more progressive toward the voting tendencies than others do. And I'm also just happen to be a relatively bigger hall guy anyway. So if Trevor Hoffman makes it, whatever, that's fine. I could even see an argument for like Gary Sheffield, but I guess that's a different conversation. In general,

I am pro-happiness and anti things that are embarrassing. And this year we avoided anything that was embarrassing for anyone. And a lot of people are happy. Yeah. I will say that the Bonds-Clemens bump was Not nearly as big as it looked like it was Going to be, especially early in the Voting season, but I mean even just Looking at Ryan's tracker Right now, the gap between

Where they were on public ballots And where they ended up, which is In the mid-50s or Low-50s even, is pretty Sizeable, bigger than it was before. And next year, everyone's ballot is going to be public. And so maybe that will help them. Maybe that will help others.

But they didn't end up quite as high as I expected them to be. I thought they would be somewhere maybe in the very low 60s, and they are not there. So there was a pretty big gap between people who revealed their votes early and people who never did. It's fun to look at the public ballot people and the non-public ballot people and just treat them as the most binary pools of writers imaginable, because I think you can figure, okay, people who are showing who they're voting for, they're more likely to be like, look, I think you can figure, okay, people who are showing who they're voting for, they're more likely to be like, look, I voted for Bonds. I'm standing up for it. Come at me,

whatever. And then the people who don't, you can assume that they're either not going public because they don't want the vitriol or they're not going public because maybe they don't know how to make their ballots public. But nevertheless, you've got Bonds who really gained zero ground his first three years, and now he's gone from roughly a third of the electorate to more than half. So that bodes well now that he's halfway through. Curt Schilling was a fun one in the opposite perspective. I think we probably both agree, I won't speak for you, but I also will,

that we see that Curt Schilling is a Hall of Fame caliber pitcher who should be in it. But I think I probably also speak for both of us when I say it's I'm not unsatisfied with the way that things have gone. Yeah, I would vote for him. But unlike someone like Reigns, like I, I'm not necessarily that interested in Kurt Schilling's happiness, really. And so if he doesn't get to be happy because of the Hall of Fame, that doesn't upset me. Although, you know, like I would just as I would not hold qualities against a player that don't bother me. I also probably wouldn't hold against them qualities that do bother me. I think it's just, you know, it's a baseball museum or whatever.

And you put in the best baseball players. So I think Curt Schilling should should be in there, even though he says lots of abhorrent things. Yeah. I don't know. I think maybe the best case scenario is that he makes it and then his plaque has a typo. Yeah. I was just looking over his own trend. I had no recollection that in Schilling's second year, he lost like nine and a half percentage points on his vote.

He got it right back the year after that. But this is not the first time that Curt Schilling's support has cratered to a certain extent. Yeah, I didn't remember that either. Okay, we're going to do emails. Anything else before we get to some? No. Okay. All right. Well, I want to go three for three with Lenny Harris mentions on your episodes of Effectively Wild. So we got not a question A comment from a listener named Nathan Who says this latest blast of Lenny Harris Analysis has me laughing about something That happened years ago The only other person besides you guys who might appreciate it

Would have been my dad Growing up in St. Petersburg, Florida pre-expansion I was a big Cincinnati Reds fan I'd classify myself as a very dedicated fan With limited tools available to aid my understanding I thought I knew a lot about my team, but in hindsight, I probably didn't. When it came to Lenny Harris, I knew this much. He seemed pretty terrible at baseball.

I was not shy about sharing this point of view with my father, and he kind of turned it into my thing. For example, if he were talking to a friend about his son's baseball interests, he might say something along the lines of, oh, that's my son over there. He loves the Reds. He's a big Barry Larkin fan. Also, for some reason, he can't stand Lenny Harris. Both true statements. It could have been that Lenny Harris, by coincidence, did poorly in games that were televised in Florida, whatever it was, I thought he stunk. So one summer we were in Cincinnati visiting family and we caught some Reds games at Riverfront Stadium. If I had to guess, this was probably 1995 when Lenny Harris had a 50

OPS plus. As a pinch hitter, he had 56 plate appearances and a 220, 273, 320 line to show for it. Of course, in the first game we went to, Lenny Harris made an obligatory pinch hitting appearance late in the game. I, in turn, with no sense of self-awareness, dropped some surly teenage comments about Lenny Harris to my dad. and then the gentleman sitting in front of us, who had sat silently the entire game to that point, upon hearing my remarks, turned around and enthusiastically said, Amen! Now you might be wondering how I could remember such detail about this man's remark,

while being so unsure about which year this game occurred. I'll tell you, I found this moment validating. The fact that a man who seemingly attended hundreds of Reds games could by chance be seated in front of me in Cincinnatiincinnati would turn around and reinforce a clearly obvious position on lenny harris for my father to see this meant something to me it was like my dad could see i wasn't crazy nor was i alone thank you nathan as much as i love the way that sports bring people together over like great triumphs or great underdog stories like you've got the Chicago Cubs bonding an entire city or almost the Cleveland Indians bonding an entire

city I'm not sure that there's anything that really brings people together quite like sharing opinions of which players in common suck I think that in my I guess in my formative Mariners years, all the people who sucked were relievers. But in the more recent years, certainly when I started writing about the Mariners and being a little more involved in and very angry, except so grateful and willing to accept any sort of positive they can get out of the terrible player in question. And so I like to think that Lenny Harris brought some people together. Yeah. Willie Bloomquist, I feel like, brought together Mariners fans. Oh, no question. Yeah. Willie Bloomquist, I feel like, brought together Mariners fans.

