Effectively Wild: A FanGraphs Baseball Podcast - Effectively Wild Episode 1867: Defining Fun

Episode Date: June 25, 2022

Ben Lindbergh and Meg Rowley answer listener emails about why players in the dugout seem so confident in pitch locations, whether it would ever help to wear two gloves, MLB Big Inning and other baseball equivalents of NFL RedZone, the extreme dimensions of the Polo Grounds, what makes it so impressive that some players perform […]

Even in my darkest hour, there was still a light somewhere Letting me know by its glow that I'd find comfort there I walk to lonely streets Waiting for love to call And if even I can find someone There's hope for us all Hello and welcome to episode 1867 of Effectively Wild, Far as all Instead of hello. Changing up the format here after 1,866 episodes. Got to keep things fresh. Yeah.

Variety is the spice of life. And I'm sure it is a difference that will shock and concern many, Ben. Yeah. Whoa. Okay. This is a new Effectively Wild. Ben's saying hello slightly differently. So I have not heard from Michael Lorenzen about yesterday's episode.

So I assume that our subsequent follow-up discussion about Michael Lorenzen was either to his liking or he has better things to do than listen to all of our episodes and provide immediate feedback. But that's reassuring. I guess it's not going to be a daily fixture of the show that we will get feedback directly from players we discuss. But that was fun. I guess I should, you know, I should save my arm day material for when I know they're listening. Yeah. Yeah. So what we are going to do is emails.

We did some emails yesterday, but we're going to do some more. It's just going to be an oops, all emails episode. Got some regular emails. Got a lot of pedantic emails. Forewarned is forearmed here. I said yesterday that I was going to push some pedantry to the next episode, and this is that episode. And people have risen to the occasion or stooped to the occasion, as the case may be. And then we will end, as as always these days with a past blast but let's talk about some non-pedantic questions perhaps dory says hope all is well i've been wondering

pause at that for a moment you know like we don't have to go into it but things are objectively terrible so all is well d, unfortunately. Yeah, definitely not Dory's fault. Believe me. No, can't hold you responsible, Dory. Yeah, there are like, you know, six specific people, for instance, that we might point our fingers at and many more to follow from there. I appreciate the sentiment, Dory. Yeah, it's a nice thought. Yeah, it's a nice thought.

It's like we give each other these little moments of mutually exchanged care to be like, I know that the world is garbage, but I hope you're still managing. That's like a nice sentiment. So don't get us wrong. We're not taking shots at the sentiment. It is a lovely one, indeed one that might carry us. We can all hope that all is well or will be well at some point. So Dory's actual question. I've been wondering about this for a while, but

was reminded of it when Guillermo Martinez was ejected during the lineup card exchange this week amid frustration over Doug Eddings' strike zone the previous game. How do coaches and players argue strike calls with so much conviction, given the vantage point they have?

Granted, the game Martinez was peeved about was a particularly egregious umpiring showcase, but we mostly know this because we had the luxury of watching it on TV and or looking at the umpire scorecard post facto. I also understand that MLB players and coaches have high levels of irrational confidence, but I contend that the dugout

has to be one of the harder areas of the stadium from which to make a strike call. Please put me out of my misery and tell me there's a TV in the dugout or something. So in this case, I mean, this was the day after the game that that happened, right, which was highly amusing. But at that point, you can look at all the footage and umpire scorecards you want. So he knew whatever he wanted to know at that point. power score cards you want. So he knew whatever he wanted to know at that point. But during the game, Dory is asking, what is with all of the piping up from the dugout? How do they know? How do they presume to know that they can actually tell where a pitch was? I think they have monitors now,

right? Well, they don't. I mean, not in the dugout proper, I don't think. I think in the clubhouse, though. In the clubhouse, sure. And in a video room somewhere adjacent. You'll see players often after they strike out on a close call or something, they will walk into the video room or the clubhouse, down the tunnel, whatever it is, and they will then check. But I think Dory's talking about the real-time writing of umps, maybe, just before you even have a chance to check the replay. Oh, I mean, like, some of that is definitely just piss and vinegar, right? I mean, like, it kind of depends. It depends on what the nature of the dispute is, right?

So, like, if you're in the dugout, you have a pretty reasonable sense of, like, up and down. Yes. Right? I think so, yeah. dugout you have a pretty reasonable sense of like up and down yes right like you can tell yeah yeah you can tell you know whether a ball was like meaningfully above or below the strike zone and i think you're you're aided in particular if you happen if the dugout happens to correspond with like an open side view of the hitter right because then it's even easier like if if you have aaron judge out there in my opinion one of perhaps one of our few good judges at the moment, it can be kind of hard to see. What are you going to do? He's in the way.

He's just this big hulking guy. It can be hard. But inside, outside, I don't want to say that they have no idea. They're certainly better positioned than... Ben, I search in my life for the confidence of the upper deck upper deck down the line fan yeah jawing at the umpire and i'm not i'm not saying that that person isn't entitled to enjoy the game the way they want to like you can be confident you're there to be confident on behalf of your guys that's part of your project but like we can all agree quietly in in this moment with nothing on the line like you

really don't have any idea no what the strike zone is you just don't know and that's fine like again your barrier to entry for being a fan is is is low and it should be like that's that's the goal is for you to just jot the guy and like have some fun but i think a lot of the time it's just it's just piss and vinegar and and i'm about to say a thing that doesn't make any sense, but bear with me, like informed Piss and Vinegar. Because presumably, like if you're someone in the lineup, for instance, you've been up there a couple of times and you know, you know what's what. And so you're paying attention to the what and what of it. But I think a lot of the time, the very, very close calls, they might not be able to

discern with a tremendous amount of precision but that's not the point of arguing right that's not the point of jawing the point of jawing isn't really for the umpire to change the umpire's behavior they i think that most players and managers are realistic about the odds that they're really gonna like make that umpire sit there between innings and go oh man like i really got it well we did talk about that scenario recently right of gamesmanship of if everyone just got on the umpire constantly could you actually influence them subconsciously or otherwise so there may be some of that like if you think that you're just going to give them a hard time every time

a call doesn't go your way then later in the game maybe you get a makeup call or something but like the real target audience the real target audience for that is is your teammate the real target audience is the guy at the plate who maybe just struck out and he might know that it was not actually close or maybe he does know that it was close, and then he's like, yeah, they agree with me. But really what you're communicating to your teammate in that moment is, I got your back, man. So I think that that's really what it's about.

But in a moment of honesty, they would probably tell you that depending on both how close it is and whether the nature of the disagreement is about it being above or below versus inside or outside, like they don't always know. And that's fine. And sometimes maybe an umpire will enter the game with a reputation already. So you see something and there's a confirmation bias that happens there or it's later in the game. You've already had a few controversial calls. Maybe you've checked the charts and the replays and you've seen there were some subpar ones.

And so now everyone that's kind of close, you're just piling on. You're thinking that it's yet another mistake. time on the bench has at one point been the batter who has been the object of that support from teammates and thus must know that there are times when perhaps the teammates are more vocal than they should be and that the call wasn't actually incorrect. I was going to say that, but then again, maybe the bench is usually responding to the batter's body language. Maybe it's just that they see that the batter didn't like that call and was doing a little look back or shaking his head. And that is what cues the dugout maybe to vociferously support the teammate just to show the support. But also because their teammate, their friend is saying this was a bad call and they're saying, okay, I will take your cue and I will also say it's a bad call.

So maybe that hasn't actually happened all that often that the batter would be at the plate receiving that support and knowing that it is misplaced because the call was okay because maybe it is often the batter's reaction that inspires and incites that dugout reaction. All right. Let's answer a question from Alex. batter's reaction that inspires and incites that dugout reaction. Right. But all right. Let's answer a question from Alex, Patreon supporter, who says, your discussion of loose gloves on episode 1866 got me thinking, if players were allowed to wear more than one glove while fielding,

are there any positions where it would be advantageous? My initial thoughts are that it could benefit outfielders, but maybe not. Would a right-handed center fielder be better able to make plays on balls to left center with a glove on his right hand? Would the act of discarding a glove slow him down or in some other way alter his root efficiency? Would players be slower running with two gloves on? What about Aaron Judge being able to rob home runs by simply standing in front of the fence and slower running with two gloves on what about Aaron Judge being able to rob home runs by simply standing in front of the fence and reaching up with two gloves rather than one when we mentioned this this came up last time and I forget which of us said it but

we were raising the idea of having two gloves and then it was like, well, you can't do that. And in my head at the time I was thinking, oh, huge advantage, double the gloves. But now that Alex points this out, maybe not. I mean, at some positions you absolutely need an ungloved hand.

Right. Yeah. Cause you got to throw the ball back in, you know, you need the ability to just imagining that would like trying to throw the ball back in, you know. Yeah. You need the ability to, I'm just imagining that would like. Trying to throw with the glove on. Or just like being in the outfield going like, da, da, da, da, da, two glove dance, doing a little dance.

