Effectively Wild: A FanGraphs Baseball Podcast - Effectively Wild Episode 1095: Ken Rosenthal on Sticking to Sports and Pivoting to Video

Episode Date: August 10, 2017

Ben Lindbergh and Jeff Sullivan banter about the new-look, less-stuff Carter Capps, then bring on MLB on FOX reporter and MLB Network insider Ken Rosenthal to discuss how and when Rosenthal relaxes and takes vacations; how baseball news leaks; how the Dodgers’ deep front office works; how he knows when a source has ulterior motives; […]

Hello and welcome to episode 1095 of Effectively Wild, a Fangraphs baseball podcast brought to you by our Patreon supporters and by Ben and myself. I am Jeff Sullivan of Fangraphs, joined as always by Ben Lindberg, currently not in a live podcast form again. So hello, Ben. How are you doing not seeing you in person? So hello, Ben. How are you doing not seeing you in person? Hello. I'm doing well, although I will see you in person soon because just a couple days I'm going to the West Coast. And you stayed with me.

I will be staying with you. It's like a home away series. And we'll be doing our Eclipse event on August 21st. So I'm looking forward to that. I cannot promise that you will be joined by the world's greatest small dog. Unfortunately, you have said small dog. You will have to say goodbye to it when you fly out, but maybe we can find a dog in the neighborhood and you can cuddle it. So on this episode, we will be joined for a while by Ken Rosenthal, who I don't need to tell you who he is or where he works because everybody already knows Ken Rosenthal. We're delighted to have him. He stuck around for even longer than we

thought he might be able to. But before we get to to that i just wanted to bring up one thing i don't know if you have anything you'd like to bring up but carter caps is back he is back in the major leagues and he's bad or he at least was bad and i know at a deadspin emma bachelieri wrote a little bit about carter caps i guess because i'm on this pseudo vacation she was able to get there for me damn her but i will get a chance to write about carter cap soon i'm sure he has appeared in two games of the padres he's faced 12 batters and he's allowed five runs which is too many runs to have allowed i will say that when caps last pitched in 2015 he pitched in 30 games and he also allowed five runs so unless his next 28 appearances are scoreless, I think we can say that he's worse.

And very, very conspicuously, the last time Capps was in the major leagues, he was throwing about 98 miles per hour, and now he's throwing about 93. So something is going on with Carter Capps. His delivery looks like it has been modified a little bit in that his drag, the way that he has to drag his back foot looks it looks less subtle it looks less i guess you know illegal than uh than it used to he doesn't

hop in the air or at least he hasn't been hopping in the air he has an exaggerated drag on his back foot and you wonder if that is that's messed him up so i don't know i don't know if you have anything to say about carter calves but i'm glad to see his back and i don't know if I don't know if you have anything to say about Carter Capps, but I'm glad to see he's back. And I don't know if I'm happy or sad that he looks to be a very compromised version of himself because I liked baseball with him, but I know a lot of people didn't. Between his perceived and actual velocities changed in his new incarnation? Because we know that his actual velocity is lower. He is not throwing as hard. But I am curious about whether this altered motion that he has debuted has also reduced the difference between how fast he's throwing and how fast he is effectively throwing or how fast he appears to be throwing to hitters. You asked that question just long enough for me to be able to say something. So if we assume that he's throwing, let's see, just looking at his fastballs, I can tell you that in 2015, his

effective velocity, this is all from Baseball Savant, which is great. I don't need to sell Baseball Savant to you. So the difference between between caps's effective velocity and actual velocity in 2015 was 2.8 miles per hour so his fastball looked nearly three miles per hour faster than it was just because of let's face it the fact that he was delivering the ball so close to the plate this year small sample it's up it's up to 3.6 miles per hour he's actually at least by this measure getting closer to home plate it's a small sample just 28 fastballs that he's actually, at least by this measure, getting closer to home plate. It's a small sample, just 28 fastballs that he's thrown. It'll be interesting to see how this evolves. But it certainly would suggest that he is not getting less extension.

But I wonder if that drag of his back foot is just in some way countering his energy, his sort of forward momentum. Because he is, you know, there's a lot of friction that is applying a force in the opposite direction when you are actively dragging your foot in the dirt. I wonder if there's consistency issues in the drag that might affect his throwing motion. I don't know. Maybe he's just throwing slower because he's worse than he used to be, or maybe he's still getting built up but something to pay attention to but at least carter caps has not lost any of that sweet sweet forward extension all right well we are still planning to do a bonus episode or really a makeup episode tomorrow so i will not

delay any longer i don't want to keep people waiting for ken rosenthal so let's bring in ken so we've uh i don't know how long we've wanted to do this, but at least now that the trade deadline is beyond us, this is a more reasonable thing that we can do. We're going to be talking with Ken Rosenthal, who everybody knows. He is an MLB on Fox reporter. He is a FoxSports.com contributor. He's an MLB network insider and current writer for Facebook.com. Ken, I remember talking at the winter meetings with John Rossi about, I don't know, five years ago, it must have been. And he was relaying an anecdote. He had just had a child. His wife had just given birth. And I think they went home maybe the next