Oh, no question. Yeah. I thought of there was an old show where someone emailed us to ask because he had a similar disagreement with his dad about Barry Bonds. And the weird thing was that his dad didn't actually think Barry Bonds was that good a player. It wasn't even that he just dismissed him on the basis of PDs or steroids or whatever, but he just really underappreciated Bonds even pre-PEDs Bonds

and this guy was asking us how he should persuade his dad to change his mind and Sam's response was that basically you can't persuade anyone of anything and you shouldn't even try but that you should just live your life in such a way that people

will respect and admire you and want to hold the same opinions that you hold. So that if he just became a son that his father was proud of, essentially, it would eventually influence his perception of Barry Bonds. And that would be the most effective measure to take. But after Nathan's story, I'm thinking that the best thing might be to just get like a bystander to back you up and an older an older yes like a contemporary of the the person who you disagree with and like it could just be a plant you could pay someone to to sit there and just turn around and say amen as you were expressing this opinion about a player or maybe it could

happen organically. But that seems like a good one. If you can get a peer to support you, and maybe even someone who doesn't evaluate baseball players the way that you do, but still has the same opinion on this particular player, that might go a long way. So I think this is a good strategy if anyone has this in their own life. Like a dad's work friend. On the off chance that Nathan was present on June 1st, 1998, he and his family might have seen Lenny Harris make his one and only pitching appearance. Lenny Harris pitched in a game against the Giants. He actually struck out Brent Main on three pitches to start off the inning.

He went one, two, three. But I think maybe my favorite part of the inning was that Lenny Harris, the professional pinch hitter, got to face in the eighth inning of a 16-3 baseball game a pinch hitter, which was Bill Miller. And Lenny Harris got Bill Miller to fly out. So maybe the only game in baseball history featuring a pinch hitter facing a pinch hitter.

All right. So we got a couple of Hall of Fame questions we can probably get through very quickly. And I guess we should do them now because we're almost at the point where no one will want to talk about the Hall of Fame for another 11 months or so. So Eric from Philadelphia says, my question is, why is Gary Sheffield getting almost no support for the Hall of Fame? He was a terrifying hititter and has similar and slightly Better statistics than Fred McGriff and Sheffield Got 13.3%

Of the vote Which is not great Let's see, did he even go up at all? A little bit, but you know Not in any meaningful sense So, I mean, basically It comes down to the fact that he was named In the Mitchell report, I think that basically it comes down to the fact that he was named in the Mitchell report.

I think that's probably most of it. But, you know, so he's like getting what guys like McGuire got. And I don't know, McGuire at least hung on the ballot a long time. And like, I think it's roughly in line with what people who are kind of in the same boat got, right? Like Maguire and Sosa. I mean, Sosa got even less support than Sheffield did and was probably a better player, I guess, or just about the same. I mean, the thing with Sheffield, and I loved Sheffield, I loved watching Sheffield, and he was an incredible hitter. But he's, you know, a borderline candidate, I think, once you take into account his defense and the era and all of that.

He would not be a Hall of Fame by the Jay Jaffe-Jaws standards, so he would kind of have to have things in his favor, and instead he has things going against him. Yeah, he had sort of the clear Hall of Fame talent, but just a little short of the Hall of Fame consistency. And consistency is kind of a loaded word to throw out. But just eyeballing it is, you know, you start with what was his war? And the War of 60, that's like right on the border between people who are charitable with their halls of fame and people who are not. So already,

he's kind of a borderline candidate. He's eligible at a good time for him because the voting pool seems to be getting a little more lenient with the whole performance enhancing drug suspicion. But he's also a candidate at a bad time for him because maybe now more than ever before, the voting pool is also going to look at someone's well-roundedness. And at the end of the day, Gary sheffield he was fine for the most part on the bases but he was one of the worst defensive corner outfielders that i think we have on on record i don't have a leaderboard but just glancing at uh had the baseball reference numbers i actually can't believe this as i look at it maybe you're looking at it too but gary sheffield was worth

something like negative 30 wins as a defensive player which is maybe a little beyond belief but also maybe not considering he played two decades and was visibly not much of a defensive player so absolutely terrifying bat the numbers there he's got the 2600 hits the 500 home runs and you know just kind of almost the 300 400 500 triple slash line that everybody freaks out over but this is kind of a case where you, maybe he would have been better off doing the Edgar Martinez thing of being a DH because at least that way his defense wouldn't have been as terrible as it was. Yeah.

So, you know, he'll be one of the best hitters ever not to be in the Hall of Fame, I guess. But it's a defensible choice to leave him off. All right. And a listener named Sarit, I hope I'm pronouncing that right, Sarit, says, what if voters could vote for a Hall of Fame candidate extra hard? So currently, Hall of Fame voters can vote for up to 10 players per year. That is to say, voters are given 10 votes, which they are free to distribute to players on the ballot with the restriction that no two votes go to the same player. But what if this restriction were removed? What if voters could allocate their 10 votes however they wanted? This would mean, for example, that a fervent Tim Raines supporter could use all

10 votes on Tim Raines, while a slightly less impassioned supporter might only give him three votes while splitting the rest among other candidates. The threshold for induction would not be changed, remaining at 7.5% of all possible votes as it is now We've not changed the total number of votes in the system, but only the ways they can be distributed It is folly to expect a voter to believe equally strongly in the Hall of Fame cases of every player on his or her ballot Surely some are more preferred than others So why not allow them to express those preferences? How do you think people would vote if this were implemented?