It would be terrible for fielding. Jazz hands sort of thing. It would look ridiculous. It would be, I think it would work hands yeah it would look it would look ridiculous it would be i think it would go badly i think that it would result in a lot of like you know trying to throw but not succeeding in throwing yeah like i think it's a bad idea no one should do it but it is kind of a charming visual to entertain it is yeah because think, well, you get twice the glove real estate. Now it's even easier to glove balls. This would be performance enhancing, but probably not because

you can put your hand in your glove where the ball is going to go roughly. Obviously, there are times when you're turned the wrong way. And so maybe it would be helpful if you're like, when you're turned the wrong way. And so maybe it would be helpful if you're like, if you have some modicum of ambidextrousness and you could have a glove just at a more optimal angle so that you could catch a ball without turning around, let's say. And then it would be tough because then you would have to like transfer it and it's not the hand that you want to use to throw. So you'd almost have to do like a Jim Abbott sort of situation with like quickly flipping the glove off your hand. I mean,

it would be kind of complicated. So there are times when it might be handy to have a glove on that hand. But for the most part, I kind of think that Alex is probably right here. But if it's anyone, then I assume it would be outfielders. And I don't know whether there's a particular trajectory. Like, I don't know. Do you think a corner outfielder or a center fielder would need this more, get turned around more? Maybe a center fielder because the ball could very easily be over either of your shoulders potentially. So there are times.

There are times. Unless you've practiced with this that it might hinder you more than it helped you. Yeah, I think that more often than not, it would be a problem. It would really be a problem. But there might be a couple of times when it would be okay. It would look kind of cool if you happened to pull it off that one time. It would not look cool. It would look, Ben, it would be okay. It would look kind of cool if you happened to pull it off that one time. It would not look cool. It would look, Ben, it would look ridiculous.

It would objectively look ridiculous. Yeah, but if you made it work, if you were able to, like the Kevin Mitchell barehand catch that Sam Miller recreated for an ESPN article, he made that happen. But like what if he had had a glove on the bare hand in that situation? Might have been easier to manage and would have been much less spectacular if he had done it.

But that's the kind of situation I'm thinking of where, hey, it would be handy, no pun intended, to have a glove on this hand too. Handy. He had to overrun the ball, though, in order to make that make sense because then he had to reach back to do it. And maybe for a split second he thought, I wish I had a glove on this hand, but I do not. Right. And then he did not. And then it's like, what are you going to do?

All right. Alex says, I'm curious if either of you has thoughts on MLB's big inning product. I watched it for the first time last night and mostly enjoyed getting to see the key highlights. And at bats for most games, it may have helped that I got to see lots of Trout and Otani. I'm a Nationals fan, so my watching habits have, I think, understandably changed a bit this season. Sure. As I'm less motivated to watch every minute of every game. I've mostly found myself watching lots of Angels, White Sox, Padres, and the other

exciting young teams, but I definitely enjoyed getting to see bits and pieces of Cubs, Pirates, and the like. It always made sense to me that MLB would have an NFL red zone equivalent, and perhaps I'll have more thoughts on the product as I watch it. But if you two have any experience with it, are there ways in which you think it could improve? I think you've both described your watching habits as a spectrum, ranging from on in the background to intentional jumping around to every Otani start is an event, so perhaps take this as a recommendation to check out Big Inning if you haven't. I think that when I have watched it, I have felt like it does a pretty good job. I like the idea of what is

a it used to be something else. And now it's part of baseball reference the it used to be called Game Changer and Stream Finder. So like Game Changer was great, except that like I like to watch baseball on my TV. And so Game Changer has limited utility. So the idea of having that sort of like guided experience where you can kind of bop around as you need to and see stuff that's really cool, I think is great because there's so much baseball who you're keen to watch, or it's a really good matchup between teams, or it's the West Coast game that's on late and nothing else is on. And you know you're going to be a little bit more directed in your viewing then, but the rest of the time, there's so much. It's hard to keep up. And otherwise, my method is what is close and late, and sometimes I miss stuff that way. Yeah, I have not actually checked out beginning yet. This is a that way. Yeah. I have not actually checked out Beginning Yet.

This is a streaming show. Yeah. Yeah. So I have not watched this. I did watch. I mean, there have been other shows in this genre, like MLB Network Strike Zone. And there was MLB Whip Around on Fox. And then there's the Stream Finder.

And I have enjoyed using and watching all of those things when I've seen them. I just, for whatever reason, I haven't made them a major part of my baseball media diet. I should. I don't have any reason why I haven't. I am fully on board with the concept. I think that maybe it doesn't lend itself as well to baseball as to football, let's say. But there's still certainly something to the idea of, hey, we will just look around the league and we will watch whatever is exciting right now. So I'm fully on board with the idea. And I will make a point of checking this out because I do want to support it. Yeah, I think that it does sort of just by definition have to be a little bit more reactive than red zone because it's right in the name with red zone.

Like generally the way you're prioritizing what game you're focusing on is if a team is in the red zone and then they bop around to other stuff when that isn't true because it's not every drive is going to result in a scoring player or the potential for a scoring play but it is a cool it's like a cool thing to to have i do hope

that we get to a point where you can like do the kind of customization that you could do in game changer in a platform like that where you can you know prioritize a division or a team or a player or what have you or like look at the ones where the win probability is you know prioritize a division or a team or a player or what have you or like look at the ones where the win probability is you know moving in a particular direction or whatever the case may be but i think that there's a lot of potential it does feel like you know we give we give the league a lot of grief so i'll give them some credit here it does feel like they are trying to have there be more stuff on mlb tv than there used to be and stuff that i like actually want to watch so that's good because that didn't used to that didn't used to be

true so you know whether it's them starting to highlight minor league games on mlb tv and giving you sort of connectivity there until they hopefully give us like a native streaming app for our TVs. But until then, like the fact that they are bringing in more stuff and giving you a central place to watch it all is pretty cool. All right. Question from Ezra, Patreon supporter. If the New York Giants had stayed in New York, in what year would they have been forced

to change the dimensions of the polo grounds? As a fan of wonky ballparks, I would like to imagine the answer is never, but I can't imagine how stupid the discourse would be as yet another 260-foot lazy fly ball drifted into the right field seats. I mean, I think they would want to change their dimensions, right? That's the thing, yeah. I don't think they would want to change their dimensions, right? That's the thing. Yeah. I don't think they would have been forced to do it because they would have eagerly planned it. I think they would have volunteered. I think they would have been like, oh, no, this isn't going to work at all.

Yeah. I think so the capacity of the Polograns, I think by the time the giants moved out west, the capacity had increased up to mid-50,000-something. So maybe not because of that, but I would just think that we have seen this homogenization of ballpark dimensions over the decades, which I sort of am sad about, but also in some of these extremes, like it's very, it's quaint and it's kind of fun. And one of my very favorite things about baseball is that there are no standardized field and ballpark dimensions.

I just love that that's the case. I can't imagine that that would be the case if baseball were invented today. It just happened to be the case because it sprang up all over the country and you had these parks like the polo grounds that were just crammed into existing city streets and you just had to make it work somehow. But there has been an increasing homogenization and there are many reasons for that. You would think maybe that having a super extreme park could be a competitive advantage and in theory it could. most teams tend to look at it the other way where yeah in theory you could kind of construct your roster to take advantage of the unique dimensions of your park more so than your opponents do but i think it's also hard to attract talent if you have some super extreme wonky park especially like if you're trying to get good hitters to come to a pitcher's park or vice versa like

shouldn't really matter that much these days when we just league adjust everything anyway. And it's all about contact quality and front offices are taking into account ballpark effects when they pay players. But I think players who hit want to hit dingers and pitchers who pitch, they don't want to give up dingers. They don't want to give up dingers. And so even if it doesn't necessarily affect their underlying stats or what they receive in salary, I think they still like the validation of just hitting home runs or not giving up a lot of home runs. So I think that a lot of teams we have seen that if they have an extreme hitter or pitchers park, eventually their hitters or pitchers complain about that and seem unhappy about that. And maybe they have a harder time signing players because of that mismatch in that extremity. So it seems like everyone just kind of clusters toward the middle. So I think that the Giants probably would have done that of their own volition. Like, you know, you have Fenway, obviously, which is still around with a weird fence that changes things and has unique dimensions and constructions. But it doesn't unbalance things quite as much maybe or at least it doesn't create situations where you feel like you are getting a really cheap result.

I mean I know that Fenway does dramatically raise the number of doubles and sometimes you'll just have a ball that would have been a lazy fly ball somewhere, but it'll be off the monster. But if you hit a home run, you at least have to hit it pretty high and far and hard to get out there. I guess you could talk about like the Crawford boxes in Houston as a case of these are pretty cheap home runs in a lot of cases. So I just think that at this point, I mean, look, they probably would have torn that thing down and built up luxury boxes and who knows what else because it's been a long time. And it is the exception rather than the rule to preserve ballparks from that era. And even the polo grounds was remodeled a bunch of times before the Giants moved. Yeah, I think that having cutie ballpark features is fine when the stakes are low, but when they're anything but that, you're like, what the hell are we doing? And I wonder sometimes if there are Astros players

who are like, we don't want to get rid of the Crawford Knox's. This isn't a hilariously stupid idea. I mean, I know that it redounds to the benefit of some of their hitters, but I imagine there are times when their pitchers are like, huh, we're doing that on purpose. That's the thing that we've elected to do. We constructed that with like, you know, people and material and we're keeping it there. Like no one's taking care of that in the middle of the night. So I think that, you know, there is a trend toward and an instinct toward something reasonable when it comes to your ballpark dimensions where you are not dependent on like very careful roster construction in any given season to maximize scoring potential and minimize runs allowed to the extent that you can. So I'd like to think that they would be like, oh, this is so cool and quirky.