day. And then he found out that the Red Sox and Dodgers had agreed to what was at that point, maybe still is kind of the biggest trade that has ever happened in baseball history. And John looked at his wife and she kind of looked back and he said, well, you know, honey, I got to go to work. So long story short, it seems like you are maybe the busiest reporter, the busiest man in the industry. Maybe that's not actually true, but how do you manage to maintain some form of balance, assuming that balance is something that you're actually seeking out? It's a great question. And I am guilty in the case of Mr. Morosi and that story of pressing him that day, knowing full well that his wife had just given birth. And in that particular

case, he had better sources than I did and he was getting more. And we were working together for Fox, and he did a great job that day. And, yeah, I know his wife. She's a really nice person, Alexis. And I have a similar story from my career, and then I'll answer your question. 1991, our first child is born. And it's mid-May. It's actually May 21st. First day of his life, the Cubs fired Don Zimmer. Second day

of his life, the Royals fired John Loffin. I'm in the hospital with my wife. She had a C-section. And we're listening to the radio and the Orioles are getting crushed. And I knew what was coming. Because with these things, there's a rhythm often. And when the firing starts sometimes they don't stop for a little while and that's the quarter pole usually or

whatever the four way through the season so the next day sure enough Frank gets fired as portals manager and my wife looks at me and she just says go and basically it's been that way ever since and do I have the balance that I would desire? No, not even close. I'm fortunate now as opposed to JP, my kids are older, 26, 24 and 21. So it's not like when they were younger, we needed more. And I mean, two of them are out of the house. Actually, all three really are. So it's a different situation. And my wife has always been extremely patient about it. And she's a very independent person. So it doesn't bother her that I'm away or when I'm working. Would she like me around more? Of course she would. Would I

like to be around more? Yes. The reality is the way this has evolved, it's just not like that. And we've had many things beneficial happen, great things happen to us because of this world that we live in. The downside always is you just don't get a chance to breathe and your life is kind of always on the verge of being disrupted at any moment. And you mentioned to us before we started recording that you are about to go on vacation. When was the last time that that happened? Right. I generally go on vacation twice a year. Once is usually around Christmas time or January. I take one week then.

I generally take one week now, sometimes a little bit more than a week. This actually will be about eight days. And again, I'd like to take more, but tell me the time of year when it slows down. It doesn't really. It used to be when I was younger, first starting out in, say, the late 80s,

baseball would shut down Christmas week. There would not be any activity. Now, it sort of happens now, but it's not official or formal. And the younger GMs, they kind of like take pride in it. I'm going to work Christmas day. That kind of forces the issue for some of us. And obviously, you don't work 365 days a year. In our days, I take.

But the sport is year-round round and it's unavoidable. If you cover the sport, it's tough to get away. And you've been doing this for quite a while now and you have so many scoops under your belt. If you go away and something happens while you're away and you miss that story and someone else gets it, are you fuming? Are you fretting? Are you sorry that you missed it or do you just say well i can't get them all like do you still kick yourself if you are not the first to something or or if you are not the one to bring something important to light well if i'm away i don't care when i'm away i'm away and they can break whoever can break whatever they want however

they want how many times they can crush me from here to L.A. And I'm in New York right now. But while I'm working, yeah, I do compete. And listen, we've talked about this before. The value of being first by a minute, by 10 seconds, I don't know what it is. But when this comes up when I'm talking to people about the subject, the value of transactional reporting, people will question it. And I question it myself. I question it all the time.

And I try more often now. This time of year is not a good example. But I try to write stories that are newsy, that can't be touched, because it drives me crazy to have somebody confirm something 10 seconds after. But when people say, well, Ken, there's no value and nobody cares, my response is, why do so many people follow me on Twitter? It's not the commit of anything really but that. And people do see value in all the followers that I have. My employers do.

So there is some value to it. I would say and agree that it's a hamster wheel that you're stuck on and you can't get off it and it's kind of silly. I'm not questioning any of that. I would agree. And when fans reach out to me on Twitter and say, we don't care who's first, I get it. But at the same time, when you're in the mix for all these stories, you often find that other things too, and they become better stories. So my feeling has always been, if you're in it, you're in it. You can't do this halfway. And that's why I do it the way I do.

I might be wrong, but it's the only way I know how to do it. I understand. That's kind of related to the previous question. I think yesterday you were the first person I saw who was tweeting about Jay Bruce being traded. Obviously, on deadline day, there was the memorable Darvish all caps traded tweet that came out and took the industry by storm. I think it's safe to say you're probably the premier newsbreaker in this regard. I think that's why people follow you so much. They kind of look to you to do this the most often, but you have broken so much. It's essentially half of your job at this point to be that guy.