Would everyone vote for one player 10 times? Would more or fewer players get in? Would it be different types of players getting in? And would there be voting compacts where members agree to vote for a certain candidate just enough for them to cross the 7.5% mark? Well, it's creative. I think the only thing I can answer for sure is that I know how Jonah Carey would have voted. But outside of that, you keep running into the biggest problem with Hall of Fame voting, aside from maybe the people doing the voting, is the 10 vote maximum, which to me,

it doesn't have any objective purpose that needs to be there. If there are too many people on the ballot for the hall of fame well that seems like that's a good problem because that means you're putting a lot of people in the hall of fame so uh as you are reading that out loud i actually read that email a couple days ago and i read it and i thought this is uh very creative i should sit down and think about all the potential implications of this and what i didn't do was uh was follow my own advice yeah because it's worth i i'm right now i'm just trying to talk long enough to allow you to formulate a thought to see if i have anything

to bounce off of yours because it's it's inventive maybe you want to make room for like 15 or 20 votes depending because you could have these people doubling up but it certainly would make it far more of a game than it is at present which i mean if nothing else it would certainly spice things up yeah it would make things much more interesting there'd be all kinds of like game theory implications and that would be that'd be fun and if there were some kind of collusion that would be interesting too i don't know would the effect just be that there wouldn't be someone who had fervent support for years but didn't get in? Like, would there not be a Reigns, a Bly Levin, people like that?

Just because, or even a Jack Morris, kind of on the opposite side of the spectrum. But just players who inspire strong passions for whatever reason. Like, maybe the kind of different camps of player evaluation see them very differently, or maybe they just represent something larger than themselves the way that Jack Morris seemed to to a lot of people who saw him play. Like, in that case, you'd have people who felt really strongly about him. And there isn't really anything that the people who didn't feel strongly about him could do to to counter that candidate right it's not like you can devote 10 anti-votes to the player or something

you can only just not vote for him so it seems like you know like jonah would have given all 10 of his votes to rains maybe just to get rains in and other people who Felt strongly like I guess Like would you have fewer Candidates getting in because Each year there would be someone Who got a high concentration Of votes like everyone Would just say okay this is the year that We band together and we get Reigns in

And we devote all of our votes to Reigns Which means we deprive other players Of those votes but we get him in And then he's off the board and then we can concentrate on other people who have longer periods left on the ballot. So maybe it would just be more like surgical strike sort of, okay, we get this guy in and no one would really have to wait 10 years who didn't deserve to wait that long because someone would feel strongly enough to get them in earlier. Yeah, I think you might see the sort of the surges take place a little quicker. But if I had to guess, at least I can only really envision this in the current era, because this is what I'm used to at

the moment. And my sense is that this wouldn't actually change things that dramatically. I think already you've got people who are maxing out their ballots. A lot of writers are voting for 10 candidates and then wishing that they could vote for 11 or 12 or 13. And so I don't know if it would be different whether this is how it had always been or if this were a change that were implemented overnight. But my sense is that the writers as a whole would be fairly conservative and they would stick to wanting to distribute pretty evenly. I think people are inclined to distribute votes evenly, even in an alternate system. That's probably a reason we don't see so many alternate voting systems in the first place. And so you would

have the occasional extra vote thrown to a player here or there. But I think the voters, similar to Jonah Carey, are few and far between. He had a legitimate but fairly personal cause, and most of the writers in the BBWA are a little less passionate about specific teams, specific players. Everyone's got their favorites, but not really at a fanaticism level that Jonah has. And so when I think about it, I think that the implications would be far less dramatic than would be at first implied by the creativity of the question. Yeah, I think you're probably right about that. Okay, question from a listener named Sam. Imagine a reality where over the next 30 years, each team wins a World Series. If expansion teams are added, the number of years is extended and they all win World Series too. How good would this be for baseball? Would it be more beneficial for baseball

as a sport to have dynasties? Also, how quickly would we notice this was happening? Well, we wouldn't notice. We would talk about parity. You and I would write our varying articles about parity. Probably within eight, 10 years or something, we'll notice that teams are alternating. But even now, I know that the Red Sox won three World Series in a decade, but it would cause me some mental work to just go over who have won the last several World Series in my own head. I just don't think about it so much. So I would it would survive beyond or without detection for a good amount of time but as far as it being good for baseball or bad for baseball if i guess are you talking from a financial perspective or from uh everyone is most happy perspective but like if you have a

team that won a world series and then doesn't win it for like 25 years, that's a long ways. That resets the clock. Like the Blue Jays won the World Series and then they had the like what the longest playoff list drought in baseball. And then they went back to the playoffs. And when they made it back to the playoffs, I don't think anyone was like, well, OK, but they just won the World Series two and a half decades ago. the World Series two and a half decades ago. So I think that it would help baseball to not have any like sad sack going nowhere teams in limbo. I don't want to accuse the A's of being in such

a position, but if anyone is in a position, it is them and probably the Rays and baseball would be better if every team at least had the hope of competitiveness but when you're talking about a every team winning over a 30-year window that still leaves the door wide open for teams to suck for a really long time yeah even with the championship yeah that's right i think i think it would be good if you if you think that the current playoff format is good and generally i do i mean it it rewards the best teams less than the old system did, but everyone is kind of in it all the time, and I think that's good for maintaining people's interests

and probably would also be good in this sense if every team gets to win a World Series, at least within living memory of most of their fans. That seems like every World Series run probably manufactures fans in that market. And so I think it'd be a good thing for baseball. I sort of miss dynasties. And I don't know, maybe that's because I grew up as a Yankees fan and I was benefiting from the dynasty at the time. But I think it can be nice to have kind of like a villain that everyone is against,