But after a while, first of all, they'd be like, this is not up to code. This is not sound. We have to do something different. And then after that, they'd be like, this is ridiculous. Like how? Imagine, you know, like Colorado has a hard enough time getting pitchers to want to go there. Can you imagine if you were playing in the polo grounds and then you're like, allow us to engage in free agency? Like what would you, no.

Right. The one thing that you could say, I guess, about the polo grounds is that I don't think it played like peak course field. It was actually kind of neutral. It was just weird. So that like certain batted balls, it would dramatically inflate the value of and others it would dramatically suppress. So I'll just read from the baseball reference bullpen page to call this stadium quirky would be an understatement.

Yeah. As the ballpark was one big quirk. The distances down the foul lines were obscenely short, yet there were no tall fences to prevent easy home runs, which should have made this a hitter's dream. But at the same time, the fences went straight back to a maximum distance of 483 feet to the centerfield clubhouse. The clubhouse itself at 515 feet from home plate and 60 feet high had no home run line on it. and it was unclear as to whether a batted ball hitting the roof would have been a home run. Some speculate that the ball needed to clear the fence at the back of the structure an additional 90 feet since no one ever reached the top of the front wall.

The question was never answered. These idiosyncrasies should have made the stadium a pitcher's delight, so the polo ground's hitter-pitcher alignment depended on where the ball was hit. Only four people ever hit home runs into center field. Luke Easter in a Negro League's game, Hank Aaron and Lou Brock on consecutive days, and Joe Adcock. To add to the bonanza of oddities, the bullpens were in play in the nooks of the outfield wall. One could reason they could have put the bullpens behind fences or in foul territory. But for whatever reason, the Giants did not do either. So the fact that it was both extreme and neutral is an interesting combination. Sure. That those things kind of balanced each other out.

That is true. On some batted balls, you would feel extremely cheated. And in others, you'd feel extremely fortunate. extremely cheated and in others you'd feel extremely fortunate and i don't know whether those things would end up balancing out in terms of like the psychological effect of it right if you're just constantly ping-ponging between like well that was cheap or that's unfair that should have been a better result and this should have been a worse result like i don't know there's character obviously to it and it stands out but i feel like it might be frustrating to always feel like sounds very stressful yeah everything you hit it's like you're i mean you're used to it i guess if you're a giants fan and you're watching

teams play there all the time but every batted ball everyone in the air at least it's like the result is not what it would be anywhere else. I'd love to see like some of the stat cast stats in the poll. Oh, yeah, gosh. Like the Twitter account, like would it dong about like what it had been gone in other parks? It would be constant, like it would be gone everywhere except here or it would be gone nowhere except here. So that would be interesting i'd love

to see the uh breakdown on the baseball savant page for the expected home runs for hitters in the polo grounds it just seems like it would be very stressful to have that unpredictability i mean like i'm at think about how we feel in the beginning part of every season when we're trying to figure out what the mood of the ball is going to be um you don't you don't know you're like watching a broadcast and you're like that was definitely out and then you're like no it wasn't it just died at the track or like you know in 2019 and i was like that's a lazy fly ball and then i was like i guess that like it's not i guess it's a home run and it was very disorienting and stressful so imagine just imagine it seems terrible right i mean that

home run that was hit by harold ramirez the other day at the trop right was uh the slowest exit velocity of of any home run tracked over the fence right 85.4 weird yeah i mean that would be way gone in the polo grass presumably that would be a bomb yeah. Yeah, it would be on its way to Jupiter. All right. Question from Gus. Do we give enough credit to players who remain successful over long careers? Obviously, it's impressive when someone remains in the league into their 40s, especially when they continue to play at a high level.

But over the course of their careers, the league-wide talent level is constantly increasing. While this might not be noticeable on a yearly basis, over the span of any two decades, the talent level will have noticeably increased. A 100 WRC plus in 2022 is more difficult to accomplish and more impressive than a 100 WRC plus in 2002, which in turn is more difficult and impressive than a 100 WRC Plus in 1982, and so on. So if the same player had a 100 WRC Plus in both 1982 at age 20 and 2002 at age 40, we might ordinarily think that their age 40 season is slightly more impressive in virtue of their relative to baseball advanced age, but should we think that it's much more impressive in virtue of the fact that competition was tougher in their age 40 season? Some examples, Adrian Beltre had a 100 WRC plus in 1999 and a 97

WRC plus in 2018. Ricky Henderson had a 136 WRC plus in 1980 and a 135 WRC plus in 2000. and a 135 WRC Plus in 2000. Willie Mays had a 120 WRC Plus in 1951 and a 132 WRC Plus in 1972. This is not to say that we're undervaluing them in terms of their on-field production. I'm just talking about assessing their true talent levels over time with the idea being that Beltre's true talent level was probably a lot higher in 2018 than in 1999

despite his being roughly as valuable as a hitter in both seasons. Hmm. I'm thinking about that. That's a good point. I think it is. Yeah. I have always marveled at the fact that long careers exist at all because I always think like it's the highest caliber league.

There's so much competition. Yes. You have to be so good to get there. The margin of error is so small. So small. That the fact that anyone could stay at that level or at least high enough level to qualify for that league for decades just kind of amazes me. And I guess it's that, well, maybe if you lose some physical skill, you compensate by your greater wiliness and knowledge and experience and smarts. But it still is kind of incredible to me because it seems like it would be so hard to. I mean, I guess it's the fact that for a certain period of our lives on the slog to rigor mortis, we don't decline noticeably physically, right? I mean, there are periods of your life where you very rapidly gain capability.

And there are periods of your life when you're born're born you know when you are just growing up when you go through puberty whatever it is and then there are periods perhaps toward the end where you very rapidly lose that well you know and i don't look i don't mean to in any way minimize like the very real like health decline that people tend to experience in their actual like old age but like even just ben even just your 30s even just your 30s i never i never tweaked my back swiffering in my 20s not even one time and i've done it like four times in the last couple of months and like that's not you know that's like a that's like a couple of days of recovery time and then i'm gonna be fine so i again like i don't want to equate that with some of the like very serious

and at times debilitating health stuff that like people can get as they actually age but like it my my point is mostly just that like it sneaks up on you and i think that when you think about baseball players there's there's the stuff that is very much about on-field production relative to the rest of the league. And then there's the way that on-field production and cost interact with one another, right? It isn't as if the only thing that is determining whether or not a player is rosterable is his talent. It's like, how talented is he relative to what he might expect to make as, say, a free agent or even just an arbitration eligible player? And sometimes there are teams that will take guys who are marginally less talented, but significantly cheaper just because of the cost part. So it isn't even just, are you the best boy out there, right? It's, are you the best boy for the right price? So it is a really remarkable thing. This is why when people look at players and even just think about how streaky they can be and think about that as like a problem. It's like, well, yeah, it's really it's so hard to sustain even for a good player over the course of 162 games to be so consistently good and not have you know not be a beneficiary of the low points averaging out with the high points right it's it's remarkable yeah and then when you take into

account that the league as a whole in theory is getting better all that time all the time yeah that is a factor that we probably should say hey how about how about that? How about that? Pretty impressive. I don't know what else to say about it, but it is pretty amazing that, yes, you can not only withstand whatever physical change is going on there and, you know, hopefully it's less rapid from like 20 to 40 than it is at other times in your life, whatever degradation is occurring there. Whatever degradation is occurring there. And for some players, who knows, maybe they're getting in better shape as they go. It depends on the player. But yes, the fact that then you have, I mean, just think of like what the league was like in the early 2000s and how hard pitchers were throwing and how little teams knew or were applying about like pitch design and all of these things. I mean, just like think about how player development has changed since, you know, Albert Pujols has come in the league or Rich Hill or Adam Wainwright or Yadier Molina, all the Cardinals basically. Like anyone who's been in baseball for a long time, like just think about how much more knowledge, how many more tools and technology players who have come up since then have at their their disposal and yet they are still good like adam wainwright is still good after all this time that's pretty impressive yeah yeah yeah it's incredible i think that you know we don't have to like sit here and go wow all the time because sometimes can, it can be a little grating, right? You're like, all right, like, fine, we get it.

But wow, Ben, they're so great. And I think that like, it's so hard. You know, it's like, they're so great. That's such a hard thing. It's so hard. Yeah. It really is amazing that we think about anything else, right? Just like it's incredible. It remains true simultaneously that we think about anything else, right? Just like it's incredible.

It remains true simultaneously that it is incredible that anyone ever strikes anyone out. And it is incredible that anyone ever gets a hit at all. Like it is just, it is an amazing thing. All right. So these are the last two pre-pedantry questions. And they're both about fun. And this first is about the Cardinals. So this is a good segue from the Wainwright-Pujols-Molina conversation.

Brian says, up front, I'm a Cardinals fan and biased, but are the Cardinals actually a fun team now to objective observers like yourself? I am well aware of their reputation, and of course we all know the longstanding dispute between Meg and the Cardinals, because how dare she and she alone put their playoff chances at 0% last year. I was like, wait a minute. Do I have longstanding beef with – oh, yes. I have terrible beef. Oh, this beef. Yes, Adam Wainwright specifically.