What is the feeling when you were composing, I guess, that Darvish tweet? Do you get some sort of rush knowing that you're the guy on this one? Or is it just like any other tweet? No, no, no. It's not like any other tweet. And actually, in a situation like that, I get a little nervous. The heart starts racing. And it's not nervous. It's just, hey, you're excited. And I remember Andrew Miller when that one happened. And I had that one, Andrew Miller to the Indians. And I tweeted it, and my heart was racing. Never does that.

You know, I don't want to watch that. And I was like, whoa. And Darvish was kind of the same. In fact, the first tweet, I had no problem typing. The second one, which was Darvish to the Dodgers, I was kind of like, let's go, man. Get to seeing this movie. one, which was Darvish to the Dodgers, I was kind of like, let's go, man, get your fingers moving. And that kind is a thrill because it's deadline day and everybody's looking to break as much as possible. And that came out of nowhere because the deadline had passed. Now, sometimes trades

do not become known until the deadline passes. We all know that. I'm sitting in my laptop, but I had just gone into John Heyman's office, kind of fist bumped him and said, great job. I can't believe that war didn't happen. Went back to my office and then, oh, I started getting some information. So it definitely was a rush. Something like that is a big rush. Some of the other ones know it's part of the job. And honestly, guys, the one thing I really battle with now is there's an expectation that I'm going to do this all the time. I think among the people who follow. And it's not easy. It's really hard to do.

So I always feel that pressure. Maybe I shouldn't. I don't know. But I do feel that pressure that, hey, you're expected to be the guy and now go do it. And again, there's a lot of competition. It's just not easy to do. And one of your more memorable recent tweets came at 4.12 p.m. on July 31st. Source, Darvish traded, all caps.

I don't know whether you can tell us anything about how you obtained that news, but I'm curious about how these things leak out in little bits and pieces. Like at 4.12, you say that he was traded. Then at 4.12, you say that he was traded. Then at 4.14, you say where he was traded. Were there two minutes where you did not know where he was traded or was there an element of theatricality to this showmanship to breaking the tweet? No, there's no theatricality. People always ask me on Twitter,

hey, what do you have on this? If I had something, I'd tweet. I'd report it. I'm not holding back. In this particular case, I won't go into too much detail, but it was two different sources. All I got from the first source was that a trade had happened. So in a normal circumstance, I might not report that because the natural question is, well, where did it get traded to? Fair question.

Real question. But in this case, we all thought it hadn't been traded or it wasn't going to get traded. So I thought, okay, this in itself is news. And then after reporting that, I will continue to text, and I got the team. So that's how that happened. But there's never a situation where I would look for drama

or anything like that. I'm trying to get this out as quickly as I can and accurately as I can. Yeah. Well, you created some inadvertently. Is it possible to say like a hypothetical situation, an explanation of how a source can have only one piece of the information, like how someone could obtain the info that someone was traded, but not know where or for whom yet? That source knew. He just wasn't willing to tell me everything. I see.

That's how that went. Yeah. Okay. I mean, that's the best way I can put it. It wasn't a situation where he didn't know. He knew. He just didn't give mean the whole thing. Do you have any insight into how the Dodgers front office works and works differently from other teams? Because I am always curious about these teams, you know, most notably the Dodgers who collect former GMs and all these people who used to be

running their own teams and now are in more subordinate roles. There was that time at the winter meetings a couple of years ago when they seemingly had, you know, five trades in the works at one time. And you wondered whether that was because they had all these people who had that experience of spearheading trade talks in the past. Do you have any sense of the hierarchy there and any advantages it gives them? Certainly, it's always an advantage to have smart people, as many as possible, and they have that. Now, they're not unique in that. Other teams have that as well, maybe not as many former GMs, but other very intelligent executives. The way it appears to me, Andrew Friedman is still the main decision maker. Farhan Zaidi is 1A to his 1.

And they have lively, spirited discussions about where they should go. But those two are the focus and the principal decision makers. Alex Anthopoulos plays a role. Josh Burns plays a role. Others as well. But it's almost traditional in that sense, traditional for today's game, in that they have kind of a two-headed monster. But I would say the buck does stop with Andrew, it appears. And it's not that much different than Theo Epstein and Jed Hoyer,

John Mazalek and Mike Gersh, any of these other scenarios that are taking place right now. So does it help them? Yeah, it helps them to some degree. I would imagine there are some different issues that come up, tensions perhaps that exist because all of these guys are quite accomplished in the game. But at least on the outside, we don't see it. Obviously, given your very public position, when you're getting information from people within the industry, they're usually telling you,

look, we all know you're a good guy, but they're probably telling you stuff for reasons beyond, hey, Ken Rosenthal is a good guy. I want him to have this. good guy, but they're probably telling you stuff for reasons beyond, hey, Ken Rosenthal is a good guy. I want him to have this. There's usually going to be some reason that they're giving you information. Now, a lot of time that reason is not at all nefarious or biased. They just want the information out there for whatever reason. But how are you able to evaluate the information that you were given by people? I guess, how are you able to decide your level of trust in a source given that you know that they're giving you information for some particular reason that could or would be of some benefit to them? That's a great question.