or even just to have a really well-built team that everyone agrees went about team building the right way, or, you know, the Cubs and you can, they win once and then you can envision them winning two or three more times and it's possible at least. So I think those are both good things too. And like there would still be teams that were in the playoffs every year and that were good every year, but just didn't win the world

series. Cause that's a thing that happens in baseball's playoffs. So I think overall net positive for the game probably. Yeah. You'd still have, I'm a big believer in there needing to be at least one or two villains and you'd still have the opening there for villains to emerge even if they only win once I think that if you want to look across sports I don't know football very well at all but I do know that the Seahawks have won only one Super Bowl in the last few years but they've been one of sort of the NFL's villains a lot of people can't seem to stand them for reasons uh that number among the valid and less valid but But, you know, they've been sort of a division dynasty, even though they're only going to have the one championship to show for it,

at least so far. So you could have, like, I don't know, I don't want to pick a team. Let's call them the Red Sox. You know, people hate the Red Sox, and they could win a World Series, and then they could lose the next three World Series or stay in the playoffs. And you could still very easily justify hating the Red Sox, even if they only win the once,

because they still show up super often in the playoffs. And I think that's what causes people to hate a team the most, if they're just always there. It's why I think so many people have just turned on the Cardinals, because who among us isn't sick of seeing the Cardinals in the playoffs? Right. Besides the Cardinals fans. Right, yes. Okay, want to your uh whatever we're calling it fangrass stat segment i'm not even going to

pretend to have a name for this last uh okay so this is stupid let's just start that from there but last friday when i was doing my chat someone uh submitted a question i guess it wasn't even a question it was a comment that said in 2008 uh reader said in 2008 mark Ellis a player you remember for playing baseball He had he finished the season with nine more infield flies than extra base hits He this person submitted this for no reason other than he said he was doing some research because he was inspired by some article I wrote about Vernon Wells in the past This is an article I have no recollection of but I trust him that I wrote it But he said he was inspired to do the research and he found that factoid about

Mark Ellis. And for some reason that has stuck in my mind. So I got curious after seeing that, like, okay, who is really good or really bad at extra base hits versus infield flies. And on Fangraphs, we have this information going back to 2002, and so I did a little math, and when I went back to 2002, when I just looked at every single player season since then, the leader of the whole pack, this is like 19,000 player seasons, the leader is 2013 Chris Davis.

Chris Davis in 2013 had seven pop-ups, but 96 extra base hits. That's a very good season. So he's the leader at 89, plus 89. Now on the other end, because it's the other end that's a lot more season so he uh he's the leader at 89 plus 89 now on the other end because it's the other end that's a lot more fun this is the embarrassing end uh mark ellis indeed in 2008 mark ellis had nine more infield flies than extra base hits that's very bad i can tell you that is the second worst mark for all players with no minimum amount of playing time

except for i guess some playing time. Mark Ellis was tied with 2011 Drew Butera, also at nine more pop-ups than extra base hits. Very bad. Willie Tavares from 2009, he's at negative eight. Just as a fun coincidence, we find 2002 Lenny Harris shows up. He's at seven more pop-ups than extra base hits. However, so these numbers, these are all toward the bottom.

Negative seven, negative eight, a couple of negative nine. In 2013, a player named Luis Cruz. I don't know if you know Luis Cruz. If you remember Luis Cruz, I can tell you Dodgers fans might remember Luis Cruz for this reason. In 2013, Luis Cruz batted less than 200 times, I believe, pulling that off the top of my head. But in that very limited amount of playing time, he had four extra base hits, Luis Cruz, four extra base hits, one home run and 22 infield flies for a differential of negative 18, which is not only the worst mark

in the entire pool, but it's the worst by double over Mark Ellis and Drew Butera. What's even weirder about that season by Luis Cruz, I seem to have closed my window, but I can pull it right back up real quick because Fangraph's webpages load in a jiffy. Luis Cruz, in 2013, he actually played for two teams. That means that one team had him and he did that, and then another team was like, we want some of that, that team being the Yankees.

Luis Cruz played for the Yankees and the Dodgers in that season and for the Dodgers he had three extra base hits and 17 pop-ups for the Yankees he had one and five. Anyway what's weirdest about that season in which Luis Cruz posted a WRC plus a statistic that has plus in the name of negative one that came after a season in which Cruz batted 300 times and had a WRC plus of 107. So he was actually a very useful bench player for the Dodgers in 2012. And then he proceeded to have arguably the most embarrassing offensive season in contemporary history. I got curious because I had looked at individual player player seasons i decided to look at just whole careers or at least since 2002 so we're covering 15 years now same statistic i set a minimum this

time of 500 plate appearances because whatever the leader david ortiz not a surprise at the very top of this list it's david ortiz miguel cabrera alper pujols alfonso soriano ryan howard all these people who have played a lot hit a lot more extra base hits than have hit infield pop-ups. Now, on the other end of things, with a differential in this time period of negative five, that's five more pop-ups than extra base hits, we find Lenny Harris. He will not go away. This is indeed three consecutive podcasts in which he has very unintentionally been a common theme. Johnny Cueto is at negative eight. Doug Glanville, a position player, at least negative nine.