Oh, no. Brian says, please know that I am kidding here. It should have been that low. Well noted. But I do think that they are a fun team. Bader and Edmund are both stealing bags a lot. Bader, too, has a lot of flash in the field, the way he glides around. You got Tyler O'Neill, recently hurt but still being all muscly and super fast.

Goldschmidt and Arenado are undeniable superstars, with Goldschmidt being on one heck of a heater for the past two months. You got Pujols and Molina pulling nostalgia duty. Wainwright is an absolute delight to watch pitch, and even better when you put a mic on him. Though maybe a bit prone to silly bulletin board stuff like all athletes see playoff odds reference above. Hellsie out there in relief, who has been every bit as good as Josh Hader. They have some excellent on-brand devil magic happening with Edmund being close to the top of the world leader board and Brendan Donovan playing everywhere on the diamond or rhombus or whatever the hell the shape is and doing it quite well. Juan Ypez has had the bloom fall off his rose at late, but he's still doing just fine.

And Andre Palante doing the pitcher version of Devil Magic. Their coaches' names, Oli, Skip, Pop, Stubby, and Packy. They have a run production coach named Packy Elkin. Yes, they have two dudes named Packy running around the clubhouse, for goodness sake. Also, weird they need a coach for run production. Seems like that's kind of the whole point of winning games is scoring runs, so it should be sort of baked into the whole coaching deal. But I digress.

There's Willie McGee on the bench, too. We're just, like, naming everyone who is in a Cardinals uniform. We're just saying names now. We're just saying names. Speaking of great names, they have Lars Knutbar in AAA. Lars Knutbar! Who has just had an all-timer of a baseball name. Not the performance of one, not at all, but definitely the name.

They've called up their top pitching prospect and hitting prospects. They just brought up their top catching prospect while Molina was hurt. They have the capacity to run trick plays like that Gorman running through second play, and they are competitive, all without getting much of anything from Flaherty and Matz this season and a middle relief core that has been bad. What more does this team have to do to be a fun team?

Can they transcend their reputation? What reputation are we talking about here? Are we talking about, like, best fans in baseball backlash? Are we talking about, like, in baseball backlash or are we talking about like Cardinals are just like kind of competently, professionally good every year without being great or just – I don't know exactly what we're talking about here. Right. So like I wonder like – I don't want to make fans feel that but like I think that a lot of people's problems with the Cardinals is with their fans. Yeah. And I don't even know if that's fair or not but that is the perception right right like that's the that's the reputation even if i think that like there are parts of it that are probably special and shiny and unique to that fan base and then there are parts of it that are just like

being a fan and shiny and unique makes it sound like some of those attributes are favorable and not all of them are. But I think that when people want to ascribe kind of a bummer tendency to the Cardinals, it tends to be like the stodginess about some elements of their fan base. And I don't want to paint with too broad of a brush because I think there are a lot of fans and they probably have different perspectives on the whole thing. But I think this team in terms of the roster is like quite fun. Plus, like they're, you know, there's that longstanding reputation for devil magic, which is sort of an interesting thing to put in conversation with the fan reputation. Like, I know those fans feel about the devil match seems to run across purposes at times. But I think that this current roster, like it has elements of it that are, you know, kind of whatever, but like it has potential for flash and excitement. And, you know, there are a lot of good players on that team who are playing really well this season. So I think it's a, to my mind, a very big difference between being a professional athlete who is just like casting about for grist for the mill to motivate yourself

through what has to be just like a seemingly interminable slog of a season and like really taking issue with probabilities. And I don't think that those are necessarily the same thing. Like I think Adam Wainwright was joking to some degree and the degree to which he wasn't was like fine professional athlete stuff. So i think they're a fun team i think you can feel like you can feel comfortable saying that like i think that when people take issue with fan bases they tend to take issue with fan bases declaring themselves to be like exceptional in some way and i think that at the end of the day, there is

very little difference between the very best and the very worst behavior in any given fan base. I think a lot of that behavior ends up looking the same, no matter what color jersey you're wearing, because it's bad or good human behavior, right? It's not like anything specific to people living in Houston or St. Louis or Seattle or anywhere else. It's just like, you're a bunch of folks. Some of you are cool. Some of you are jerks. Some of you will manifest that coolness or jerkiness to other people. And when the loudest parts of your fan base maybe do one more than the other, at least for a time, like you get a little bit of a reputation, but that doesn't mean your team isn't fun or that all your fans are that way so yeah i think this is a good case i mean i'm sure that

most fans could make some case for their team being fun at least if that team is good and i think maybe the case you could make against the cardinals is that they're always in that range seemingly like i've heard den saborski and ben clemens joke about how against the cardinals is that they're always in that range seemingly like i've heard den saborsky and ben clemens joke about how like the cardinals every year will project like yes to 92 wins it is a shocking degree of consistency yeah it is and it is like i was about to say it should be studied but it has been studied and it is weird. Yeah, and they're right smack dab in the middle of that range right now. They're on pace for 90 wins. I mean, that would be the case, I guess, is that, A, if you're always pretty good but not great, not a super team or anything, well, then people take your competitiveness for granted.

And they say, oh, yeah, the Cardinals are pretty good again this year. They're making a run at it, you know. So they're not a coming out of nowhere team. They are always competing, always contending, which is good, I think, if you're a fan of that team. But for a neutral observer, it's just the Cardinals. They're like looking at the wallpaper. It's like they're always there, right? Which is admirable and impressive. And maybe they don't get enough credit for that because, I don't know, we don't think of them the way we think of the Rays or the Dodgers when it comes to analytics or whatever or trying unorthodox strategies. But whatever they're doing, it's been working for a really long time incredibly consistently. So I guess consistency is the enemy of fun or excitement

just because it doesn't deviate from what we expect. And if you're not going to be extraordinary in either direction, you're just going to quietly be good every year. Oh, Cardinals are good again. You know, it's just like we talk about change and difference from before and, oh, this is new and novel. We're like wired to notice things that way. And the cardinals are always just sort of there. So that is probably the case against them being fun. But I think Brian makes a good case looking at the individual cardinals and the mix of skill sets and styles and ages and all of that. Like, there's a lot to like on that roster as there is on most

rosters frankly so don't feel bad brian first of all if you think the cardinals are fun then that's all you need it doesn't matter if other people think the cardinals are fun but also i don't think they're unfun i think they have a lot of fun aspects to them too yeah i don't think that they are like you know if you were asking me to name like the most fun team in baseball, I don't know that I would necessarily pick them. But I also wouldn't pick them to be a bummer. So no. All right. Well, here's then the last pre pedantic question, which is also about fun. I don't know how or whether to answer this one, but I've been thinking about it for days. It's just sort of lodged in my head at this point.

So I figured I'd put it out there, see what you think, see what the audience thinks. So listener Kyan, I hope I'm pronouncing that correctly, says, Are there racial undertones in saying that a player is fun to watch? Players who are most commonly cited as fun to watch are BIPOC, Tatis, Soto, Jazz Chisholm, Betts, Acuna, even Otani. Fans and media members who say it mean well. And yes, it literally means that it is enjoyable to watch certain players perform with joy and flair. But there are or could be some negative connotations too. Fun to watch might also mean wants to put on a show but does not take the game seriously.

And there is even a sense perhaps of clownishness in calling a player fun to watch as if he is a jester trying to amuse a mostly white audience. I've been thinking about this since we got the email just because it's been on my mind and every time I've heard a player described as fun to watch since then, it almost exclusively or has exclusively been a player of color. And so there does seem to be a pattern here. To me, I don't know whether it's necessarily a bad pattern, but I mean, I was just hearing the other day like, oh, Julio Rodriguez, fun to watch, you know. And it's interesting to me because on the one hand, I think it's worth examining why a seemingly disproportionate number of the players who tend to be identified most frequently as fun to watch are non-white, or at least that's my perception.

I haven't done a study of this or anything. It's definitely worth thinking about the terms that get applied to them just like given the history of racially coded terms and descriptors in the sport. in the sport. On the other hand, I don't get the sense that there's a prevailing perception that players like Soto or Betts or Otani aren't also like extremely skilled and hardworking and committed to their craft and like any other quality you would want. Like it doesn't seem to me that it's like to the exclusion of that or that it's mutually exclusive in this case. Like this seems different to me than in the past you know there have been various studies about like the terms that broadcasters have used to you know kind of like racial stereotypes right like latin players being called something or black players

being called something you know right there was that and i'm sure that this still happens like the epidemic of fiery players from latin amer And you're like, all right, guys. Yeah, right. Or, you know, flashy or something. Although I guess Brian just described Harrison Bader as flashy in his email. But I'm just saying like that, I think that was pervasive at one time. I think it's less pervasive now. Not that there aren't still some people who would say those things or, you know, people who get mad about bat flips or jewelry or crooked caps or whatever.

But those people who are saying those things, they probably wouldn't even think these players are fun. They might not say these players are fun to watch. They might offend them in some way. So I don't know. One difference it seems to me is that these players, they aren't only identified as fun. It's not like, oh, he's fun, but we don't take him seriously or whatever. It's like these players are often put forth as the faces of baseball. They're like the best possible representatives of the sport or ambassadors for the sport.