And really, it's a very important question as well because there are times, trade deadline is not a good example, but other times when a source might want something out there to his benefit and I have to evaluate whether it's also to my benefit. If it's not, it's not going out there to his benefit, and I have to evaluate whether it's also to my benefit. If it's not, it's not going out there. Now, what I mean by that is, let's say a team wants, an agent's probably a better example. An agent wants this out there knowing about a player. Well, it might be something that's newsworthy and of value, but at the same time, I'm not simply their conduit, their vessel to use and use at will. And I do have to evaluate. Now, another example is even a better example. A team says, we're talking to four teams about X player X and trade. That's useless to me. One, it's often BS. And even if they list the teams, we're talking to the Indians, Rockies, Mariners, and Rangers. I would have checked the teams because that is a real easy way to get used. And you see it all the time.

Guys will report that and then you'll see people report, no, that's not the case. Teams will deny if they're interested. And I try to be really careful not to have that happen to me. It's going to happen from time to time where teams will deny something and that's fine. They may have their own reasons for denying it, whatever, but I don't want to be slapped down in that kind of fashion where it's just not true. I hate that. And I do my best to check. And also I do my best to maintain integrity with this because of course, a person who is like me and there are others, Jeff Hammond, Jeff Patton, Buster Olney, J.P. Morosi, you are in danger of being used by people for their own purposes. And it can happen. But again, I try not to allow it to happen. And I am pretty careful about what I put out there. Because again,

if it's not to my benefit, if it's not to the public's benefit, right? The reader, if he's not learning something, or she's not learning something or she's not learning something and getting something out of this, well, sorry, I'm not there to be representing any agent or any team. Every now and then we see a trade, sometimes a big trade, break or be broken by the team itself. And there's no lead up. There's no rumors. I guess the Jose Quintana trade is maybe the most notable recent example. Yeah. So how does that happen or what's different about those transactions or those organizations that that news doesn't come out?

And is that becoming more common? Can you foresee a future where that is the standard way that we learn about things? Or will there always be people digging and having at least a few minutes ahead of the PR department? There will always be people digging, I would expect. And in that case, I'll speak for myself. I was shocked. I'm shocked. I was very surprised that the Cubs and the White Sox would deal with each other.

And I had sort of mentally ruled it out. In hindsight, after that was announced, my first thought was, dummy, you should have figured this out. You know Theo Epstein is going to do something big. Probably a big surprise. And the White Sox-Cubs thing, okay, it's a problem, and it's a particular problem for the White Sox. They don't like helping the Cubs. But as we later all assess,

they're at such different stages of their development right now that it makes sense for the two teams to do this. So that was my reaction. I should have figured it out. Now, there will be times, many times, when things will come out of nowhere, but I do always expect reporting to continue and people to try to find out stuff. And again, there's value in reporting beyond simply the news. Let's look at the Astros at the deadline, okay? We knew that they didn't accomplish what they wanted.

But in this particular case, I kept digging and digging because I knew some stuff had gone down. And what came out of it was pretty interesting, that they thought they had to deal with Britain, that they thought they had to deal for another reliever. And this actually was something I wrote in story form. And it was the kind of story, again, that I love to do now because it was mine. That was not something that anybody else had. And if you're not digging on all the other things, if I didn't know that they were on break because of my previous work at the deadline,

you don't get to that story. And those are the stories now that I'm trying for, I won't say harder than the actual transactions, but I'm really working to do those because to me that's real news value as opposed to 10-second news value. So sort of related to that you we've had teams who are announcing trades and something that ben and uh recent guest fernando perez have talked about a little bit is the possibility that within sort of the nearer or medium term future you could have players ex-players who sort of want to

leverage the uh the access and and the relationships that they have to enter the news and the reporting industry. Obviously, you've worked alongside Alex Rodriguez in his broadcasting role, and that's a little bit different. But you could have, in theory, these players who are, in a sense, trying to chip away at what you are currently doing. So as difficult as it is maybe for you to tell people what your job is, because you're one of very few people who do exactly what you do, do you ever feel threatened by the future possibility that this could become something a little more confined to sort of baseball insiders as opposed to a reporter or journalist? No, I don't see it that way. And I will say this,

to me, there is great value in the basic nuts and bolts of journalism, whether it's baseball, government, any area that is in the public interest. Now, obviously, baseball is not as important as government. We all know that. But it's not simply spewing out information. There's depth to reporting. And I'm not going to say every story I do has depth. It doesn't. But there's a lot of

value to that, into finding out things. And I'll give you an example, a story here. We all acknowledge that we didn't cover it as well as we should have, but there was some great work done. Bob Nightingale had a story in 1997, I believe, basically saying everything that was going on. Couldn't name players, but he said this was an issue. Tom Verducci with the Caminiti story. These were things that were of great value and pushed the story along. And that to me is always going to be there. And I know fans get upset

when I write a report negatively about their teams, but too bad. This is a big league, folks. And it's a big industry. It's a $9 billion industry and it needs to be reported on. That's kind of where I come from. That's a big industry. It's a $9 billion industry and it needs to be reported on. That's kind of where I come from.

That's what I do. And the transactional stuff, sure, that's part of it, but I don't see that as the bigger part. I'm constantly working on stories beyond this. I always have a list, usually like three or four that I'm working on. Now, some of them are not hard news.

Maybe it might be a feature, but it will be a feature that uncovers some interesting things that maybe people didn't know before. I think there's tremendous value to that always. And I don't worry about that ever being less in vogue. People always want information and they also not just want information, they want context. Increasingly, they want context. And that is what people like me are supposed to provide. Do you talk shop at all with the Ken Rosenthal analogs in other sports, the Woj's and Schefter's? And do you have any sense of how the job differs in those sports, whether it's easier in some ways, harder in others?

I don't talk shop with them. However, I met them. I knew Woj a little bit. I had run into him a couple of times. At one point, he was even working for Fox, for FS1 when we started. So I kind of bumped into him and talked to him by email a few times. But we all spoke together, Woj, Schefter, and I,

at the Sloan Analytics Conference. And it was a panel on news breaking and all that stuff. And it was so interesting being on that panel with them and listening to them. It's like talking to yourself. These guys have almost exactly the same view of it.

Moji in particular, but Schefter too. And listening to Moji, I just was nodding. Yep, yep. That's exactly how I feel about it. Yes. And I thought that was interesting. It shouldn't be surprising, I guess, but we are different people.

And yet we have very different people. And yet, we have very similar jobs. And what was really interesting is just how closely our views are of what we do, how close our views are, I should say. And you're someone who largely, I would say, sticks to sports, so to speak, in your professional outlets. And, you know, we just heard you talk about your family and your kids. And it's not something that people who follow you will see you talk about regularly. You're not going to veer off into, you know, not necessarily even politics, but just kind of cultural issues. And just, I don't know, whatever music you're listening to, it's kind of all business. And I assume that you think that that's what people are following you for.

But do you have an aversion to sharing those kind of details? Or is it more of just kind of a courtesy and you figure that people are not looking for that from you? That's it. I don't believe people are following me on Twitter to hear about my kids or even to hear about my musical taste. Now I have all these things. I have particular views on everything and I have kids that I'm quite proud of, but that is generally not something that I believe people want out of me. And in regards to my kids and my family, that's not something I want to share. I have to share a lot because of what I do.

And Twitter's a funny thing. Facebook's funny. People think they know you and they think they're in your lives and stuff like that. But there are lines and that's a line I'm pretty careful of and mindful of at all times. And it's just something I don't think is appropriate. I put it that way. It's not like I'm in this intensely private person, but I guess I am with regard to my wife and children. There's no need for people to know all that. It's not their place in my view. Since we're on the subject,

can you tell us about your musical tastes? Pretty eclectic because I'm a baseball writer and all baseball writers love the great scene. I will fall into that category. But I listen to a lot of different things as well. I have, in my family, a lot of Broadway interests, and so I'm well aware of that stuff. But I will listen to certain rap. My son is 26, very much into music, and he will, unless he's the's the word turned me on but he will share stuff

with about bands he likes and japan droids was one recently i kind of like them yeah i've seen the national with him and so i i get a glimpse of bands he likes and i'm generally open to all this stuff i love i love going to shows i don't do it often enough. So pretty wide variety, mostly rock, I would say that. And the big spring scene, U2, I love Pearl Jam as well. I listen to all that. So this is probably a broad question, but you have occupied your current role for some time. But like most people who graduate, or I guess everybody who graduates to the national reporter level, you used to be a beat guy. You were, I mean, I know you interned in a few places, but you were with the Baltimore Sun for a long time.

And in, I guess, I don't know, as few words as possible, how did you transition from being the Baltimore Sun, at least one of the Baltimore Sun's Orioles beat guys, one of the Baltimore Suns Orioles beat guys into being this guy who now we look to to break the news of anything and everything that is taking place within the industry. Is this something that you sought out? Was there a particular opportunity that allowed you this considerable room for growth? This is a long story. I'll make it as brief as possible. I was a beat guy in Baltimore from 87 to 90. After that, I was the general sports columnist, one of two. And actually, I was at the Baltimore Evening Sun first. It folded, then I moved over to the Baltimore Morning Sun, where I was a sports columnist with John Eisenberg.

He was the other columnist and great writer, great columnist, great guy. So I was doing a lot beyond baseball. Now, Baltimore at that time did not have football, so baseball was the focal point. But I did University of Maryland basketball, football. I covered Olympics. I covered Super Bowls. I covered all of that, World Series as well. But I wasn't a pure baseball guy at that time.

It was probably the focus of what I did, the primary focus, but I did a bunch of other things. Now, around the year 2000, even before that, I saw some of my peers, Jason Stark, Tim Kirchner, going on to these national jobs. It was actually my wife who pointed it out to me one night. We were watching Jason on ESPN and she knew that I kind of come up with Jason. He's a little bit older than me, but not much. And she said, why can't you do that? You can do that. And I thought to myself, I said to her, I'm a columnist at the Baltimore Sun. That's the job we all aspire to.

It really had never entered my mind that I would want to do anything else. But I started thinking about it. And with me, it takes a while sometimes to come around to good ideas. And I thought about it, started looking into it. And at that time, the Baltimore Sun was changing too. And I can't remember which episode of The Wire or season of The Wire dealt with the sun. But if you go back and watch that, season five, maybe, I don't know. It was a very accurate depiction of what was going on in the newspaper. New editors would come in, they had people they liked, and then the older people, and I wasn't old, but it was a holdover, were not necessarily as safe. So I went to the Sporting News to be a national baseball columnist. It wasn't really a reporting job. But as I got into it, I started seeing that I could break stories.

Now, this was before Twitter, certainly. The internet was around, but the atmosphere wasn't what it is now. It's craziness with Twitter and all that. So for once in a while, I would break a trade with a story or something like that. And I thought I could keep doing it. Eventually, in 2005, I go to Fox. And Fox didn't necessarily hire me just to do that either. I was still considered just a baseball writer. But the more you get going with this, you kind of get sucked in. And that's how it evolved. I just sort of evolved as the business evolved. I tell this story, it's funny, because I recently heard from the guy at Trade Room,

his name is alluding to me right now. Tim Dirks. Anyway, it was Tim. Tim at one point said to me, hey, if you don't get on Twitter, it's going to be harder for us to follow you and credit your stories. I have said this publicly, I perceive that as kind of a threat, like you better get on Twitter. Tim, all these years later, he emailed me about two weeks ago and said, I still can't

believe you said that. But that is how I took it. And Twitter did change everything with that. And obviously at MLB Network, there's a value to breaking things. They want their people to do that. And I'm one of the insiders. That's kind of what my job is. So it just kind of evolved as the business evolved. And I've been fortunate. I've been able to make these changes as we've gone along, TV being another one, and not get swallowed whole. As far as the news breaking and reporting goes, what are the advantages and

disadvantages of being a national person as opposed to being the local person who's covering one team? Oh, there are definite advantages. And the biggest one is you just know more people. A person who covers their own team is generally bound to the sources that are associated with his own team. Not always. And some of the beat writers, the best ones have sources all over the place and that's why they're good and good beyond just covering the basics of their team. But the other part of it is, and this comes from being on television. And I noticed this right away after I started getting on TV, people look at you differently and it shouldn't be that way. We all should be looked at for what we do, but it's reality.

They think you're more important, and they treat you as such. And I've had that happen, and I don't run from it. It's just the reality. And to make the case, hey, I've worked hard to get to that spot where I am a national guy, and I should be looked at that way. Now, I don't see it like that. I don't think anything should ever be handed to anybody, but that does happen.

And I'll never forget this 2006 world series or nlcf talking to albert pool interviewing him for tv pre-game for fox and he there was some kind of controversy going on with him and glavin i don't remember there was a back and forth and i asked him about it and he said to me well ken you know how the media is. And I'm sitting there, I complete the interview, and I thought, he doesn't get it. I'm in the media. I am media. But there are players, the players all understand exactly,

for the most part, they all understand exactly why I'm what I do. But certainly the fact that I'm on Fox and on MLB Network gives me a greater stature, and I do think that helps. Well, since you mentioned the range of sources that you're able to have now, we actually get this question fairly often from listeners. And when I just mentioned that you were coming on and asked for questions, we got it again. People want to know how many players you

have contact info for. Now, I don't know if you can answer this specifically, but I'm curious if you can estimate, like, of the, you know, 750 active players right now, how many could you just hang up with us and call or text right now? Or over the years that you've been doing this, how many players and former players do you think you have accumulated contact info for? I don't know the answer. It's not 750. Yeah. It's not $750. It's not $500. I always answer this kind of the same way. People say, well, who are your sources?

And of course you can't answer that. I will just say this. I have sources in every area of the industry. People I talk to in every area of the industry. There are also people that pop up from time to time. Maybe it's a guy who passes a player to the airport and sees him flying somewhere these people will contact me and i occasionally do get stories like that well that they start like that i don't go by that one right so it does come from

all over and a lot of times i find club people will say well this is why this is happening this is why you found this out and i always say you this out. And I always say, you have no idea. Don't even go there. You have no idea how this works and how we operate. Sometimes it's as basic as you might think, and a lot of times it isn't. And that's just the way it works. I only have two more. One of them is pretty quick, so we'll go with the one that isn't so quick first. But with just about every national broadcast that you're on, you have a particular bow tie that is affiliated with some cause or charity. The bow ties have had their own special section on FoxSports.com.

It's just one of the things you think about. Ken Rosenthal, you think about the bow tie. What is the origin story here? Not just with the bow ties, I guess, but with the bow ties being affiliated with some particular cause that you would bow ties, I guess, but with the bow ties being affiliated with some particular cause that you would like to, I guess, sort of advertise on a weekly basis. How many of them do you own? Because that's another question that we have gotten. The origin of it is Fox. David Hill, who used to run Fox Sports, who created Fox Sports,

in 2010 decided I didn't stand out enough and he wanted to do something to distinguish me. And after the final game of the NLCS in Philadelphia, somebody from Fox comes up to me and says, hey, you ready to wear the bow tie? I had no idea what he was talking about. Later found out that this is a David Hill directive and you do not say no. And I wore it for the first game of the World Series. It was Texas and the Giants. And after the first game, I thought, okay, maybe that's it. I don't have to do that again. And Eric Shanks, who is now the head of Fox Sports,

I guess at that time was the number two, came up to me before the game and said, hey, you're wearing the bow tie. I said, do I have to? And he said something along the lines of, it would be advised. So I wore it for the entire World Series, different bow ties. I didn't know how to tie them, and people were helping me tie them.

Fox had bought them for me. And this was all coming from him. And then that off season, I forgot all about it. And frankly, I hated the whole idea. I wanted my reporting to distinguish me and not any kind of look. It was totally against what I stood for. My wife didn't like the look, my kids hated it. It was not something that I was eager to do again. But I got approached by the Honey Jones, the former NFL player, and he has this nonprofit

called the Bowtie Cause. And he said, listen, we do this. We partner with different organizations and charities. It's all to raise awareness. People can buy the ties, but it's more of an awareness thing than a financial boost for any of these organizations. Would you be interested? My first reaction was absolutely not. I'm not doing this again. I'm not doing this ever. But then I thought about it and I said, well, David Hill is going to want me to do this again. I can sense that. So it was a way for me to take control and actually, in my head, to turn what was sort of a negative, in my view, into a positive. And it's become a big positive. And David Hill was absolutely right. It did distinguish me and not necessarily a bad way. My fear was, this is what people will focus on. This is all we'll care about. People do focus on it to some degree, but every one of them is for a good cause.

And over the years, we've added organizations and it's really become something I'm quite happy about and proud of. And I'm not a guy who gives a zillion dollars to charity, but if we've made a difference in a small way with these bow ties, great. I hope that has happened. As for the number, I've got a zillion of them. Yeah. And

they all come from the bow tie card. So I don't really buy them. They give them to me. They partner with these organizations, design the bow ties together, and then go from there. So that's how it all evolved. And it's funny, I do on occasion an MLB network game. Usually Tom Perducci is the sideline guy, but if he's not available, they may ask me. And the first time I did one, I said, well, this is a Fox thing. I'll just wear a normal tie. So when I wore the normal tie, people on Twitter were like, hey, what's going on here? So now I wear the bow tie on MLB Network games as well.

So since late June, when Fox Sports pivoted to video, as everyone says, you have been writing at Facebook, at Ken Rosenthal Sports. We know that this is not a permanent arrangement and that there will probably be some news on this sometime soon. And when there is, I'm sure it will be broken by Ken Rosenthal. I hope so. I better have that one. So I know that you're still affiliated with Fox, but this is not only a Fox issue. This is something we're seeing more and more across the internet that some sites are moving away from writing. And I think that we all want people like you to be writing and we want your writing to be in the most visible, accessible place. So you've lived through some and worked through some industry transitions and seen the move from newspapers to the internet and figuring out how the internet works. And that process is still going on here. And this is the latest

manifestation of it. So I don't know whether that's given you any perspective on this and in what detail you can talk about it. but I am curious about your thoughts about this shift to video and whether you think it's something lasting, whether you think it makes sense. Well, I was surprised that we went as far as we did. I knew there was going to be a greater emphasis on video. I did not know it was going to be all video. And that shocked me. It took me aback. I was not prepared for that. Now, I know people might think this is just an employee talking, but it is actually the truth. I am just an employee. I have my opinions about this. I don't believe it is the answer, all video. I don't even know that it will work. At the same time, Fox is not the only company that has struggled to figure out how to make money off the internet. It's kind of an industry-wide thing. And if this

is the solution that they've determined is the best way for them to make money, who am I to say they're wrong? I don't agree with the philosophy. I believe in the written word intensely. But at the same time, this is a choice they made and I do video for them and I will continue to do video for them and I have no problem doing video for them. Why I started writing on Facebook was simply, this is what I do.

And the deadline was coming up. It was a busy time of year and there are things that I can't simply put in 140 characters. And I felt that I had to do my job. And even though Fox didn't necessarily want me doing that aspect of my job, people, I would think, expect me to write. And that's why I did that. Now, the future, I don't know. And there are things happening all across the industry that are disturbing as far as the written word is concerned, there's no question about that. But at the same time, if companies cannot figure out how to make money off the written word for whatever reason, you can understand why people in executive positions would say, why are we doing it? They're not necessarily committed to journalistic enterprise. They're committed to their business.

And again, who am I to say what's right and wrong when no one actually has come up with a good answer here? So I will be writing somewhere else soon and I'll be really happy to do it and excited to do it. And Fox has had no problem with me pursuing that. And to me, that's a credit to them. They don't have to do that. I am under contract to them. They could simply say, no, you're not doing that. If you've seen ESPN has not let their people go to other outlets. That's why I'm here. They're asking for ESPN contracts. Right, exactly. So it's a tough time. There's no question about it. And really, guys, I'm the lucky one. I'm the guy. I'm on TV. I have these

other positions. It's not like a situation where I'm unemployed, as so many of my colleagues are throughout the industry. And my heart goes out to them because there are some really great writers out there right now who simply do, they have no place to go. And that is disturbing. And just all the things we talked about before, about the value of the writing and the reporting and what it means to fans out there, why they should value it too. I'm a true believer in all of this. And it pains me that so many good people, editors and writers, not just writers, are just out there right now with seemingly no

place to go. Do you remember what the first thing you wrote that was published on the internet was or when that would have been? It would have been 2000, the sporting news. And Paul Paul Allen had owned the Sporting News at that time. And he, of course, was a Microsoft co-founder, essentially. And it was an exciting time to be there. The Sporting News was going to try to do some things on the internet. And one of the reasons I went there, I didn't simply just want to write for a once-a-week magazine. I wanted to get involved in the internet. And I thought it was really cool.

So I don't remember the exact article, but that was the time. It was 2000. Okay. So just in closing, we've talked a little bit on this podcast about how you do have opinions, but people don't necessarily follow you for your various opinions or personality quirks. But just to finish off, do you think Carter Capps' motion should be allowed? Do you think Carter Capps' motion should be allowed? That's a good question. I do. I do.

But at the same time, there are certain situations where deception would be too much or the way a pitcher presents himself would be too deceiving or whatever. So I love Carter Capps and watching him. It's like one of the coolest things in baseball if you ask me, but I'm not so sure it's kosher delivery. What do you guys think? Where are you guys on that one? We enjoy it. I think we enjoy it more when only one or two guys are doing it. We wouldn't want everyone to be doing it.

And so given that, I guess it's probably not something that you should allow if you don't want this slippery slope situation to come up. But as long as it's isolated and quarantined, I think we like having one freakish looking person out there. So, yeah. Well, Ken, we'd both like to thank you very much for taking an hour out of what's probably the busiest schedule in the baseball industry. of what's probably the busiest schedule in the baseball industry. And we greatly appreciate your time here. And there's no one who I think could use a vacation coming up more than you. And so I'm excited.

I'm hoping that you get the best vacation you can have. I hope that you're not on call and that you don't get flooded with messages while you're out there. I appreciate that. Thank you for continuing to do what you do. And I look forward to finding out where your next writing venture is going to be. Oh, thanks, guys. And of course, I'm a big fan of you both. And it's my pleasure. All right. Thank you very much. Thanks, guys. You can support the podcast on Patreon by going to patreon.com slash effectively wild.

Our Patreon supporters are the people who are keeping us from pivoting to video, or more accurately, pivoting to nothing. Five listeners who have already pledged their support are Eric Hartman, Rishant Menon, Andy Young, Timothy Cullen, and Tom Elmer. Thanks to all of you. You can join our Facebook group at facebook.com slash groups slash Effectively Wild, and you can rate and review and subscribe

to Effectively Wild on iTunes. Thanks to Dylan Higgins for editing assistance. By the way, Ken is not, to my knowledge, writing for Fangraphs, although if he were, I probably wouldn't have that knowledge. If you're looking for something else to listen to, Michael Bauman and I have a new episode of the Ringer MLB show up today. We talked to Mark Simon about Aaron Judge's slump and Mike Trout's hot streak. Can you even call it a hot streak with Mike Trout? He's always hot. We also talked to Jake and Jordan from Cespedes

Family Barbecue about Players Weekend and all the player nicknames that were announced this week. You can find that on the Ringer MLP Show feed. Keep your questions and comments for me and Jeff coming via email at podcast at fangraphs.com or via the Patreon messaging system. We will talk to you soon. See if you never did Your mother makes a son And he makes it until you're gone To play the kids to find Thank you.