Roy Oswald to negative 12. And then we have Luis Cruz, the leader or the least leader. I don't know which to call him with 35 extra base hits and 49 infield pop-ups. Luis Cruz, a six-year major league veteran in baseball and just bad in a way that is unparalleled. And I am delighted. I wish I had a reason that I could actually write about him, but it's been too long and I think that I missed my opportunity. Yeah, I'm aware of Luis Cruz only, I think, because I wrote an article about Caleb Joseph in September when everyone was talking about how he hadn't driven in a run all season. And I was like defending Caleb Joseph about how he had been bad, but maybe not quite as

bad as that stat would suggest. And part of my defense was basically, well, he's not Luis Cruz. That's what a really bad season looks like. Not Luis Cruz. That's what a really bad season looks like. So, yeah, Luis Cruz, he's a good kind of baseline that you can compare every player to, and they will all look better than he was. Yeah, and Luis Cruz. He had a career war just two-tenths of one point below Lenny Harris. It's the modern-day Bill Bergen.

Excuse me. All right. Well, this week's Mike Trout questions we got a couple Mike Trout questions and they're both basically The same question I don't know How people came up with this same Question independently but they did so

Brett says how much weight Would Mike Trout have to be carrying For you to beat him in a foot race I'm thinking some sort of Weighted vest how much does the answer Change if he literally Has to carry the weight and then Dennis put it a slightly different way

I'm wondering whether Mike Trout Currently listed at 6'2", 235 Would still be an all-star level Player in 2017 if he gained 65 pounds over the course of the offseason Assume a somewhat higher body Fat percentage, how much weight could he Gain and still be a replacement level player?

So these are both different questions, but same theme. And I don't know if we have a great way to answer them, but when I read this, I thought of something that I think you did once. Wasn't it you and Matthew Corey and Rob Neier? Yeah, I was just thinking of that too. wasn't it? You and Matthew Corey and Rob Nyer. Yeah, I was just thinking of that too. Yeah, you tried to run at a David Ortiz speed or something like that. You clocked yourself and tried to see if you could run faster than he does. I don't remember what prompted it. Rob Nyer had made some remark among some small audience some number of years ago that I think he was

watching a Red Sox playoff game and David Ortiz got a hit and then he started running and Rob Nair said out loud, I bet I could run faster than David Ortiz paraphrased. Right. I probably didn't say the word paraphrase. And then someone called him on it. I don't know if it was Jonah Carey, but again, let's just call it Jonah Carey because now I'm paraphrasing my own memory. So Rob Nair was not the first person to make the claim that he could run faster than a large oaf of a baseball player. But he might have been the first person to voluntarily put it to the test. And so I don't know if it was the next year or the year after that, but eventually he got around to being like, all right, look, we have times for David Ortiz to

first base and we have times for David Ortiz to third base so I'm going to time myself and he also wanted to involve some others and so Matthew Corey and I both live in Portland not with Rob Nair but you know around and we're all local acquaintances and so Rob Nair wanted to have us involved as well and to help with the timing he brought in two friends of his one of whom is a scout for the Royals and one of whom is a scout for the Royals and one of whom is a scout for the Athletics, a team that apparently has at least one scout. And so we met up at an area ball field over near where the Hillsboro Hops minor league team plays.

And there were the three of us baseball writers and two professional baseball people who apparently had nothing better to do. And they were there to time us running the bases. What set us back and what took me by a little bit of surprise was that the entire field, including the infield was turf. Yeah. And I had brought running shoes thinking, well, I will just use my running shoes because I will be running. But I don't know if you've ever tried to run or sprint or turn on artificial turf in running shoes, but it turns out that cleats serve a purpose that I was not prepared to face. And so Rob Nyer almost immediately pulled his hamstring when he was trying to run

because, you know, when you're a middle-aged man and you're trying to sprint and you're not much of a sprinter, you yourself look a lot worse than david ortiz matthew corey remained upright and healthy but he wound up not running faster than david ortiz and on my first swing attempt i fell down trying to get out of the box and then when i finally did make contact and then start to run i didn't know to slow down as i was approaching first base and I tripped and somersaulted over it. I did eventually, I didn't thankfully get hurt, but I did run to third base for a different time trial.

And I don't remember exactly how it came out, but I believe that I believe that we were a little faster than David Ortiz, Rob Nair and I, I believe we're a little faster than David Ortiz to first base, but only by a very slight margin. And I'm pretty sure we were slower to third base because it turns out David Ortiz has the ability to run the bases with intellect. And I was pinch hit for it when I played baseball. So I didn't even get to run the bases when the stakes were the lowest. So we didn't really know the angles to take and we were just not that fast I'm not much of a sprinter I do run but I'm not a fast runner I'm sure with a little bit more training I could improve my sprinting speed but

the message that I went home with was twofold one bring cleats and two the these professional athletes are actually not fast not like surprisingly fast like offensive linemen in football, but they're not as slow as they look because you are always comparing them to incredibly fast players. The point being that I think that Mike Trout could probably gain 150 pounds and still easily be able to outrun me in a foot race. Yeah, I think that's probably true. they'll easily be able to outrun me in a foot race. Yeah, I think that's probably true. Like, I mean, obviously Mike Trout's in great shape and that is part of the source of his speed, but not entirely.

Like he's just a fast person at whatever weight he was. I'm sure he would be fast for that weight. And he is currently so much faster than we are that he could put on a ton of weight before just like simple physics would prevent him from outrunning us so all right you're saying 150 pounds so so he'd be something like uh 380 in this scenario oh my god does he weigh 230 well he's wow yeah he's listed okay okay i might have to walk that back 380 380 is a little like Michael Clark Duncan territory.

Yeah, so I'm going to take him up to 350. I think that we'd be about even. But beyond that, then I think I'd have Trout, except he'd probably lose those 30 pounds just by running for a few minutes. Yeah, right. If you just suddenly added this weight to him and then made him run immediately, that would probably be more difficult for him than if he had time to adjust to the weight and build more muscle to support the weight and that sort of thing so like if he were able to sort of live at this weight for a while that that might help too as opposed to just suddenly like having extra g's attached to him basically so okay okay question for you. Okay. Question for you.