And that seems like a good thing. That seems like a sign of progress that players like those would constantly be mentioned in those contexts but it is interesting it's like what do we mean when we say fun to watch and like why does there seem to be patterns associated with that so it's just been kind of lodged in my head ever since this was sent well i think that it i like we should acknowledge like we're two white people having this conversation so but like i think that a lot of so there's sort of the general hypothetical assessment of the deployment of that language and i think that for a lot of historically coded language like regardless of the context you could appreciate how that language was racially coded and then i

think that you want to be constantly assessing both in ourselves and like in the work of broadcasters and writers and even team representatives talking about their own players, what is the context of the conversation and what comes after that descriptor, right? So I think that the distinction being made between sort of fun as compelling, as like a synonym for compelling versus clownish is a really important one. When we talk about Juan Soto, he is an incredibly fun player to watch. And we talk about him as a generational talent in terms of a hitter right he is preternaturally gifted he is both sort of he has inherent skill and is clearly a very studious hitter and is really thoughtful about how he deploys his game that to me i think is different than like having sort of a gesture or clownish aspect which doesn't mean that it can't be overly deployed i think another way to think about it is like is this so he's like is this an indictment of white players like why are you why aren't you

more compelling to watch when i hear fun i think of like dynamic and compelling and engaging and presenting to the viewer you know sort of a perfect blend of skill and sort of comfort in one's own personality and form of self-expression. And so when you're able to bring those two things together, I think that it makes for a really compelling and dynamic viewing experience. But I think it's always useful to continue to assess how we're deploying language because it doesn't stay constant, right? It evolves over time. And if the use of fun becomes like a synonym for clownishness, like then we need to think about whether we're deploying that language in the right way. But I think you can, sometimes you're just describing something

and sometimes you're trying to say something more than what you're actually saying. And we should keep those things in balance. And I don't know that we're going to always do it perfectly. But I think that we mostly mean compelling. And I think that you're right that the players that that label is ascribed to are often demonstrating the height of skill. They are among the very best players that we have in the game. I think that to think about the guy that sometimes is offered in contrast to this, would you describe Mike Trout as fun? Right.

He is obviously an incredibly skilled practitioner. You know, like he is obviously an incredibly skilled practitioner. He is perhaps the best player not only of this generation, but of other generations. But, you know, he's a boring guy. And that's okay. Like, I think that baseball is at its best when it has room for a lot of different kinds of people. Right. And like, I like that he wants to just like seemingly care about the weather and the eagles and hang out with his wife and i like that other people want to like hang out with their

wives but also have other hobbies and i like that some people are like you know they have more compelling interests than just the weather right like it's it's good for there to be able to be a lot of different kinds of people because it suggests that we are making room for a lot of different kinds of people to be themselves. And I think that that's what we're kind of aiming at. Yeah. Or just like the way that you emote on the field. And sometimes those things have become kind of baseball culture war material. Right.

So I was reading an article the other day by Craig Wright, and I'll link it on the show page. But it was about how the style of play in the Negro Leagues was much more dynamic at a certain point than the style of play in the AL and NL, like in the 40s, in the 30s, when you had a very static style of play in the AL and NL where no one was stealing any bases. I mean, even relative today, it was incredibly station to station and no one was running. And the Negro leagues just had a much more dynamic brand of baseball. And so when Negro Leagues players began to integrate into MLB, they brought that running style with them and they probably were just like literally more fun to watch. I mean, it was just like a better brand of baseball at that particular time.

was just like a better brand of baseball at that particular time. You might have a little bit of that going on today when you have this sort of, you know, crackdown on, oh, you can't show emotion on the field. I mean, like Freddie Freeman versus Ronald Acuna and that whole little controversy that came to a head earlier this year where it turned out that like maybe they weren't besties totally and didn't always see eye to eye and that Freeman was kind of upholding some of the Right. little different or behave a little differently from just this like very buttoned down baseball way of playing where you're encouraged to sort of suppress your personality. Well, it is fun to watch people not suppress their personality. So to the extent that there are some differences in the baseball culture you came up in based on where you're from or whatever, like maybe there's something to that. And maybe it's a positive thing that people are celebrating that as fun now, whereas in the past,

you might have condemned that and said, oh, they're making a mockery of the game or this is, you know, they're not playing the game the right way or whatever. Now it's like, well, no, actually that is the right way. That's the better way. This is more fun. Everyone should be like this. So that would be the positive interpretation of how there could be like actual differences that maybe people are picking up on here that like it's fair to call it fun and it's not the result of some sort of implicit or explicit bias of some kind. But I don't know. It's something that I will be paying attention to more as I listen to broadcasts or as I just monitor my own speech, I suppose. So I'm glad that it was brought to our attention and I'd be interested in anyone else's thoughts. Yeah, I think that we want to be mindful of how these things evolve and be sort of open to course correcting as we need to, you know. All right. So a few pedantic questions here, as promised. So Dan from Milwaukee,

just to lead us off, said, are we always being pedantic about baseball or are we sometimes being semantic about baseball? He adds in parentheses, I don't think people can actually be semantic, but you know what I mean, and that's what matters. It's a good question. I mean, we've already printed the t-shirts one way. But it's true that often when we get these pedantic questions, they are about semantics to some extent. So I guess it can be both pedantic and semantic questions about baseball. Yeah. and semantic questions about baseball.

Yeah. Now I'm wondering if we need to do a new run of shirts where we cross out pedantic having crossed out romantic and put semantic, which is that simultaneously being pedantic and semantic? Yeah, could be. All right. Robbie from Potomac, Maryland says, isn't everything that's not a home run, a fly out or pop up

or off the wall, actually a ground ball? For instance, a line drive single or a double into the gap hit the ground before they hit anything else. Oh, you're breaking my brain, Robbie. He has a point. He has a point. This way lies madness, I think. We have to live in a society here. I guess a ground ball, I mean, it depends.

There is some variability in this. If it's like a human stringer who is doing batted ball classifications, you have to decide, like, when did it hit the ground soon enough? I guess it's like if it hits the ground in the infield is maybe a rule of thumb for that being a grab ball. Yes, I think that that is a reasonable rule of thumb. Like, you don't even need to use, like, the porn definition, but you do know when you see it. Yeah, yeah, you don't always know a line drive when you see it

as opposed to a fly ball. Right. But you usually know a ground ball, I would say. You normally, because it's like it rolls along on there for a while. Yeah. This is like treading into hot dog sandwich territory here potentially, which is not my favorite. Yeah, and then we're going to get you talking about how you eat burritos

and we'll never go home. Well made me think all right rob says this is more of an overall sports pedantic question but it applies to baseball for sure why do broadcasters say someone is a former first round pick once they are drafted in the first round aren't they always a first round pick you can't retroactively untake them in the first and select them in another. So saying they are a former first round pick implies that they are no longer a first round pick, which just isn't true. Where do you fall on this? Improbably, we got the same question from multiple people this week. I don't know what that says about our listeners, but Justin P.

They're getting excited about the draft, Ben. That's what that means. I guess't know what that says about our listeners, but Justin P. They're getting excited about the draft, Ben. That's what that means. Yeah, I guess that's true, right? Justin P. says, listening to the emails makes me feel like I'm significantly less pedantic about baseball than most of the listeners. You're welcome. But I did come across one saying that has been bothering me, announcers referring to any and all first round picks as a former number one draft pick. Oh, see, this is slightly different. To me, a number one draft pick is the first overall pick in the draft, not just anyone who was taken in the first round.

I don't think I ever hear used that way outside of baseball either. When other sports say number one pick, it's the first pick in the draft. So two rulings we have to issue here do we have to say former first round pick or is it acceptable to say former first round pick and can we say a former number one draft pick if we were talking about what presumably a team's number one draft pick in that year but not the overall number one in that draft class right we need so you need to distinguish between just first rounders and like a guy who goes one one so there's there's that and i think that what we are trying to do when we say former is to to recognize sort of the

the passage of time and the fact that every year we're going to have a draft class. And so to distinguish between the guys who have been playing affiliated ball and have maybe reached the majors but are no longer sort of draft adjacent, right? And the guys who are just starting that process, just entering affiliated ball are moving from being amateurs to pros i think that's why we do it i i concede the point though that it's silly like you're not getting re-drafted i guess unless there's an expansion draft and then i guess potentially you are getting redrafted yeah it could be a rule five pick well that's well that's the other thing it's like there are multiple drafts although no one's like

oh if we don't say former then they'll think we're talking about the rule five because that's what every baseball fan thinks about is the rule but sorry jj but like most people don't care about that so not us we care but like most people don't so i get why in isolation it reads strangely, but think about it this way. You know, when you are talking about Adley Rutchman right now, you know, he is a former first overall pick and it might not seem like an important distinction, but the week of the draft, you're going to be sure glad that you talked about it in that way because someone else is going to go 1-1 and then you're going to be like, what are we going to do? Yeah.

I'm pretty sure I have said and written former, and it doesn't bother me to say former. Maybe it's like a former first round is former modifying. Yeah, it's modifying the round rather than the player. So it's not the current first round. It's a former first round pick as opposed to a former first round pick. Yeah, like back in the prior, prior. And that would read even more strangely. But I think that we're going to chalk this one up to I see your point.

And I think that there is a good use case for the language we currently use. Yeah, it is usually clear from context if you did not say former i don't think people would be confused but there are edge cases it doesn't offend me i may find myself less inclined to say former now having had this brought to my attention i will definitely not have that inclination because because he's not the first overall pick in that year unless he is. And then you would just say, you know, like the day after the draft, we'll be talking about first overall pick. And then the following year, you know, it's not the same draft class.