The regular season ends, Mike Trout leaves the Angels. He goes home at his regular end of season playing weight. This is the end of 2016, whatever. Let's say the Angels don't see Mike Trout all offseason long. They know he's around. Maybe he phones in with Jim Cantore

on the Weather Channel and whatnot, but they don't actually lay eyes on him until spring training he shows up not pigeon catchers I guess but whatever the reporting day is after that position player day how much fill in the blank how much weight would Mike Trout have had to gain over the offseason for the Angels to take one look at him and decide we're going to void his contract i mean even more probably than probably even more than than in your scenario for him being slower than you are right because like even if oh no question yeah i mean even if he were slower than you he would still be a good baseball player

presumably he'd still be able to hit and everything So he would have to be like seriously obese to the point where he could not compete. So see voiding contract is tough because like you, you'd always imagine that you could get him back down to weight, right? Like you, well, maybe, maybe you'd lose a season because it just takes some time to like drop 200 pounds or whatever it is. But like if, if the surplus value of Mike Trout is great enough that he can make up for that lost season in whatever the two seasons he has remaining after that, then maybe you just say, OK, well, 2017 is a loss.

We will send Mike Trout to some kind of boot camp and that will be what he does all year. And the next year we'll have Mike Trout back. Yeah. That will be what he does all year, and then next year we'll have Mike Trout back. Yeah. So even if he were just a lost cause for the current season, I feel like unless we're into gastric bypass territory, like forklift kind of territory, like can't leave your house sort of, otherwise there's almost no realistic weight at which you wouldn't say he can get back to this like unless unless he's lost all his motivation to play baseball if he has no interest in being a baseball player anymore and and thus wouldn't want to lose the weight then maybe in that scenario you would yeah i think

there's a house episode about a man that's hypothetically large but you'd have to have him gain so much weight that it goes beyond just taking one season off to get in condition and he'd also have to gain so much weight that he couldn't even win a grievance because teams technically aren't supposed to void contracts it would either have to be out of shame or maybe just so much weight gain that even major league baseball couldn't argue against the idea that he didn't work in his own team's best interests or whatever the clause is that allows teams like i don't There's a morality clause. I don't know if it's immoral to gain weight,

but I'm sure there's a certain amount of weight he could gain that would be arguably immoral. So I'm thinking like a 700-pound Mike Trout, he would probably have his contract avoided almost immediately. Yeah, okay. And what about the second question? Do we have any addendum to this? Dennis' question about how much...

Was it All-Star or above replacement? Yeah, above replacement. That's right. Okay. How much does Billy Butler weigh? Yeah, Billy Butler, he's not as big as Mike Trout, so he probably doesn't weigh that much more than Mike Trout, but it's definitely distributed differently.

260 he's listed at? Yeah, listed 260 and also listed six foot, but he's probably more like 5'10", 290. Yeah. From some things I've heard. I don't know how accurate that is, but accurate enough for podcasting. So I think, and Butler is, he's probably right around replacement level kind of player at this point. Trout has got better, I think, bat to ball skills. Even a fat trout could probably still hit pretty well. Clearly, he'd sacrifice a lot on the base paths. He'd sacrifice almost everything in the field. But

I think you could keep Trout above replacement level if he gained 100 pounds. I think he could even, I might even be able to convince myself that he could be easily above replacement level if he gained 100 pounds. And I think that maybe if you gave him 125, right around the area where we start to be able to outrun him, I think that's probably where it turns. But there's a lot that he could pack onto that profile. I know he's already tried in his neck, but there's even more of his body that he could fill out and remain better than Lenny Harris. Yeah. All right. Well, next week, I'm sure there will be a follow-up where someone asks about Mike Trout gaining weight and also batting lefty, which was something we talked about while you were on vacation. So we'll see what else. Yeah. What other handicaps people can apply to Trout and still have him be great.

But it's really hard to get possibly the best player ever, at least at this point in his career, to a level where he is not still playable. It's just hard to do that. You could have a wasting disease. You could kind of do the opposite of what we've discussed. Yeah, that would probably be worse. Yeah, that feels like a lot worse if you just kind of cross him with calista flockhart and just kind of evaluate the baseball player you're left with right okay all right maybe we can knock out this one quickly we we got a question two questions really about whether certain distinctions or records are unbreakable so i'm just gonna lay

them out there carl wants to know about der Jeter's at-bats and plate appearances in the postseason record. So Jeter has 650 career postseason at-bats, basically a full season, which is almost 200 more than the next player, who was Jeter's teammate, Bernie Williams. 345 more than the highest active player, Yadier Molina. He has 734 career postseason play appearances. So Carl wants to know how likely these are to stand, given that to break this, someone has to play in like 30 playoff series and stay healthy and bat near the top of the lineup

and not walk all that much for the at-bat record. So that's one. And then Jacob asks about, since the All-Star game became a thing, Tony Phillips has the highest career baseball reference war, almost 51, without ever being selected to an All-Star team. So he wants to know if that is unbreakable. He's eight wins clear of second place, no active players within 20 wins of him. And so many players make All-Star teams now. And so it seems hard to get to 50 war without making one so are they unbreakable is one more or less breakable than the other okay i think the jeter one feels a lot more unbreakable if i'm reading this correctly jeter had 20 years that he played in the major leagues including one where he barely played and he made the playoffs 16 times which is absurd he got into it looks like 33 playoff series Jeter obviously gets a benefit because he's played his entire career in the

the wildcard era so there were just more rounds in the playoffs which is why all these modern players have inflated postseason plate appearance numbers but I it's really difficult for me to see another team being so consistently dominant as the Yankees never mind even even if you grant that a career like Jeter's is way more possible than it actually is to have where he just spent two decades batting at the top of a really good lineup all the time it's really difficult for me to see another team making it to the playoffs 80 percent of the years that a guy right plays in the majors and then to also almost always advance it to the playoffs 80% of the years that a guy plays in the majors, and then to also almost always advance out of the first round. That's insane to me.

So when you're talking about open-ended time, I don't know how many more rounds Major League Baseball might decide to put in the playoffs. You never know. Maybe when there's expansion, they want to introduce a new round or make certain rounds longer. I really don't know what they're going to do with the playoffs relative to maybe shrinking the regular season. But for baseball as it is right now, Jeter's record seems just untouchable to me. Yeah, right. It's really hard to have that sustained

stretch of dominance that the Yankees had. There isn't as much of a payroll disparity between the richest and least rich teams and their extra wildcard teams. So that helps, I guess. But like two of those teams in each year just plays one game, which doesn't really help out with this very much at all. So I agree that that seems like a very difficult record to challenge. Although the other one seems pretty tough too. Like, I mean, to get to 50 war without ever being like you don't even have to be that good to be an all-star now just because the good players who get selected have injuries or excuses

or they don't really want to go or whatever and you end up getting i don't know even how many players are all-stars in a given year but it's like all of the good players, basically. So you'd have to be really consistent for a really long time, but also just never even have one fluky first half where you were on pace for something better than you usually do. Yeah, I didn't realize Tim Salmon never made an All-Star game, but he's still 10 war behind Tony Phillips. And then Eric Chavez is in in there Kirk Gibson apparently never made an All-star game I don't really know how That happened Mark Ellis Just gonna throw his name out there because This is now the second time he's come up on this podcast

We don't do this by design but yeah he's He's in there it yeah it feels Nick Markakis is another guy who Comes up has come up on this podcast Before as like someone who Has been good for a long time or like you know a pretty good player but has never gotten an MVP vote never made an all-star team even and he had a seven win season at one time so so he's another guy but um yeah I

mean like Nick Marcakis is not good enough to to get to 50 war so it's tough to have that combination of things. Yeah. Phillips seems short-term, unbreakable. Am I misremembering or did they recently pass some rules about shrinking all-star roster sizes? Did that actually happen? Yeah, there was something about that, right? I didn't pay that much attention to all-star stuff,

but I think there was. No, because why would you except for this question? Yeah. I feel like maybe they just shrank the pitching staffs or something but in any case with uh with so many players opting out i could see it maybe maybe a player could get there and not be like uh i don't know what the word is but like first ballot all-star but there are so many replacements that that come up and as i look at the players who are shy of Tony Phillips on this war leaderboard, so many of them are retired players like Tom Candiotti. OK, but he's he's

not going to add to his number. Danny Darwin, Charlotte Lieberman, John Tudor, John Danny. These people are not going to add to their own standing. So just based on, I guess, recent precedent, I think the most recent player to get way up there is Eric Chavez. And then like Shinsu Chu is down there close to Marquecas, but there's still nowhere close to Tony Phillips. So he's, that Tony Phillips was, right? Because he was kind of like Ben Zobrist before Ben Zobrist, basically. And he played lots of positions and he was a good defender and he was patient. And so it all added up into a really good player who wasn't widely perceived as a really good player at the time. Whereas, you know, Ben Zobrist might also retire with something around 50 war, but you know, he's been an all-star three times and like he is known so well for being underrated that he's no longer really underrated. So that skillset or really any skillset that is

valuable, I think is less likely to, to go under the radar now. So I think that's probably one reason why you can't have another Tony Phillips type player. So let's see. Tony Phillips, never an All-Star game as discussed. He did show up in one MVP list. He was 16th in 1993, but maybe the best happy or sad fact, I don't know. But in 2005, he got a Hall of Fame vote.

He got one. So he wound up with 0.2% support. He tied Terry Steinbach and got half the support of actually there's Tom Candiotti right there. So Tony Phillips did at least do better on his Hall of Fame ballot than Otis Nixon and Mark Langston, who got no support. But Tony Phillips, more Hall of Fame support than All-Star support in his career. Yeah. All right. Well, I think that was a satisfactory answer. I have one more on my sheet here. You have time for one more? All right, let's do it.

All right. This question comes from Michael. He says, on Monday, August 21st, there will be a total solar eclipse visible across all of North America. It will start at 12.50 p.m., reach totality at 2.25 p.m., and end at 4.02 p.m. All Times Eastern. Although there are currently no MLB games scheduled for that afternoon, there are some minor league games on the docket, and that raises some interesting concerns. The eclipse would certainly be distracting for the fans, but how do you think it might affect players and umpires? Given the dangers inherent in looking at an eclipse, can these games even be played without giving everyone in the park special eye protection? Most importantly, is this the coolest possible condition under which a baseball game could be played? And if it isn't, what is?