You're into an entirely new draft class, so you have to distinguish it. So Justin's question about the former number one draft pick if all first round picks assuming that let's say for simplicity's sake that every team had one first round pick then would they all be number one picks number one draft picks or former if we want it at the former no they would not i think that it is important to say like first overall pick that like connotes something very specific. And then you start to just be specific about where the guy was taken after that, like 16th overall.

And it helps you to distinguish the round, which I think is meaningful. Plus, you want to know who goes 1-1. You don't all have one. You have a first pick, but you don't have a first overall pick. Only one team gets that. That's the one that chooses very first, 1-1. Right.

So if you're a team that has multiple first round picks in a season, how would you distinguish between them? You would say one is your first pick and the other is just a first rounder. Is that what you would say? Well, are they also choosing? Well, I guess it would depend. No, I would just say where in the round they were taken.

I would say they're- You could do that too, yeah. Yeah, I would just say the twins or the D-backs. Remember when the D-backs like a billion draft picks in that one draft yes and you would say you know with their first pick they took so and so and then they drafted x player you know 18th overall or whatever it would be simpler if everyone just had one first round pick and then it would be always clear that if you said that so and so was your first rounder that year that they were also your top pick which is not necessarily

the case yeah and you're not even dealing with sandwich rounds like oh yeah so complicated oh boy and it doesn't help that like you have competitive balance picks and you have compensatory picks right and both of those words are abbreviated as comp that's terrible it's an editorial nightmare particularly since i'm often editing that stuff at like two in the morning and then it's like which one is it we have to be clear and so we need new words i think that a lot of our pedantic emails could just be answered by saying, we should come up with some new words. Yeah. Yeah. All right.

Daniel says, insert longtime listener, first time caller here. I'm currently watching the Twins versus Guardians game and feel so excited that I finally have the opportunity to contribute to my favorite segment. So here's hoping it hasn't already been done. In the top of the second- We really found our people, Ben, you know? We really found them. It's nice. We probably drove off other people,

but we did find some people. In the top of the second, Framio Reyes stepped in to face Devin Smeltzer. The banner at the bottom showed his record against Smeltzer, as it often does. And it said, two hyphen six, as in 2 for 6, 2B double, right? Which is well and good, but it sparked the thought about how one would state that.

I feel like the common phrase would be, he's 2 for 6 with a double, which seems a bit too much. The double is one of the two hits, but the phrasing almost makes it feel extra as though he has two hits and a double. I understand they're highlighting the success by stating his best hit against the pitcher. But if it was all singles, you wouldn't mention the best hit because it was just a single. Maybe the double is seen as more impactful, but if that other hit was a walk-off single and the double didn't turn into a run, who cares? It also may misrepresent Fran Mill's success against Smeltzer. What if he has two hits but four walks in 10 matchups? That would be a horse of a different color. I feel this is a remnant of the batting average era and should be updated to match the current era that puts more of an emphasis on OBP. And the

proposed replacements from Daniel are an OPS of X in Y matchups. Oh no. Or two for six with three total bases. And he signs off. Thank you

for the opportunity to make an unimportant stink i'm sympathetic to why this feels like you're trying to tack on a result right that a guy is you know two for four and also had a double but i think that you know the reason that it gets expressed this way is that they are assuming that you the viewing audience understand that the walks are included and they only have so much space and i think saying two for four you know with a walk and a double. Like it conveys what it needs to in a language that people are accustomed to hearing. Whereas if you said like his OPS is, people will be like, what the hell are you talking about?

And I think that in some ways, giving sort of the overall at-bat results and then individual events, whether they are included in that or you want to talk about walks or hit by pitches or whatever, it conveys more information than OPS would by itself. If you say, this guy has an OPS of X against that hitter, it's like, well, what is the shape of that production?

And I think that you get a little bit more if you highlight individual outcomes and it makes sense to highlight the ones that are basically non-singles. Does that make sense? Yeah. I will use the OPS in however many plate appearances. If it's a lot of plate appearances, I will do that because I don't want to be like he's you know three for 27 or whatever and like have to have you do the math and figure out what that is like if it's a big enough sample then I will give you the OPS and just the sample but otherwise

I mean the real answer to this is to not give tiny hitter batter matchup results because it doesn't mean anything but you still need it for a single game not matter versus pitcher but just how did that guy do today yeah if you're communicating a box score and you want to get a sense of like how a guy performed fine but otherwise like you should just you know

do probabilities that show up on the bottom of the screen yeah all right question from anna patreon supporter i was listening to a game on the radio recently And one of the announcers said something about how Team A has historically been good against Team B And it reminded me of one of my pet peeves But also made me wonder if it should be one in the first place So I thought I'd ask you to I realize that broadcasters have to fill time And there's a long-standing tradition in baseball commentating of relying on small sample data to hype up possible outcomes.

But really, how could it matter if Team A has historically been good against Team B? Team A and Team B usually don't have the same lineups day to day, much less over years. Players aren't playing the same as they age, and pitchers' command of their pitches comes and goes, sometimes pitch by pitch. To compound this apples to oranges issue, in this instance, Team A and Team B are from different leagues and divisions. So they play only a handful of games against each other every few years. Should I be irritated by this lazy baseball math or am I just being pedantic? I think it depends. I think that it doesn't really.

I think that it is useful if it is communicating like the depth of a rivalry then it is useful so if it's between you know division rivals if it's between teams that historically just hate each other for whatever reason if you are you know if it's the subway series and you want to you want to show like how the yankees and the mets have played against one another i think that it communicates depth of rivalry and sort of the how contentious and cantankerous they might be with one another. But even for division rivals, unless it is like you're looking at sort of a recent, you know, sort of snapshot of those teams, even then it's like not a ton of games. And even if their rosters are largely the same, they're still going to be turnover, right? Like if you're talking about

the division record between the Astros and the Mariners for the last 10 years, like what does that mean? Like barely any of those guys are on either of those teams anymore, you know? So I think that if what you're trying to convey is these two teams hate each other, and you should tune in because it's going to be raucous, then it's like, okay. Or if you're trying to say, just to stay in the AL West, I guess, the Mariners have been down on their luck, and the Astros have been dominant, and they've've played and it has gone badly for Seattle. And that is, I think, true if we were to check their record over the last five or 10 years. Like that conveys sort of directional information about the state of both of those franchises.

But I don't think it tells you anything like all that predictive about what's going to happen that day any more than just like the Astros are good and the Mariners are not you know like yeah you might as well just cite their overall records right like that's more informative but if what you want to communicate is like it's the yankees and the and the red socks and they hate each other then then having the head-to-head matchup record is like oh like we get a sense of that and we might get a sense of like how this rivalry has unfolded recently but it doesn't really tell you all that much the one exception maybe would be twins versus yankees oh yeah because that's just that's just uh my it might be a curse it might i mean could be i actually believe it is no but it could could be. Look, we are not so self-assured to think that we understand everything.

It could be. It seems unlikely, but I don't know. And that just captures the fan experience. And so I think it's worth saying, even if you're not suggesting, therefore, the Twins are less likely to win now than they would be against a comparable team. Before the Twins are less likely to win now than they would be against a comparable team. You're just saying like, hey, you as a fan, when you see the Yankees as a Twins fan, you are not happy because you have a lot of very sad memories associated with that matchup over the past 20 years. So we're not saying this means anything. We're just saying this captures and reflects the fan experience. But that has like – it's not a division rivalry. But it has reached such depths of extreme mismatch that it has become a storyline of its own and taken on a life of its own.

And so I will give special dispensation to anyone to mention that just because somehow it just seems to get worse constantly and is like so anomalous and so extreme that it just makes me do a double take every time yeah well and like you know i think there are other postseason rivalries that are of more recent vintage that have that sort of same flavor to them right where it's like you know you could talk about the dodgers and the astros or you could talk about the Yankees and the Astros. You could talk about any number of teams and the Astros. And you could probably communicate something about how those teams feel about one another that would be interesting. And as long as you're not saying, and it is also predictive, then I think it's fine.

Yeah. All right. Nuclearia, a Patreon supporter, says, a home run is the only hit that can truly clear the bases. Saying that somebody hit a bases-clearing double is not correct, because that person is currently standing on second base. That said, if the player who hit the double went for third and was tagged out, then I guess it is technically bases-clearing, maybe.

Okay, but so here's the thing it cleared all the guys who were on base when when the hitter stepped into the batter's box so I think that this one is okay yes a bases clearing doubler triple or even a bases clearing single imagine something like that would be quite a time you know there is still a runner left on base, but all of the runners who were already on base at the start of that at bat are now back in the dugout. And so I think it is okay. But I appreciate the spirit of the question.

Follow-up question. Oh, no. In your opinion, can the bases be cleared if they are not full? Oh, no. In your opinion, can the bases be cleared if they are not full? Is it still a bases clearing hit if there were only runners on first and second? I think yes, but I think it is a more meaningful designation if they were full. But I think that you can clear the bases with one empty.

Agreed. Yeah. You can clear your plate if it's, or clear a table if it's not full of things. That's the best analogy I've got right now. Leave it in. It's perfect. I have no notes. Yeah. I agree with you though. I think that's right. But I think that it is a particular,

it is sort of the pinnacle of the form. If the bases are loaded and you gap a double and everybody comes home and then you're standing on second base and you're doing finger guns or you're going, yeah, and you're doing stuff and people are like, ah, then it is a particularly special form of a bases clearing, whatever. But I think that we will allow for bases clearing hits

that do not require them to be full. Here's an interesting thing, though. I think that there need to be at least two base runners. I don't think that people would say a bases clearing double if there was only one guy on base. That's true i think it has to be at least two technically still correct i guess if you were to say that but yes but i think i would be surprised if you said that yes and then it turned out that one run scored you're like oh

you had just an it's an rbi and like yes you just had you just had an rBI in the other instance also, but I don't think that announcers generally deploy bases clearing when there is only one base runner. Yeah, well, that leads us into the last question in this trilogy from NuclearArea about home run related terminology. Home runs that drive in multiple runs should be called three RBI home runs rather than three run home runs. should be called three RBI home runs rather than three run home runs. I understand that it could be correct when referring to the team, but saying that Aaron Judge hit a three run home run is crazy. He only scored one run on the play. Well, but you only...

This one is the biggest stretch of all. But it's a reference to the score. Yeah. I think it's fine. I think this one. I think this one is totally fine. I think this one is fine. I think it's okay to say he hit a three-run shot because three runs scored.

I don't think that the implication is that he himself scored three runs. No. Because, especially because we have a stat for that it's called run scored yeah i mean i guess the point is that the home run itself the home run is is one run right no but it scored three runs no no no wait a minute i'm getting radicalized here as I think of this. So like the home run itself is one run. The player hits the home run and scores the one run. He runs home. He scores one run and then propels other players across the plate who score their own runs. Right.

And what do they score? They score runs. Yes. Yeah. I tried nuclear, yeah. I can't go with you on this one. I appreciate the spirit of the question. Like, we shouldn't assume these things.

You know, like quite often we should be pedantic about them, but sometimes it's fine. Mackenzie says, I am a hopelessly committed lifelong Seattle Mariners fan and as such often find myself contemplating minutiae, oddities, and curiosities to find solace in another lost season. Oh, boy. The other night I was listening to the radio broadcast. Side note, I find the M's broadcast team to be reliably entertaining and enjoyable.

Yeah. And Rick Riz mentioned that one of the Minnesota Twins players, if I remembered whom this would be a much better question, had made their Major League debut at T-Mobile Park in 2018. In 2018, T-Mobile Park was Safeco Field. So a player could not have made their debut in T-Mobile Park because it wasn't T-Mobile Park. It was Safeco Field. I realize that this is a distinction between two large corporations. For reasons unknown, I keep reflecting on this meaningless throwaway line in a broadcast. Maybe I'm a bit off on my timeline, but the premise of the question still stands. I understand that for brand purposes,

that transition makes all references to the present sponsor of paramount importance to the broadcast team, causing a certain amount of tense confusion. I'm curious what you think. Also, I had occasion to glance at the Wikipedia page for T-Mobile Park and listed as the owner At the time of this writing is Mike Trout

Yeah because he hit a bunch of home runs Yes he did Thanks for your unerring dedication to the full spectrum Of baseball fandom and for entertaining The peculiarities that entails And this would be one of them I think this is a point well taken so i have like on my instagram which like is just for my family so don't worry about it you guys i had photos from

safeco that were tagged at safeco field and when the name change happened they automatically were changed to t-mobile park even they happened, they were taken at a time when it was... Yeah. And so if I were on the broadcast, I think that what I would opt to say is he made his debut in Seattle. Yeah.

I mean, you could say at Safeco Field, but that might be confusing to people. So I would say he made his debut here in Seattle in 2018. In this ballpark. Yeah, in this ballpark. Yeah. Yeah, because you're right. It was not T-Mobile Park. made his debut here in seattle in 2018 in this ballpark yeah in this ballpark yeah yeah because

you're right it was not it was not team opal park you know we deal with this quandary with like and the stakes of it are much higher given why the name was changed but like you deal with this with the guardians like how do you refer to players yeah who played on prior iterations of the cleveland team when they had a different name and so so this is something that folks have to kind of think through to figure out how are we going to differentiate this stuff. Obviously, more important in Cleveland's case than in T-Mobile's. I don't think Safeco is offending anyone.

But yeah, I would say he made his debut here in Seattle. He made his debut at this park because the sponsorship does situate it in a particular time. Yeah. I think with that Cleveland and the Guardians example, I think I would probably not apply the name retroactively. I'm just thinking like, you know, if I'm talking about like Bob Feller or something, am I going

to say like he was a guardian, a Cleveland guardian? That would be weird, right? Like he did not think he was a Cleveland guardian. No one called him a Cleveland guardian. Like that would be strange. I would probably just, if I didn't want to say the name, just call it a Cleveland or whatever we were saying before they were named to the guardians. So I think I would not change that. And with a ballpark, like it doesn't matter nearly as much, I think I would not change that. And I, with a ballpark, like, it doesn't matter nearly as much,

I think. So I would probably just say whatever I think of that park's name as, right? And we've talked about that in the past, how like, well, we're not necessarily under any obligation to like update our mental accounting of like what's the sponsor this season or that season you know you can call it whatever you remember it as and so whatever i think of it as i think i would say and probably would not feel any pressure to like make sure that i was getting the year and the appropriate sponsor and all of that so So I would definitely not say that, like, you have to retroactively apply the current name. But if you did apply the current name because that's how you think of that park, I would say that's fine, too. Yeah, I think that that's a fine way to

distinguish it. But I would generally just say, like, you know, he debuted in Seattle. Yeah, right. He debuted here. You're there. Exactly. Yeah, I guess unless your team is on the road and you're talking about your home park, but yes. Okay, last question, and this will segue into the past blast. This is from Dennis, who says, The MLB rulebook officially and exclusively refers to the on-deck circle as the next batter's box. It's inarguably a circle, though, not a box, which is a three-dimensional

shape for what it's worth. The phrase on deck has also been in use forever, and it's familiar to every baseball fan. Why does MLB insist on calling it something not just different, but objectively inaccurate? Or are we all wrong for calling it something other than what MLB calls it? Or are we all wrong for calling it something other than what MLB calls it? So in this case, I sent this to Richard Hershberger, who has been providing our pass blast because I thought he would have some historical perspective here. And he did. And he said, I will start with a pedantic response to the question that wasn't asked because that is the best kind of pedantry. On deck has indeed been used since the 1870s. There is a plausible but unconfirmed story that in 1872, the Boston Red Stockings were on a barnstorming tour in Maine where they played the local club in Belfast. The scorers would announce the batters. The Boston

scorer simply announced, G. Wright at bat, Leonard and Barnes next. The Belfast scorer jazzed things up a bit with Moody at bat, Boardman on deck, Dismore in the hold. The Bostons were enchanted and took the idea home with them. George Wright was still around and confirmed it, though perhaps he was just being polite. We know the game did happen with the names matching up and the timing works out, so I'm willing to classify the story as more likely than not, as the lawyers say. The metaphor itself is straightforwardly nautical. This is obscured by the modern in the hole, but in earlier years it was in the hold. The batter is likened to a sailor aloft in the rigging. The next guy is a sailor on the deck preparing to go up, and the next guy after that is lollygagging below decks.

So this gives us a bit of colorful baseball slang dating to the 1870s. Now we turn to the box. While it is true that the word originally referred to a three-dimensional object, various secondary meanings are long established. We're quoting dictionary definitions here. That's always trouble. Merriam-Webster includes a usually rectangular space that is frequently outlined or demarcated on a surface. Your word processing software allows you to put text inside a box, for example.

The pitcher was first confined to within a rectangle in 1864, and the better 10 years later, these were soon informally called boxes. We still talk about a pitcher being knocked out of the box, even though the pitcher's box was abolished in 1893. The rules, however, did not use this language but merely defined their size and location. Baseball slang tends to gradually work its way into the rules. This is not intentional. The rules committee inexplicably lacking a linguistic consultant. That's what we need. If the word is common enough, the writer might not even realize that it isn't already in the rules, or it may be put in a quasi-official note, which doesn't call for quite the same level of formality. From there, it is a short jump to the main body. The less colorful the slang term, the easier it is to make this transition. It would feel ridiculous to have the official rules define dingers. Better to stick with home runs. Both box and on deck eventually worked their way in but the less colorful box had a much easier time of it the 1920 rules added to the existing rules

setting out the batsman's lines a note of advice should it be impossible to outline a box on the field jump forward to the 1950 major reformatting of the rules and batter's box and catcher's box are in the formal definitions. What about the on-deck circle? I'm not sure when this feature appeared, but it was certainly no later than the 1930s. No one thought to regulate them, however, until the 1950s. Those rules make no mention, while the 1955 diagram of the field includes the next batter's box. My collection of rulebooks sadly lacks the intervening years, so this is as close as I can narrow it down. Why did they go for that clunky phrase? On deck circle was a well-established phrase, but on deck was too obviously slangy, hence the more staid box. And while yes, most

boxes are rectangular, this is not invariably true. Hat boxes are usually round. Yeah, it's true. On deck appears in the modern rules exactly once in rule 9.19 defining saves. Saves became an official statistic in 1969, but the rule was refined in 1975 with the language unchanged since. Yes, they could go back to that diagram and change next batter's box to on deck circle and no one would complain or even notice. You underestimate our audience, Richard. and no one would complain or even notice. You underestimate our audience, Richard. The practical reality is that they are unlikely to do this without some affirmative reason to do so,

such as this podcast calling attention to this embarrassing, just archaic, anachronistic term that they're using here. The 2015 reformatting would have been a logical time to do this. My guess is that no one thought of it. The good news is is that no we are not wrong for calling it the on deck circle no one in the history of baseball has called it the next batter's box i do think about it every time i read the rule book though yeah which you do more often than most yeah i do i do do that don't i i do, do that. But I think about it every time because you have a batter's box, and that is a particular shape. And then you have the next batter's box, and it's a different shape. Yeah.

And it feels like you should – we have all these words. You know, just use some words. All right. Let's do the Pass Blast. So Richard is a historian, a saber researcher, the author of Strike Four, The Evolution of Baseball. And he has become a regular listener of the podcast. And so sometimes he sends me notes about other things that we have discussed. For example, in our discussion of the new base on balls rule that we talked about in last episode's Pass Blast, we likened it to a pace of play issue. He says, I want to strengthen that.

It was not like a place of play issue. This is exactly what it was. Pace of play issues are one of the great driving forces in the history of the rules. The swinging strike was the earlier identifiable addition to the game put there in response to the batter who was hopelessly flailing, making everyone else stand around and wait for him to successfully put the bat on the ball. The solution was that the third time he swung and missed, the ball was in play regardless and he had to run for first. And he also notes in response to our discussion of color-coded, lively, and dead balls, in the 1870s, balls were not so standardized as they later

became. The size and content were regulated, but this left a lot of room for livelier or deader balls using slightly different materials and winding the yarn looser or tighter. Manufacturers advertised their balls as lively or dead. That's admirable. They just put it out there. They didn't leak it in a memo

that was then reported on or anything. That's great. That's not why I'm laughing. Yeah, there's that too. The color of the ball was completely unregulated. Some manufacturers combine these in their marketing with the dead red ball. And he sends me an image which

I will link. And then last response to episode 1866 about mandating crappier gloves. He says, this is definitely a possibility. Gloves have been regulated since 1895 when they were limited, other than for the catcher in first baseman, to 10 ounces with a circumference no more than 14 inches around the palm. In 1950, this was no more than 12 inches long by 8 inches wide. The modern rule is 13 inches long by 7 3⁄4 inches wide.

Interpreting how precisely these measurements were taken is not straightforward, but it is clear that the original 1895 rule would not allow modern gloves. Nowadays, in practice, the limitations only matter to outfielders. With infielders, the optimal size is a balance of a larger glove to field the ball versus a smaller glove so the fielder can quickly fish the ball out to throw it to a base. The result is that infielders' gloves are smaller than the maximum legal glove. Good point, rendering the rule irrelevant for infielders. It is entirely possible to mandate a suboptimal glove, thereby increasing BADEP. To the complaint that we want to let elite athletes maximize their performance, then why don't we let outfielders use gloves that are optimized for their position?

For that matter, why do we restrict the materials used to make bats? Baseball has always placed essentially arbitrary restrictions on what equipment is legal. These restrictions by their very nature exist to make the player perform less well. There is no reason why infielders' gloves have to be exempt from this. Yeah, that's a pretty good point. Yep. All right. So this is episode 1867, and we have a pass blast from 1867.

So usually these are kind of quirky and weird and some new silly rule, or at least what sounds silly to our modern ears. This one a little more serious, perhaps, but timely also. So Richard says, 1867's item is presented in honor of the Athletic instructing its writers to stick to sports, which if you haven't seen, that was reported on by defectors Laura Wagner recently and apparently- Really great timing. Yes.

Good luck navigating that one. So The Athletic, because it's now a part of The New York Times, they are having some restrictions put in place where they're not supposed to talk about politics not just in their articles but also like in their own personal platforms and the explanation – Yeah. It's a social media policy that seems completely unworkable. It does. Yeah, the explanation is very convoluted, like explaining how this would work or why it would work. And obviously, people have had concerns about like, will this impact the athletics coverage

of certain issues, et cetera. And there were some very questionable quotes from the athletics chief content officer who, I don't know who originated this policy or if they're just complying with time standards or whatever it is. But just the idea that basically like you can talk about what are clearly political issues without like actually talking about political parties or anything like trying to thread that needle somehow just seems somewhat nonsensical. Trying to thread that needle somehow just seems somewhat nonsensical. And when it came to race, which is going to be related to this past blast, the chief content officer said, I don't personally view matters of race as politics. Again, like it could become a matter of politics if it goes that way. But on its own, I don't think that race is a political thing in what we're talking about. OK, sir. All right.

So that is the prelude to 1867's item. Richard writes, the years immediately following the Civil War were a fleeting moment in American history when civil rights for African Americans was a sufficiently mainstream position that people, at least in the North, felt obliged to be polite about it. This was a problem when the Pythian Baseball Club of Philadelphia sent a delegate to Harrisburg to join the convention of the Pennsylvania State Baseball Association. The Pythians were a model club, just the sort that the association was eager to recruit in all ways but one. They were a quote-unquote colored club. Their delegate was the splendidly named Raymond Burr, a great-grandson of Aaron Burr, the third vice president of the United States. Burr had allies at the convention but not enough

votes. After a day of canvassing, it became clear that the Pythians' application would be rejected. Their allies persuaded Burr instead to withdraw, saving him the embarrassment of being blackballed, no pun intended, and the other delegates the embarrassment of going on record blackballing the Pythians for no other reason than their race. See Dr. King's letter from a Birmingham jail for the same advice from liberal whites a century later. The convention of the National

Association of Baseball Players met later that fall. While the bullet had been dodged in Pennsylvania, the National Association was concerned about a repeat effort. They preempted this possibility by adopting a resolution to reject all applications from colored clubs for representation in the association. Here is the advice of Henry Chadwick, the preeminent baseball writer of the day and future Hall of Famer before the convention. Chadwick, we talked about yesterday, right? Last episode, because he was the one saying, hey, when you have a walk, you have to actually go to first base. Here he is writing, we hope to see a strong representation from Southern clubs. We regret to see that there Here, he is writing, nothing of this kind will be attempted. Thus far we have steered clear of this stumbling block,

and we sincerely hope it will be avoided for years to come. If the colored clubs are as numerous as represented, it would be advisable for them to get up an association of their own. We wish to exclude every question from discussion in the convention that in any way has a political complexion, and for this reason, we shall oppose any such recognition as to the one above alluded to. Let the subject be one excluded from the convention entirely in any shape or form. And if the two committees nominating and committee of rules avoid it, it cannot legally come up in the convention for discussion. That was from the New York Sunday Mercury, November 10th, 1867. So Richard says, here we have stick to sports distilled to its essence.

Chadwick was not particularly racist by the standards of the day. He seldom wrote about race and seems to have been largely uninterested in the subject. He was very interested in the growth of baseball as a respectable middle-class sport. If black players wanted to play too, that was fine with him, but asking white delegates to sit as equals in convention with black delegates would dissuade many clubs, especially those southern clubs, from participating. This would be controversial, which to Chadwick was the same as being political. Stick to sports, he advised the convention. They were only too happy to concur.

It's a hell of an era adjustment. Yeah. Richard says, stick to sports is and always has been facile and insipid. Sports are part of the surrounding culture, which is political throughout. Who gets to play on what terms they get to play, where they get to play? These are all political questions and every bit as relevant today as in 1867. Chadwick confused accepting the status quo as avoiding politics. That is what stick to sports always means. For those who think this ended in 1947, show me the openly gay players on active MLB rosters. Just look at our iTunes reviews. Well, yeah, perhaps some after this episode.

But yeah, that was timely. I guess it has always been timely, probably. But that is very much like what that memo from The Athletic said. So I guess a lot of the past blasts are about how things haven't changed at least spiritually speaking and that it certainly applies here so this one a little less uh silly a little less quirky and quaint but i think uh quite relevant and instructive so thank you you, Richard. Yeah. It's like for me to say something,

we'd be here for another hour. All right. Well, let us end here. Take care of each other, folks. Yes, please. You can support Effectively Wild on Patreon by going to patreon.com slash effectively wild. The following five listeners have already signed up and pledged some monthly or yearly amount

to help keep the podcast going and get themselves access to some perks while helping us stay ad-free. Richard Durkee, Jeremy Giller, Francesca Ossie, Graham Lesch, and Melissa Danielson. Thanks to all of you. Our Patreon supporters get access to perks including Effectively Discordant,

the Discord group for patrons only, as well as bonus pods hosted by yours truly and Meg, playoff live streams later in the year, discounts on t-shirts, and more.

Please keep your questions and comments for me and Meg coming via email at podcastfangraphs.com or via the Patreon messaging system if you are a supporter. You can join our Facebook group at facebook.com slash group slash effectively wild.

You can rate review and subscribe to effectively wild on iTunes and Spotify and other podcast platforms. You can follow effectively wild on Twitter at EW pod, and you can find the effectively wild subreddit at our slash effectively wild. Thanks to Dylan Higgins for his editing and production assistance. We hope you have at least a tolerable weekend, and we will be back to talk to you early next week. You're a fool to stay. You say you always feel half empty. And I'm just a little fool to think of changing my semantics.

Could ever break you.