Incidentally, the Bowling Green Hot Rods of the Midwest League are very close to the area where totality will last the longest, and they've scheduled a late-morning game that day, which should be interesting. And by the way, I'm really excited for this eclipse. I'm planning to travel for this eclipse, which I don't travel for fun as often as you do. Not that you do that all the time or anything, but you do it. And the way that you are with geology, I guess, I am about astronomy. And so this total eclipse uh it's very unusual this is like the the first time

in a long time almost a century that there has been like a continent spanning total eclipse in the u.s there there have been some other times when you could see a total eclipse from somewhere in the u.s for a certain period of time but this is just this will cross the whole country and it's uh like almost entirely within the u.S. that you can see it. And so this is exciting. It's not going to happen again till I think like 2045 there will be a similar event. And from everything I have heard, I mean, I've seen, you know, regular run of the mill eclipses. But from what I've heard, total solar eclipses are like awe-inspiring events. And that like at that moment where you see the eclipse coming and everything is blocked out,

you get like a clearer sense of sort of the scale of the universe than you can normally attain in day-to-day life. When it's sort of hard to see like, you know, giant astronomical bodies crossing paths in a way that is easy for us to understand and get the scale of. So I'm going to go somewhere to see this thing, I think. And there's like a kind of a narrow swath of the country it will be passing across. So I'll have to figure out the best place to go. Maybe I'll go to this Bowling Green Hot Rods game and write about that. But the baseball implications, obviously, of this event

are of paramount importance. So what are your thoughts on baseball and total eclipses? Well, I can tell you that if you wanted to travel to see this, we are going to be not too far from ideal viewing areas here in central northern Oregon. That's right. So I also will be traveling, but maybe a lesser distance than you will be traveling. So I'll answer the question maybe from the from the end to the front, because when I think about the most incredible scenarios in which to play a baseball game, of course, you talk about your love for astronomy and I will go back to my love for geology and more specifically volcano geology

where I think maybe the most the most mesmerizing situation I can envision in trying to play a baseball game and then subsequently no longer playing a baseball game would be during an ash out every May 18th I retweet some tiny little paragraph I wrote several years ago that was talking about the May 18th, 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens. And I don't do, you do a lot of what I would call, quote unquote, journalism, where you like talk to sources and like do research on the phone that is beyond just being on the internet. I don't do that.

But one time I did in 2010, maybe I think it was actually 2011. That May 18th, I called the Spokane Indians front office because I was curious how their baseball team responded to the eruption of Mount St. Helens in 1980 because the wind patterns would have driven so much of that ash from the volcano toward the northeast, which is where Spokane is. And I called that front office really excited because I was like, I'm going to get a quote and I'm gonna get information straight from the source for this little thing I'm writing. And I got on the phone and they picked up and I was like, hey, do you guys remember when the volcano exploded? And what did your baseball team do? And they were like, we don't know.

And I thought, oh, well, this is this is a bummer. And so since then, I've never tried to do any actual reporting again. But I did go into some newspaper archives and I found that the uh the Spokane Indians had a baseball game that was ashed out by a volcano because too much ash fell on the uh on the field which made it difficult to play slash breathe yeah uh which was both of which are very important for the playing of a baseball game so I think that it's clearly impossible to play a baseball game in too much falling ash, but it would not be impossible to be playing a baseball game and then experience the beginning of falling ash, which I think would be incredible,

especially because you would see this like doom cloud in the horizon because Spokane is over in a less mountainous area. They could see a great distance. So I think it would be otherworldly to be playing a game in the general vicinity of an erupting volcano uh other than that you know maybe you could see a meteor hit the earth or there's like an earthquake but these are things you generally don't play during and i don't know if you would actually play during a total solar eclipse much in the way that baseball players try not to play baseball when there are claps of thunder or flashes of lightning, as has been discussed on a previous podcast.

Yeah, right. I think that's the problem here. Any very cool conditions would probably just require you to suspend play, I would think would be the inevitable result of any of these things, including a total eclipse. I assume you would just stop playing until the eclipse is over so that everyone could see. That's probably, otherwise there would just be lots of baseball players who were missing a lot and missing the strike zone and missing the baseball. And I know no one would be able to see them doing anything. And I'm not sure that that would be any more entertaining than just like watching a night game without lights, which would not be very much fun. Yeah, I don't, how long do these things, like what lasts longer?

The duration of the most dramatic parts of a total solar eclipse or the amount of time between the average Pedro Baez bitch? Yeah, it's probably pretty close. I think the eclipse lasts a little longer, but probably not longer than like a Pedro Baez inning, for example. God, is there anything that's more the opposite of observing a total solar eclipse than watching an inning of Pedro Baez? All right. Yeah, every now and then you do see like some cool kind of atmospheric event. Like there was a spring training game last spring, a Braves Astors game that I'm just seeing now, which was called due to what was described as a looming steel gray death cloud.

And there are some pictures of it and it just like looks like a giant apocalyptic, like you expect to see the spaceship from Independence Day coming out of this cloud and killing everyone, that kind of thing. So it can be cool to be outside under those conditions until it starts being dangerous and scary. And then you stop playing baseball, basically. Yeah.

On a smaller scale, it feels like it's an annual event every March that the Angels have at least one spring training game called on account of bees. There always seems to be a swarm of bees in Tempe, which is delightful. You get some really interesting camera work when the bees are crawling all over the lens, but that seems like a very spring training sort of episode. All right. Well, Kurt Schilling is currently

smack-talking a fake Sidney Ponson Twitter account, so on that note, we can end this episode. Good talking to you, Jeff. That is delightful. So you can support the podcast on Patreon by going to patreon.com

slash effectively wild. Five listeners who have supported the podcast recently. Ryan Clark, Ray Sheen, Logan Vesey, Jesse Coomer, and Dutch Lombrowski. Thank you. You can join our Facebook group at facebook.com slash groups slash effectively wild. You can rate and review and subscribe to the podcast on iTunes. And you can continue to contact us with questions and comments via email at podcast at fangrass.com or by messaging us through Patreon.

And we will talk to you tomorrow. Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh,