Effectively Wild: A FanGraphs Baseball Podcast - Effectively Wild Episode 1897: Pluses and Meneses

Episode Date: September 2, 2022

Ben Lindbergh and Meg Rowley banter about the annual promotion of Terrance Gore as a harbinger of the changing seasons, the modest September roster expansion and the arrivals or returns of Gunnar Henderson, Oswald Peraza, and Billy Hamilton, an umpire caught swearing on a hot mic (4:45), whether the Yankees could actually lose their lead […]

Leave behind what you can, you can always return The rhythm remains unbroken, unspoken, but loud and clear It's a slow vibration. Migration. Hello and welcome to episode 1897 of Effectively Wild, a baseball podcast from Fangraphs presented by our Patreon supporters. I am Ben Lindberg of The Ringer, joined by Meg Rowley of Fangraphs. Hello, Meg. Hello. The calendar has flipped to September, and it blows

in New York where I am, going down to the 60s tonight. It's feeling a little like fall in my mind, but nothing makes it feel more like fall, like Terrence Gore being back in the big leagues. It's like the swallows coming back to Capistrano. I guess

that actually happens in March, I think. They go somewhere else at this time of year. They go to Argentina. But birds start flying south, at least in the hemisphere where I am. And that's a sign. Geography is a construct. I don't know. We just decided that the Earth is this way up and that way down.

It doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. But the point is that those signs mark the passing of the seasons. But nothing marks that more than Terrence Gore getting back to the big leagues. I guess he didn't actually make it back to the big leagues during the regular season last year. Maybe he did. Maybe he just didn't play. He won a ring, right? He was with the Braves. At least he played in one playoff round. He got his third World Series ring. Now he's back up with the Mets. So rosters have expanded about maybe some of the pressures that are leading to top prospects coming up now. But Gunnar Henderson finally came up for the Orioles and hit a majestic home run. Yeah. His first hit and his helmet went flying and so did his hair. He's got a majestic head of hair. Yeah. Yeah.

And now the Yankees have called up Oswald Peraza and, you know, lost a prospect coming up. But also the pinch runners, the October speedsters are coming back. And the twins called up Billy Hamilton, but Terrence Gore, former Effectively Wild guest, long may he sprint. He actually just stole a base, I believe, in his first game for the Mets. He pinch ran for Daniel Vogelbach, which that's got to be among the biggest sprint speed differentials that you could possibly come up with. Vogelbach to Gore. So it doesn't look to me like he's really lost a step, even though he's getting up there. I guess it's been a while now that he has been doing this annual migration. And he's 31 only, but he's still a super speedster. And so I hope he

gets that fourth ring someday, whether it's with the Mets or not. But what a singular career, just unique and special. So happy to see him back in the bigs. Yeah, man. What's it like to have weather in the 60s? That sounds great. Yeah, it's pretty nice. I welcome the fall. You were groaning a little bit, it sounded like, about the changing of the seasons. Or maybe it's just that you don't have seasons. Yeah, it's 104 degrees right now, Ben. That's why I was groaning.

I was groaning because at this very moment in Arizona, where I am, it is 104 degrees. Yeah, well, maybe not feeling so much like fall there but Terrence Gore is back in the big leagues so well you know you need these things to help orient you in the calendar when the seasonal indicators are not what you're accustomed to so I say thank you to Terrence Gore and also go screw off to 104 degrees, I'm glad that rosters don't expand as much as they used to because that got out of hand a little bit. And we already have bigger rosters throughout the year and we have more new major leaguers than ever before.

And I already can't keep track of all the big leaguers. So I know a few players here and there might miss out on making their major league debuts and that's sad for them. But I'm glad they expand just enough to accommodate Terrence Gore at this particular time of year. This is our new annual reminder to relevant parties that those September roster days, they count for rookie eligibility now. You watch out with your lists out there.

Some of those guys are going to come off those lists. So I just sent you a very special video that I will also link to on the show page for everyone to enjoy if they have not. As I recall, we said at the beginning of the season, maybe you said that one of the positive byproducts of having umpires mic'd up on the field to make calls that would be understandable by people in the ballpark is that eventually we would get a hot mic situation. Oh, yeah. And we sort of have. There have been a few cases that were kind of funny, but I don't feel like we got the full experience that we were wanting and hoping for.

And we just got it. It finally happened, I think. So this was August 30 30th this was in the padres giants game i've watched it about 10 times you were watching it now for the first time so i gotta get your your live reaction yeah i gotta i gotta do sound right i need some sound yes okay we need sound all right here we go. Are you ready? Yes. After review. Oh, shit. After review. The column of film is overturned. Runners, stay.

It's so good. Wait, I'm going to watch it one more time. Oh, shit. Oh, I love it. Poor Adrian Johnson is the umpire. But it's great.

What a great thing. Yeah. And the first reply under it is from the same account. I'm at umpjob on Twitter is the one that I'm looking at. And there are just a couple screen grabs of him when he realizes that he did this. And it was broadcast to everyone. And it's just the face of someone who just said, oh shit, to a ballpark. It's like an oh shit face about saying, oh shit, basically.

It's just great because like, I guess he said oh shit initially because I guess he thought that he was not mic'd up or like the mic was not on, right? Because he reached for it and then he started talking, but I guess he thought that he was not coming through the PA. And so he said, oh shit. And that is when he realized that he was in fact coming through the PA and he quickly recovered. I guess there's just that one instance, a little bit of deer in the headlights. Uhoh did i just do that yes i did and then he went on with his business and life proceeded but we got a special little moment there i'm happy it happened yeah and then he has this like look on his face after that's like oh like you know that like that that pure sort of coy little smile of oh boy i'm I'm going to hear about this on the internet later. Yep. Well, thank you, Adrian, for giving us that moment to treasure forever. So we teased earlier this week that on this episode, we would be getting a guest to discuss the minor league unionization efforts and MLB extending the prospect of unionization to all of the affiliated minor leaguers. And

we've made good on that promise. And we will be talking to our pal Evan Drellick of The Athletic, who has been writing and reporting on this topic. So that will take up most of this episode. Just before we get to that, I wanted to know whether you think the Yankees are actually in the danger zone at this point. We've talked about them and we've talked about their long slide and stagnation and just the fact that they built up that big buffer and they've been slowly but surely frittering away that lead. It's now down to six games as we speak on Thursday here. So when you say danger zone,

you mean like that they are in danger of losing the East? Yeah. Wow. I know it's still not likely to happen. No, but. It's within the realm of possibility. They're only up by six games on the raise, five in the loss column,

and they're starting a series against them this weekend right suddenly actually has some playoff implications yeah and they just finished a three and four west coast swing against the A's and the Angels which is not great if you go three and four against the A's and the Angels Shohei Otani hit a dagger of a dinger to beat them in the most recent game it was three to two and he hit a three run homer boy what a what a home run that was though can we it was oh boy that sounded yep yeah it was a mistake pitch they are not all mistake pitches but that one that was i would say that was that was that was skews a crude way of saying this that was like right down the dick that pitch

yes yeah that was one garrett wanted back, as they say. And it was preceded by a couple of other mistakes, fielding mistakes, which is why there were two runners on. So that was not great for them. And now they go back across the country. They face the Rays. Their lead was once 15 and a half. Now it's down to six. They just finished their worst calendar month since September of 1991 when they were managed by Stump Merrill. So they went 10 and 18 in August. Like, it's been bad. And I know the playoff odds still paint a pretty rosy picture of their chances not only of making the playoffs, which still 100%,

I believe, but also still almost 92% to win the division. I don't know how many Yankees fans are feeling 92% confident right now about that because there are a lot of head-to-head games left between these teams. There's the Yankees-Rays series. I think there is then a subsequent series because the Yankees play the Rays this weekend. Then they play the Twins for four games and then they play the Rays again for three more. So 10 days from now, we might have a better idea of this. I guess the saving grace for them

is that the teams that are trailing them also have a lot of games against each other. So I think the Rays and the Jays have nine games left against each here. And maybe that will buy the Yankees just enough rope here not to hang themselves, I guess would be the way to say it. But boy, they're a bit banged up, but then so are the Rays, right? They've been banged up all season, so you can't really use that excuse. And maybe they'll get a bit healthier before the end here. They'll get that big bat of Matt Carpenter back perhaps. But yeah, it has been bad. And you would think that with just about a month left in the season, there's probably not enough time left for them to blow this thing. But boy, they're cutting it closer than I ever thought they would. Yeah. You know, I think that we're at the point where it's like definitely not comfortable i still find it unlikely i think i

find it unlikely yeah but you know i'm thinking about it right you asked me the question and i was like in the danger zone of what and then i was like you know what that's not a that's not a wild question he just asked me man that pitch that gar that Garrett Cole hung was really bad. Oh, yeah. It wasn't quite, quite center, but it was pretty freaking close. Anyway, sorry. I was just looking at Saban. I was like, what if, in fact, it was not, as they say, down the dick? And then I was like, no, that's right down the dick.

It was. Yep. Sorry, guys. I think that it's not comfortable. And we should allow that there is a part of the Yankees fandom that seems prone at times to catastrophizing. You know? You just say, like, you know, a part of it that is at times prone, not just prone, to catastrophizing.

I think that a larger segment of that fandom could now reasonably catastrophize. And I would look at them and go, yeah, that makes sense to me. You know, that seems about right. I think the Yankees are probably going to be fine. I think they'll probably be fine, you know. But the thing about it is there are other good teams in baseball, and the Yankees are going to run into those teams in the postseason. I mean, it won't feature Otani,

but you could throw that pitch to just about any hitter on any of the teams that are going to go to the postseason. That's probably a home run. So they've got some stuff to sort out. They're not as healthy as they could be, but they're healthier than they were a couple days ago. They're going to continue to get healthier. They're getting some guys back.

They have a brand new Oswald Peraza. So I think it'll probably be fine and that they will still win that division. But I think that it will be more the results of the sort of inter interdivision matchups against the teams that might displace them. It won't entirely be that, but it will be more a result of that and those teams kind of beating up on each other

as we get into these final couple of weeks than it would have been a while ago, right? Like, you know, a while ago, the Yankees were just like, it was so good and the catastrophizers were not being reasonable and it wouldn't have mattered really what those teams did against each other because the Yankees

were just being steamrollers. And now they have a, do steamrollers have tires? Do they have a flat tire? They have that cylindrical thingy. Well, right, that's the part on the front, but I mean, what's propelling that part? Yeah, I think they have tires on the side of that thing. Yeah, there's tires.

It's like a big rig of some sort, right? Yep. Anyway, I don't know what metaphor I'm even searching for at this point, but I would just say that I imagine that the Yankees will still win the East. I feel less confident in that than I did a little while ago, and I think that Yankees fans can feel uncomfortable. They can sit there and be uncomfy. And that is not catastrophizing. It is simply reacting to like their best starter can hang and just, I mean, a meatball,

meatball of a pitch, just like, you know, Tani's gonna do something with that. But I think, like I said, I think pretty much anyone would. My goodness. I think that most Yankees fans are past the point of concern for just, is this team actually good? And like, once we get it to the playoffs, will we win anything? And we've had that conversation recently about whether how you perform leading up to the playoffs is predictive of anything. But when you've been bad for quite a while, obviously, that's a valid concern. I'm just saying, like, table that concern for the moment and have a more imminent concern about, like, making sure you win the division.

I'm sure I don't have to tell Yankees fans to be worried because they worry maybe more than they need to but in this case uh you know it's it's not like defcon one which is the worst defcon yeah i was gonna say can you please re-familiarize all of us with the defcon scale who came up with that idea i know any scale where you always have to remind people what the scale is you have failed. To be clear, I'm sure that people whose jobs are more intimately wound up in the DEFCON scale probably know. I mean, I hope if they don't, we have other problems that we need to sort out. So I guess let's play a little, let's play a little, you know, the Yankees suck for a second. I mean, I'm not saying they suck, like let's lean into that for a minute like all you yankees fans were like no make this secretly

suck and now you're gonna be mad that i've said that because only you get to say this like i understand how it goes so but let's pretend for a second that they suck for just a couple weeks just for a little while here and they fall out of it and i guess tampa takes their spot at the top of the East. They're the closest right now. And so then we'll say that otherwise these standings remain the same, I guess. Right? Sure. So in that situation, we would have Houston and Tampa with first round buys. I realize that this is probably a goofy way of doing this

because all sorts of things could move up and down in these rankings. But basically what I'm trying to engineer is a scenario where the Seattle Mariners end the season. Oh, yeah. Some 95. Yeah, because like, you know,

right now the Mariners are in the second wildcard spot in the AL, which means they would go on the road to Tampa if all these standings remain the same, right? And then Cleveland would get to face off against Toronto in Cleveland is the way that these would sort out. But what if, what if, Ben,

the Rays swap places with the Yankees and then Seattle just keeps winning because they're, you know, into a very soft part of their schedule which is so fun I guess they have to deal with Cleveland most immediately but they just got to deal with Detroit and that went well for them and so then maybe Seattle moves into the top wild card spot they have not only made the postseason and made the postseason in a in a spot that has just existed then the Yankees could come to Seattle,

and Seattle could end the Yankees season, and then I think we don't ever have to talk about 1995 ever again. We just get to be done with two tropes in one go. This segment started as you talking about the Yankees, and ended with me talking about the Mariners, and I would hazard a guess that that will not be the last time that happens yeah there are some odd incentives Rob Maines just wrote about this at Baseball Perspectives where sometimes it's better to be the two seed than the one seed just based on who you're facing so maybe the Yankees might actually end up facing an easier

opponent possibly if this swoon were to continue. And the Rays really have a tough schedule ahead. They do. But it's possible. But then again, you might lose home field if you advance to the ALCS. I guess maybe they've lost that anyway. I mean, there are a lot of considerations, but a lot of the time it turns out, according

to this playoff format, this wacky expanded playoff format, that it might actually be better not to be the best team based on the playoff matchups. Anyway, I'm sure the Yankees would feel better about themselves if they were to win the division and just avoid having a completely historic collapse. Which, again, we still think is the most likely outcome here. Yes, absolutely. I'm just engineering a scenario where we get a lot of emails. Yeah, right. We've already gotten a fair amount, but we'd get more. We'd get more.

Anyway, not saying panic, but a little anxiety is perhaps appropriate. And if you're a Yankees hater, then maybe you can start salivating a little. Don't get your hopes up too much. Yeah, but you be careful with that. I don't think that what you do or say or feel about baseball really has that big of an impact on baseball. But I am saying we're getting into the spooky season, even though it's 104 degrees where I live. So you want to mess with forces you don't understand? I don't know that you do.

I'm watching a Joey Manessis at bat. Oh, my gosh. For our listeners, I just keep hearing about Joey Manessis from Ben. Like I was sitting at the ballpark. I send G chats. Joey Manessis, three for five, three doubles today. Here's what Joey Manessis is doing. I'm like, I'm watching Corbin Carroll and you're still talking about Joey Manessis.

Hey, good for you. Corbin Carroll would be thrilled if he could have the debut season that Joey Manessis is having. Yeah, fair enough. He's already three for five today, Meg. Wow. He cannot be contained.

He cannot be stopped. He is at 169 WRC+. Man, good for Joey. He will outplay Juan Soto. I love it. It's just my favorite baseball story. I'm so happy. I'm happy for you.

I'm happy for Joey. I'm happy for Joey's entire family. All right. Last thing I wanted to mention is that there are going to be some big league games in Mexico City next spring, which is cool. This was just announced by MLB. A couple of little bits of nice news. MLB is giving away free MLB TV, it sounds like, to some people. If you're in the target group here, take advantage.

MLB is offering free MLB TV through February 28th for all college students, which means you get the rest of the regular season and the Dominican Winter League and start a spring training and no auto renew, apparently, according to Jeff Passan. So it's not just a ploy to get you in and then you'll be locked in forever. So that's nice. And another nice thing is that MLB seems to be taking this worldwide tour idea concept seriously. And we talked about the exhibition tour that's going to Korea after this season. But I'm kind of excited about Major League Games being played in Mexico City. It's going to be April 29th to 30th of next season. The Giants and the Padres are playing a two-game

series. And I'm intrigued by this. Joey Manessis. No. Walk-off three-run digger. Stop it. Walk-off three-run shot. Oh, my gosh. Meg, he's the best player in baseball. I'm so happy. Wow, Joey Manessis. Look, there it is.

Jesse Dorey. Joey Manessis wins it with a three-run walk-off homer. That's the Nationals' first walk-off of the season. Oh, that's sort of sad. And the crowd is chanting his name. Wow, says Jesse. And you know what, Jesse? I say wow back.

How do you chant his name? Is it a Joey, Joey? Or is it a Manessess? No, I bet you go with, I mean, like, you probably go with Joey, Joey, Joey. Just amazing. Joey Manessess. Oh, he's just so great. I don't even know if he's good or not.

I just, I want this to continue. I just, look, I hope he has a long, happy, productive, fruitful career. But more than anything else, I just want him to outplay Juan Soto. I don't wish any ill upon Juan Soto. Love Juan Soto. Sure. Want him to be great. Just want Joey Manessis to be even better because I think it would just so sum up the absurdity of baseball and the best laid plans of the trade deadline if Joey Manessis were to outplay the player that he replaced, the superstar, and possibly Josh Bell as well.

You could just lump them in together. We have already gotten a Patreon message about Joey Manessis walking off the case. He's the new patron player of the podcast. I'm glad this happened while we were recording so everyone could get my live reaction. Oh my gosh. Amazing. Manessis just walked off the A's in the bottom of the 10th.

Producer Dylan has chit-chatted me as well to make sure I am aware. It's good producing. See, I need to find a previously unheralded baseball player who outperforms a superstar so that the thing that people message me about is that guy being good

and not people pooping and or throwing up. Yeah. I'm just refreshing the Fangraphs page so I can get the live updated WRC Plus for Joey Manessis after that. Oh, man, you're deep in now. Do you need to come to Fangraphs and write a Joey Manessis after that. Oh man, you're deep in now. Do you need to come to FanGraphs and write a Joey Manessis guest blog?

We can come up with a fake name for you if you want. You can pretend to be Clemens for the day. I do. I need to write about him. The question is when. Do I write about it now while this is happening and then possibly jinx him and do the SI cover curse and get it at the wrong time? Do I wait for the end of the season

and hope that he actually does outplay Juan Soto for the entirety of the post-trade deadline period? Meanwhile, maybe someone else will blog about Joey Manessis. Who knows? Yeah, you got to shoot your Joey Manessis shots. Manessi? Manessises? Manessis shots when you have them.

Because how often are they going to come along really, Ben? Yeah. All right. As I was saying, they're going to be playing some big league games in Mexico City, and I'm excited about this because if you think that Colorado is high elevation and thin air and home run happy,

then wait until you see 180, 180 WRC+. Wow. I don't know that I've on the day this animated about anything ben oh i'm so excited about joey manessas just amazing so these games of mexico city no further joey manessas updates planned for this episode of the podcast but we're gonna learn that you have adopted joey manessas by the end of the podcast i wrote we will see. We're going to learn that you have adopted Joey Monaz's fan of the podcast. I wrote five years ago about what baseball in Mexico City would look like, Major League Baseball, that is, because of course there is baseball in Mexico City. And there's been a lot of talk of perhaps MLB expansion to Mexico City and there are potential upsides and potential downsides. And there were a couple of exhibition games played

in 2016. I believe the Padres and the Astros played a couple of games. One of them was 11 to 1. The other one was 21 to 6. So over those two games, there were 39 runs scored and eight homers hit. And you might say small sample or in spring training and who knows, but I think that might actually be what Major League Baseball would just look like there. I mean, I know we got like the homer happy game in London with the weird dimensions and everything, but this would blow people's minds. Like I will link to the article I did because probably most of it still applies. I assume it's the same elevation that it was in 2017.

But really, like it's 2000 feet higher than Denver. So it's like Denver, you know, mile high ish. Mexico City, 7,380 feet above sea level. Oh, my gosh. And so the air density there is 76 percent relative to sea level compared to 82% at cores. And so I talked to physics and baseball expert Alan Nathan for this piece. And if you hold everything else equal except altitude, a standard long fly ball with 103 mile per hour exit speed and a 27.5 degree launch angle would travel 398 feet at sea

level at cores, 427 feet. and in Mexico City, 438 feet. Oh, my gosh. Yeah. And I talked to Todd Coffey for this piece, of all people. Remember some guys? Yeah. Because he played in Mexico City, and he's talking about how, yeah, it's worse than Coors. The ball flies farther.

The ball breaks less. It's, you know, you get winded, right? I mean, you might not think of Todd Coffey immediately as, like, you know, the ball flies farther, the ball breaks less. You get winded, right? I mean, you might not think of Todd Coffey immediately as the model of cardiovascular fitness necessarily, but he trained with high altitude masks and such and oxygen, and he tried to get himself acclimated to that. And still, it's tough. I mean, the recovery is tough. You can't go as deep into games. You get winded. And if you look at the park factors, which is kind of complicated because a lot of the parks in the Mexican League are at altitude. And so it's relative to those, which kind of shrinks it.

But it's something like if Coors Field is like at the time at least like a 1.3 or a 1.4 park factor. It inflates offense by that much, whereas one would be neutral. It's probably like 1.5 in this one park where those exhibition games in 2016 were played, where the Diablos Rojos played there. This will be at a different park, but still in Mexico City. Anyway, it will just be wild, I think. park, but still in Mexico City. Anyway, it will just be wild, I think. And you can't use the humidor to fix it in the same way that you can in Coors. Just quoting myself here, nor could a Mexico City team keep cranking up the humidor to say 90% or higher in a bid to dampen the baseball. And this is a quote from Alan Nathan, a standard MLB baseball stored at 100% relative humidity,

70 degrees, absorbs enough water to increase the weight to 5.6 ounces, which is way outside the allowed range of 5 to 5.25. A humidor could not be used to mitigate somewhat the elevation effect as was done at Coors without increasing the weight an unacceptable amount because it's very dry there. So it would just be tough to even compensate for it. So all the stats you look at that I have in this piece, it would just be the closest we could come to playing baseball on the moon, basically. Yeah. I would have to stop saying that. I'd have to be like, no, this is actual baseball on the moon. Right. And the Rockies, I don't know whether they use that as an excuse, but people will sometimes excuse their lack of success for them by saying, well, they play on the moon. Yeah.

The Diablos Rojos in Mexico City have actually done quite well and have won many championships. So I don't know what that says about the Rockies. Interesting. And I don't know how it would work over the course of a full MLB season, but I'm very curious to see what that will look like for two actual games that count. I don't know whether we'll have stat cast for those games or not, but we'll be able to see how those balls travel. So that'll be fun. Man, what poor sucker is going to have to pitch in those games? They're going to have to have expanded rosters just to allow extra position players to pitch. Alright, so let's end with the

pass blast. I've got a double-barreled pass blast today. So this is 1897 Richard Hershberger, saber researcher, historian, and author of Strike 4, The Evolution of Baseball. He sends this one. So this is from 1897 and it's about a possible early knuckleball.

So Richard writes, the origin of the knuckleball is unclear. Eddie Seacott, who would go on to be one of the Black Sox players banned from baseball, is often cited as the inventor. Other less famous candidates include Lou Morin, Nap Rucker, and Ed Summers. These are all deadball era pitchers. include Lou Morin, Nap Rucker, and Ed Summers. These are all deadball era pitchers, but consider this report from the Louisville Courier-Journal of September 7, 1897.

Quote, In pitching the slow ball, Winnie Mercer has a knack of holding the sphere in such a way as to keep it from revolving, says manager Pat Donovan of the Pirates. I have never seen a ball make fewer revolutions than the slow floater of Mercer's. And when it nears the batsman, the curves on the ball are easy to see. Eddie Beaton of the Clevelands had a slow ball that was almost identical with the noted and deceptive floater that comes from the cunning wing of Mercer. Richard writes, that certainly looks to me like a description of a knuckleball.

What about Ed Beaton, who played in the majors from 1887 to 1891? Here is a report in the Pittsburgh Post of August 16, 1890. Beaton pitching for Cleveland, who defeated Pittsburgh 15 to 1. Beaton used a nice slow drop and the Alleghenies couldn't touch the ball. It came up to the plate as big as a balloon, but do their best, the delegation from the rapidly flowing river couldn't hit it hard, nor with safety. Of the three hits made, only one was entitled to the distinction of a real live bass hit. The others were pusillanimous little affairs that were hit simply because they rolled or bounded badly. And Richard concludes again, this looks to me at least consistent with its being a knuckleball. The origins of techniques typically go back further than the standard accounts because the technique came before the vocabulary naming it.

Beaton's delivery was called a slow drop, which could describe a variety of pitches. We can conclude it likely was a knuckleball only because it was likened to Mercer's delivery, which describes the lack of rotation characteristic of a knuckleball. There's no obvious link connecting these players. The knuckleball likely was independently invented several times. But maybe it goes back a bit further than people typically think. All right. Now, here is the second pass blast, which I am supplying, although this came to my attention

via a Twitter account that was started by an Effectively Wild listener and Patreon supporter. Goes by Sir Parsifal in our Discord group for patrons. He started this Twitter account called Old Timey Baseball Articles, which is at Old Baseball News. So I have followed it and I found it to be a good follow. I am endorsing it here. If you like pass blasts, this account is basically a pass blast a day, an extra pass blast on top of the ones that we do here at Old Baseball News on Twitter. And this was one that I saw an excerpt from that account

tweet a few weeks ago, and I made a mental note to look this up on newspapers.com and read it to you when we got to 1897. And here we are. So this comes from the New York Times, August 31st, 1897. So 125th anniversary this week of this momentous event. And it begins on the baseball field. That's the headline. Here's the sub headline, Chicago beats New York in playing off the tie game of Saturday. Then another headline, Anson, Cap Anson, sent from the game. And then here's the subhead. His continued abuse and kicking tired the umpire, who fined him $25. Then I guess we get the more intriguing clause of this subhead, which is friend who replaced him played in a bathrobe.

What? Yeah, I had questions. So here we go. Here's the article here. The Chicago's won yesterday from the New York's. Again, I think we should bring that back. It's tough because you have two New York teams and two Chicago teams. So that could be kind of confusing.

But in other cases, let's bring back the just using the city name and adding an S at the end. The Chicago's won yesterday from the New York's at the polo grounds in the playoff of the tie game of Saturday. Yes, they had some tie games. The game was marred by senseless and useless kicking against the umpire's decisions. Not literal kicking, I assume. Maybe some of that too.

The visitors, including Anson, who usually behaves well in that regard, were the chief offenders, but the local team were by no means blameless. Anson was so insulting that Emsley, that is umpire Bob Emsley, who umpired for decades and was later involved in Merkel's boner. Oh, no. But he was first involved in Merkle's Boner. Oh, no. But he was first involved in the bathrobe game. Well, at least it wasn't both at once, you know. Yeah.

Emsley ordered Anson out of the game after finding him $25. Even then, it needed the threat of expulsion from the grounds to make the old man, that's Anson, keep quiet. It was at the conclusion of the eighth inning, when the visitors scored the two runs, which proved to be the winning ones, that the trouble began. It was getting dark, and after the Giants had been retired, Anson made a vigorous protest against continuing. Emsley took out his watch and threatened to forfeit the game unless the Chicagos played ball. Lang went to the bat and made a base hit.

Anson followed and for no apparent reason began to abuse the umpire and was ordered to the bench. This startled the visitors. They had only nine uniformed men on the field, and the loss of their captain was a severe blow. Pitcher Friend, who was at the gate, was sent for. Emsley allowed one minute for the team to find a batter, and when none appeared, he declared the player who was to have taken Anson's place out. Lange, in the meantime, was put out trying to reach second. Anson lost his temper completely and did not cease his abuse until Emsley threatened to put him off the grounds. Then the game was continued. The visitors made

three runs, but they were stricken from the score because when the New Yorks took their turn at the bat in the ninth inning, it was too dark to play ball and the game was called at the end of the eighth inning. Fine. So that started Joyce. Friend, who had no time to dress, took Decker's place in left field, Decker taking Anson's place at first in a long bathrobe. Joyce protested against Friend being allowed to play under the rule that none but uniformed players can take part in a game. The umpire decided against the protest and said after the game that as Friend had on a long robe, he could not see whether he wore a uniform or not. And he could not go to left field to investigate.

The game was resumed at last. Two New York players were retired. Then Joyce began at the umpire again. And again, the watch was pulled out. It was really too dark for play then. And Mr. Emsley decided to call the game back to the eighth inning, leaving the Chicago's the winners by seven runs to five. And that's it. No further details, at least in this account of the bathrobe. But this replacement

player wore a bathrobe out to the field. The opposing team protested on the grounds that he was wearing a bathrobe, which seems reasonable. It's not the uniform. But the umpire said, well, we can't tell whether he's wearing a uniform because he's got this bathrobe on. So how am I to know whether he has a uniform under the bathrobe? What do you want him to open it? Yeah. You want me to go out there and unbutton his bathrobe? Come on.

So he just played in a bathrobe. I have a lot of questions that probably cannot be answered at this late date. But like, why did he have a bathrobe would be one question. I mean, I guess you could wear a bathrobe if you're not in the game and you're maybe relaxing or or toweling off and then you put on your bathrobe fine but like what kind of robe was it was it like a fancy like boxer robe when they're bouncing around out there or was it a fluffy bathrobe well okay sorry ben wait yeah boxing robe like that it's not a bathrobe no i guess it's out there like in something you can get at bed bath and beyond like there's, I guess there are many types of robes, and that is not a bath type. No, I think you're right to question what does that actually mean,

especially with the distance that history can give us. But I think one thing we can confidently say it's not is a boxing robe. We can eliminate that from our list of potential robe options. The implication is that if he was wearing a uniform under the bathrobe, then that would be okay though. As long as you're wearing the uniform somewhere on your person, regardless of what you're wearing on the outside of the uniform, then that's okay, I guess is what I'm taking away from this. So someone should test this,

I guess I'm saying. I don't know whether he was wearing the bathrobe because it was just all he had at the moment or whether he was wearing the bathrobe because he did not have a uniform. And so that was his way of concealing that he did not have a uniform because no one would know because it's under the bathrobe. I guess I'm picturing some kind of, yeah, I had the boxing robe, like a smoking jacket. Because if it was the short length. Hugh Hefner number. Okay, but wait, hold on. So Hugh Hefner's robes are not short.

No. They went all the way down to the feet, right? He wasn't his own bunny, right? No. It was all covered up so if it were a short robe there would be less ambiguity about whether he were in uniform so i imagine it must have been a long one it had to have been a long robe i guess the real question is why didn't they just say why don't you come down into the tunnel with us and open up your robe well it was getting dark so i guess there was no time to waste

no time to waste yeah yeah and you don't want to i mean look i'm sure that people have tried all kinds of shenanigans i can't imagine was there like i can't imagine playing baseball in a robe without more underneath it because the robes they fly all over the place. They are here and there. You're on the base pass. Like, you could injure yourself. You could get all skidded up. You could expose yourself to people. You know, again, I really think that this should have been...

Why is there so much mystery here? It seems like there should be less mystery involved. Yeah, I want some subsequent reporting and some follow-ups about this. But Danny Friend is the player who was wearing a bathrobe and may or may not have been wearing a uniform, and perhaps we will never know. Yeah. Well, that's like, what else would you be wearing?

I mean, I think the premise that like there might be a uniform under there, so it's fine is ridiculous because it's like the idea is for everyone to be wearing the same thing. Yeah. And this is obscuring our ability to tell, you know, was there a number on the back of the robe? They probably didn't have numbers yet at this point. So that wasn't. That wasn't a concern.

Yeah. And they had fewer umpires, period. Sure. So there weren't as many people available to conduct bathrobe inspections, I suppose. So it was easier to get away with the bathrobe back then. But I'm just saying, like, there's precedent for being allowed to wear a bathrobe on the field if you might conceivably have a uniform on under it. I think that if we're at the stage where umps, even if it is not particularly effective, seemingly are having to touch pitchers hands as they exit to make sure that they don't have sticky stuff that if a guy was out there in a robe, they would just say, you open that sucker up and let's see what you're working with underneath. Wasn't there a picture on, maybe it was on the, he was on the Yankees playing against

the A's the other night that was wearing the wrong uniform. He just had the wrong uniform top on and he had to change. Am I making that up? We're going to get emails. Sounds like something that could happen. Yeah, especially because it's like my name's not on it so how would i know what you expect me to remember my number i don't remember anybody's number ben do you ever have the experience and then we will go because we've been chatting for a while here and we still have luchavino entered the game with the

wrong jersey yeah there you go you know when you're at the ballpark and they have the out of town scoreboard up and the way that they tell you who is pitching is to have the number up there? Yeah. Okay. So you said the other day that you never know if he went or not. I never know who they have up there. I mean, I sometimes, there may be like a handful of guys where I'm like, oh, it's that guy, that number with that team. That means it's, but I never know i very rarely know yeah i i know should i know should we know are we failing in some way by not knowing i don't know the answer to that but i'm here to tell you what it mostly makes me do is open up the fan grass app to see who's pitching well always nice to have an excuse to do that so here's what i have determined my final word

about the bathrobes i've been diligently searching newspapers.com here. From what I can tell, that team, the 1897 Chicago Colts, went to Hot Springs, Arkansas for spring training. And there they spent some time in a bathhouse, maybe trying to sweat out some weight. The Chicago Tribune piece from that march says that they were promenading about a bathhouse in their bathrobes. And then it says the new suits are to be the same combination of colors as that worn last year, but the boys tonight petitioned Anson to buy bathrobes to use instead of the coats. So that's in March. Now fast forward to May 1st, and the Tribune says the new bathrobe Ulsters arrived tonight from Chicago and will be worn

tomorrow for the first time. So an Ulster is like a Victorian overcoat with a cape and sleeves. Sure. On May 9th, the St. Paul Globe says Anson has sprung the latest innovation in baseball wearing apparel in a garment for his men, which looks more like a bathrobe than anything else. It is called a ballplayers overcoat. And then May 14th, another paper says the Colts made bold by their small attendance donned their new bathrobes and strutted across the field the robes are striking affairs of a color quite in harmony with the dull dark of yesterday lang and ryan practiced in theirs and made a sorry showing there's a late may reference to umpire mcdonald objecting to briggs's efforts

to arouse the public by waving the skirts of his bathrobe at the bleachers. Sometimes the team is referred to as the Bathrobe Brigade. And then lastly, an account of that game that we were just talking about in the Chicago Chronicle, August 31st. In the Giants half, Decker went to first base and Friend waddled to the left field in a bathrobe that trailed the ground. The other team raised a howl. They said Friend was not in uniform and had no right to play. Emsley declined to probe beneath the bathrobe, and Friend played in the game until but one giant remained to be disposed of. This might be the most definitive answer that we're going to get here the Washington Times same day. Friend, with a long bathrobe over

his street clothes, went into left field. Two of the New Yorkers were out when Joyce began to rave because, as he claimed, Friend had no uniform on. As it was then very dark and Emsley did not care to pass a legal opinion as to what constitutes a uniform, game was called on account of darkness. That's one way to handle it. I don't know. It's too dark to see. Maybe it's a bathrobe. Maybe it's an ulster. Maybe it's a kind of coat that looked like a bathrobe, but for some reason you could wear on the field. I leave further research to our listeners. Yeah. All right. Well, while I enjoy this Joey Manessis highlight, man, he was like flat footed and like lunging for it. It doesn't even- You just never loved anything the way you love Joey Manessis.

I can't believe this got out, but I do believe it because it was Joey Manessis. Yeah. All right. Let's take a quick break. We'll be back with Evan Drellick, senior writer for The Athletic. And we talk to Evan fairly often about labor issues in baseball and the business of baseball, but today is a doozy. We're talking about a topic that I don't think we expected, and I don't know if Evan expected that we would be talking about prior to late

Sunday night, but here we are with a major unionization effort happening with the MLBPA and minor leaguers, and he has been reporting on it and talking to Tony Clark and other experts about all of the issues involved. So welcome back, Evan. I thought we'd be on a break. I didn't think we'd be reunited so soon, but it is wonderful to be here, guys. Yeah. Not that we can only talk about labor issues. And I'm sure we'll talk about your Astros book next year, but I didn't expect that we would have this to talk about now. And I'm sure we'll talk about your Astros book next year. But I didn't expect that we would have this to talk about now. And I guess that's a good place to start. So you noted in one of your pieces, often a group attempting to unionize in any industry will do as much as it can to keep its effort private until the point at which the group feels it has enough support to go public.

In that way, the lack of direct public buildup prior to Sunday is unsurprising. But you're pretty plugged in. You've reported on labor issues for quite a while now. I assume you have some sources in contact. So was this something that took you by surprise as much as it did seemingly everyone else when this news broke late, when June Lee first tweeted it out and then you and others followed up. Yeah, I was surprised by the timing of it. It was not surprising. And I think I've said even the last time I was on with you guys, potentially, it was not a secret that they were attempting to organize the minors. And advocates for minor leaguers, the nonprofit that now is disbanded, essentially, wanted to do this. What was not telegraphed publicly to me, that doesn't mean that some people didn't know, but it was not clear to me that it was going to be at this point in time in late August of 2022. I don't know that I had a date in my head that I thought it would get done, but I don't think I ever thought, yeah, it's imminent, it's about to

happen. As I think back, there were some conversations I had where I think, well, maybe I should have realized that it probably meant that was close or that's a hint that it was getting close. So the generality of it happening, not stunning. The timing of it and kind of the way it went down where it was late at night, they send out these authorization cards to the players. And also a little bit after that, like 45 minutes later, they send out an email to all the agents, the player agents. So within it, it was surprising. Yes. So the minor leaguers have the authorization cards in hand. What are the next couple of steps and what is the timeframe over which those steps might unfold? The big question I think is when do they move for an election? I wouldn't be surprised if already

several days into this, they are at 30%. When you think about the thresholds that have to be cleared, it's 30% for the MLBPA to be able to represent the players. And then in an election, it would be 50% for a union to be formed. 30% is not, I don't think, a particularly large hurdle for them. I don't think they would ever go public if they thought 30% was going to be difficult or if they didn't think they'd have 30% very quickly. So now it's kind of a watch and wait of, well, do they go to MLB and ask for voluntary recognition? Do they do that publicly if they do it at all? If MLB, they could go write for an election or they can go ask for voluntary recognition. On the assumption that they would ask for voluntary

recognition, MLB would deny it. It could be very quickly here that we hear of the MLBPA moving for an election to form a union, to formally get it done. I wish I could put a timetable on it. Tony Clark, or it might not have had his name on it, the union in its communications to players the night that they went public said it would be about several, the process could take several months. That's as much specificity as they've given here. The NLRB, if there is an election, the NLRB is involved.

And I think it's possible because there's a lot of attention paid to baseball that the NLRB would move this close to the top of its list. I'm just speculating. Sure. But I think knowing how many eyes would be on this. And I say that to say the whole idea here for the Players Association is for this to move quickly. And so I don't think we're going to be sitting here for months waiting for something to happen. But you never know. You never know.

And you viewed the video, right, that there's a four and a half minute video. You saw some of it or described some of it, at least that Tony Clark sent to the minor leaguers. And there were also some leading MLB players who were speaking there and delivering a message about why minor leaguers should be interested in this. So what was the message that they were stressing when this was just dropping on players' phones or inboxes or whatever it was before they had maybe even heard that this was happening? I'm sure it took a lot of minor leaguers by surprise. So what were they seeing and hearing from the people who are hoping that they will sign and return these cards? Yeah, the comments Tony Clark made, it was about a four and a half minute video that was posted online at this portal that they set up for the players. So if you're if you're a minor league player, you got a link to this website and you could sign your authorization card there.

There's also an FAQ section, and there's a few videos. Tony Clark's is the longest at four and a half minutes, and then they had a few other quicker hits with players. Andrew Miller's there, Denise Baez, Chris Singleton. There are a couple others who I'm just not remembering. Chris Iannetta. Some of these were players who were very involved in the union in their playing days, so it's no surprise. Clark's comments weren't much different from what he was saying publicly to me and to other reporters recently. We feel like the time is now. The one line I thought was poignant in the four and a half minutes that he spoke was not a threat, but kind of suggesting to players that, look, if you don't do this now, we're going to be in trouble doing this in the future.

There was a little bit of a hard sell on that one point. But I think in general, Clark's message has been kind of vague here. He talks about it being the right time. I tried to kind of get him to really get underneath the hood a little bit of like, well, why is this the right time right now? And they're not really tipping their hand on that. And it leads us to places of speculation. But yeah, I think Clark's message was similar to the private message was similar to the one he was giving publicly. We think this is the right moment and please do it or else we're going to be in trouble in the future. What's your sense of how both Tony Clark and then the major league players who have been involved in this effort are thinking about messaging when it comes to potential

conflicts that might exist. I know you did a Q&A with a labor expert, but I would imagine that a lot of fans reading this news probably thought to themselves, well, the interests of major leaguers and the interests of minor leaguers are sometimes obviously united, but sometimes wildly divergent. How is the MLBPA going to represent both of these bargaining units well? What is your sense of how the union is trying to message that to minor leaguers and the discrepancies that might exist in what is an important bargaining issue for a minor leaguer and maybe not top of mind for a major leaguer? So I think that's really the central question to all that at the moment,

talking to player agents, that's the thing that comes up the most is this question of a conflict of interest. And can the PA fairly represent both? And does it lead to a situation where minor leaguers are going to get the short end of the stick relative to major leaguers? In the bigger picture of are minor leaguers better off with a union than without? I think it is a statement of the obvious that they are better off with a union. Sure. Somebody could try to argue otherwise. I don't think it would be a correct argument.

So within that, understanding that getting to any union with whatever support is probably better for the minor leaguers. Then it's a question of, well, would the minor leaguers have been better off represented by the PA or they've been better off represented by an outside union if advocates for minor leaguers had paired up with another group? And it's not as though advocates for minor leaguers made a proposal to minor leaguers and said, you know, you can choose A or B. I don't think that happened. At least I have no reason to believe that happened. So it's not like they were choosing one versus another, the minor leaguers themselves. Now, it's very possible that advocates for minor leaguers could have had conversations with other unions. You know, when you're a minor leaguer and you get a notice from the MLBPA saying, hey,

come on, join the MLBPA, that probably sounds appealing, right? It's not like they got, players got competing, vote for me or vote for this guy. It was one thing showed up as far as I understand. And so then it's a choice between no representation or joining the PA. And so players are going to, I think in most cases, probably going to jump to that. But player agents are concerned and you can very fairly ask whether the end of the day, an outside union would be better positioned to fight for everything. You can argue it both ways. It's not cut and dry.

But you can imagine a situation where if there was an outside union representing minor leaguers, would you arrive at a spot where that union is potentially undermining or even publicly criticizing the MLBPA, you can start to see why it makes sense for the MLBPA to want to do this in-house. If you play out the other scenario of the MLBPA doesn't take advocates under its wing, well, then what happens? And it's out of your control if you're the PA at that point. I think right now that's the best way I can explain to think about it. I wish I could explain more and more, but I'll keep reporting. And if this were to happen, there would be separate bargaining units within the MLBPA,

right? So there would be a major league player bargaining unit and a minor league player bargaining unit. And I guess that in itself is not super unusual. My own union membership experience is limited to the Ringer Union where, of course, we have different roles and we have writers and we have podcasters and we have editors and we have copy editors and we have social media people, but it's not as great a disparity certainly in salary, let's say, as you would have between the highest earning major league players and the lowest earning, lowest level minor league players. And you talked to that expert, Kate Bronfenbrenner from Cornell, and she said it's not that unusual to have multiple bargaining units. And she cited healthcare as an example, right, where one union might represent nurses

and nurse aides and service and maintenance employees, et cetera, et cetera. But again, you're probably not going to have someone who's making $30 million and someone who is not making a living wage, according to everyone except Rob Manfred. So how would that work, do you think? Would the two bargaining units be able to coordinate their efforts? I guess they would be in close communication. It's just there are so many more minor leaguers than there are major leaguers in total. We'll dwarf our own efforts here, or maybe the major leaguers are thinking we'll be outnumbered by these players who hopefully one day will be major leaguers, but many of them will not and currently are not and are not making anywhere in the tax bracket that we are. So it sounds complicated. Yeah, it is separate bargaining units, separate contracts, but the head of the MLBPA would remain Tony Clark. The lead negotiator would remain Bruce Meyer.

So it would be, as far as I can tell, the same staff. There would be the advocates for minor leaguers, staffers that are going over to the PA. They, as I understand it, will keep working on the minor league side. I'm sure they'll be involved, but they could also be involved now newly on the major league side with things, right? And so it's not like you're going to have one executive director for the minor leaguers and one executive director for the major leaguers. But your overall point, Ben, is right, that minor leaguers can sit there and want certain things that the major leaguers might not think they should want. I think the end of the day, probably the MLBPA is not going to be sitting there asking for minor leaguers to make anything close to the major league minimum. to the major league minimum, it's going to go back to what we've heard all along from advocates about just getting to a quote unquote fair salary. It's something that's above the $400 to $700 a week range that these guys all walk in at. So I guess I'm saying because the ask will be somewhat

basic and you're not asking for the moon, or at least most people wouldn't consider it asking for the moon. Major League Baseball might portray it as asking for the moon. But because of that, maybe that tempers where the conflicts could come in. But yeah, Bronfenbrenner, Professor Cornell pointed to the film industry where you have the same union representing actors of all sorts of claws right the tom cruise is down i'm assuming cruises is in the guild you know down to whatever the guy who gets a part once every six months or so and there's a little bit of that now in the mlbpa right probably in any union where you have the biggest earning players and you have those who are you

know get the cup of coffee and that's it. And that's always a storyline, you know, during the lockout. Well, is this good for the middle class? Is this good for the younger guys? Oh, this only helps the big name clients and the Boris guys. You know, that stuff's always there. This is another layer of it. So I'm not discounting it. At the same time, it's not necessarily entirely new ground. So it is illegal for employers to retaliate against workers as they are trying to organize. I know you put this question to Tony Clark and I'll put it to you. We know that that is the law of the land. the right move for minor leaguers, that there will be some sort of retaliatory response, the most dramatic of which would be a further reduction of the minor leagues and a limiting of who that player pool will be. What is your sense of the PA's concern around that potential move? And what do you, I'm asking you to speculate, which I realize is unfair because we're

a ways away from having to deal with this one, what do you what do you think the league's response particularly in in regards to potentially further reduction of the minor leagues might be it's been swirling for some time now even post the reduction prior to post the the drop from 160 to 120 and prior to this you know there's been industry talk about i'm gonna be is gonna want to further cut at the end of the 10-year PDLs licenses that those minor league teams now have with Major League Baseball. And MLB did in its letter, Manfred's letter to the members of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, allude to, and you could say essentially threaten, to get rid of more teams in that letter.

And so it's kind of a standing topic. And yeah, could MLB remove teams and do so without it being directly traceable to a retaliatory move, but in reality is a retaliatory move? Yeah, they could do that. It's totally possible that you can retaliate and not be caught for your retaliation, I guess is what I'm saying. It's not as though every time an employer retaliates against an employee for organizing that they are caught. Sometimes they are. Sometimes they are not. So that said, the players are presumably in a better position if they have a union to project job security than if they don't. Because without a union now, we are seeing MLB has A, already chopped teams,

and B, has threatened to do so again publicly, as I just explained with the Senate Judiciary Committee. It's not as though the introduction of the union newly introduces the threat. The threat exists. It is ubiquitous right now. And I think at the end of the day, if the minor leaguers want to bargain over roster limits or the number of jobs that are available, that's something they can push for. MLB would have to be willing to play ball with them on bargaining for that. But I think them getting to the point of a union probably does more for them to control their job, the number of jobs available than they have without a union. That's my bird's eye there. Yeah. There is a conspicuous, the commissioner's office declined comment in your article. And I

guess they've continued to decline in all articles to this point, it seems like, which I'm sure that there are things that they might like to say or are thinking to themselves, but are probably just wary of saying something that would be construed as union busting, probably, even if they would want this to be busted on some level. I guess they just have to watch their words. But it has been striking, I suppose, that there has been no response to this point, really. Yeah. And any employer has to be somewhat careful what they say publicly, because you say the wrong thing and you could be dealing with the NLRB. And I think MLB is keenly aware of that being run by a Cornell-trained labor lawyer

whose deputy commissioner is also a Harvard-trained labor lawyer. It's a lot of labor lawyers. Got to keep Dick Monfort away from the proceedings. Yeah. You did a Q&A with a different Cornell labor person. You could have just called up Rob Manfred, gotten his thoughts, unbiased source. Yeah, I'm sure he's chomping at the bit. So do you know what specific issues the two bargaining units might theoretically be least aligned on or most aligned on? I don't know whether you've thought about this this much because it's still all hypothetical at this point, but we're talking sort of in generalities about, oh, these people make a lot of money and

these people don't make a lot of money and so their interests might not be aligned. But are there specific policies or bargaining chips that come up in CBA talks where you could envision them either just being in lockstep completely or not, just rowing in different directions? I'd be curious to hear what you guys think on it. The one that first came to my mind was the first year player draft. It's been long been a part of the major league CBA, and I imagine the major leaguers would not want to cede control of that. But that's one that's very obviously an impact to the minor leaguers before it is the major leaguers. And you could describe impact in different ways, meaning there's money involved, right?

There's millions of dollars involved. And when there's millions of dollars involved, the major leaguers are going to want some control of it and to know about it. And I think that's kind of the overarching point that I'm sure we can find more specific issues. But the argument that presumably MLB would make is this. This is the pool of money we have for our labor costs, major league or minor league. You know, you're representing both. So, OK, you know, you want to give the minor leaguer is a higher minimum salary. Fine. But we're going to remove that money from elsewhere. And those kind of arguments exist now. It's not as though through the lockout we didn't hear that type of talk where MLB would position is kind of zero sum. And the PA just representing the major leaguers would say, no, look, there's new money that could be introduced here. But now that fight gets, I think, magnified and amplified where the league will always be looking to shuffle money around. You're taking from one to give to the other, and the PA is

always going to want to create new money. So in a way, it's a fight that exists now, but I think it gets louder and more pronounced when you have one union representing both. the players associations part to sort of stem a potential alternate source of labor in the event that there is a work stoppage related to the big league CBA. Because if the minor leaguers are unionized under the same umbrella as the major leaguers, even as a different bargaining unit, I would imagine that if five years from now, the league decides to play hardball with the union around the big league cba it's not like the minor leaguers are going to be like yeah we'll be here we'll be your replacement players at the big league level like that that seems very unlikely to me so how much

do you think that factored into this on the on the pa's part it probably helps prevent the possibility of replacement players further that you have those players directly now kind of paired and linked to the current major leaguers. I think it was the case beforehand and during the lockout anyway that replacement players are very unlikely after 94. I think it's more, I think the general thread there is more relevant where there is continuity. You can kind of build up your organizing identity earlier and sooner with these guys. And again, a lot of it I think is about imagining, well, what if they weren't in that union? And that's what you're doing here, Meg, where it's like if they weren't in it and you had a work stoppage or some sort of fight, I don't think it's unreasonable. Usually, labor unions stick together, right? You see messages of support. But you could end up in a spot where they'd be at odds, or at the very least, it would

be out of the PA's control, whatever's going on with the minor leaguers. And I'm not saying there is not and was not an altruistic desire on behalf of the PA to do this. an altruistic desire on behalf of the PA to do this. I think they genuinely believe they are doing the quote unquote right thing, that this is the right thing to do is to represent these players. If that conviction were so strong, probably you get involved a little sooner than you did. And there was obviously communications going on behind the scenes. And so I think there are other factors at play here of, well, if it's not us, if we the PA don't do this and somebody else does it, what situation does that leave us in? And I think the PA would be negligent if they weren't thinking about those types of

questions, frankly. Yeah. And you alluded to this, but I mean, a professional baseball career and a career in affiliated ball, that can go on for decades. And so if you get someone inducted into the union early, having been through a unionization effort myself, it definitely gets people involved and active and aware of these issues and feeling some affiliation toward the union that maybe they wouldn't feel if they didn't come up until later. So if you're interested in building a next generation of leaders and players who are going to get really involved and be strong advocates, that seems like it's a good idea to start them young. And especially if you're starting them at the time when maybe they most need the benefits of that help, right?

I mean, once you're in the majors, there's a big difference between the top earners and the low earners. But if you're in the minors and you experience going from the living conditions that we've seen and just having to work extra jobs in the off season and just not being able to make ends meet, and if you can go from that to what they could theoretically get from collective action, and of course, they've already done a lot of things just through the advocacy of all of these groups. So you would think that would be a really tangible sign of the value of being in that union that would then maybe make people career-long committed members and could be the next Tony Clark, right, who takes over for him someday. Yeah, totally. I think all of that has been part of their thinking here.

And there are benefits to having everybody under one roof. Tony Clark, again, was unfortunately not as specific about it as you would like. But those kind of inferences that you're making, Ben, I think are correct. That if you can tell somebody they're younger, when they are younger, think are correct that if you can tell somebody they're younger when they are younger that they are a member of the mlbpa probably over time and you know you know i mean really spanning a couple decades you know that'll that'll be strong although i guess a major league career is relatively short so it you know it could be even sooner than that but yeah i sit here you know we're several days removed from this now and it's a little it's not dizzying it but it there's a lot there's a lot of factors here right and you can kind of slice it and dice it the way

you want to where there there are very strong arguments for them doing it for for for the pa to do it for the minor leaguers to do it and i i think there are non-negligible arguments for understanding why it wasn't done before. The PA in its current iteration goes back to what, 66? It's a long period of time where this hasn't happened. And it's not because nobody ever thought of it. Yeah. I wanted to go back to that, why now? Why were the conditions ripe for this or riper than they'd been before? And I guess partly you just have to credit advocates for minor leaguers and more than baseball and these organizations that actually brought attention to that and just got a lot of media coverage and got people actually interested in this, players and fans alike.

So that seems to be part of it. But it's not just that. And I guess the role that social media plays in amplifying that message to be part of it. But it's not just that. And I guess the role that social media plays in amplifying that message, of course, too. But is it also, I guess, just the wider mood about unions in the country right now? I mean, there are fewer people who are unionized than there used to be. But the approval rating of unions is at its highest point. Gallup just released its annual survey this week, and 71% of US people surveyed approve of labor unions, highest point since 1965. And there are various high-profile unionization efforts that have probably contributed

to that or been symptoms of that, and lots of changes in the workplace, not just in baseball, that might make people more sympathetic to the idea of union. So there's that. I guess there's also just the fact that there's been some strife at the big league level, at least recently, and players are maybe more active and energized and they just got through this round of CBA and there's been some animosity toward the league. So maybe that contributed to why they would be willing to extend membership to minor leaguers. Am I leaving out any other potential factors that might have made this the right time as opposed to

five years ago or five years from now? No, I don't think so. Besides the items of, A, did they feel like they had sufficient support to do it? And kind of just that technical level that gets involved with organizing. And it's not always the case that you go public when only once you've reached that threshold. When I was talking to the professor at Cornell, Kate Brown from Brenner, she pointed to Amazon on Staten Island, where they went public prior to having the 50% majority that you need to get the union, but they knew they would get there. They knew the momentum would build. And we don't know. We don't know what the internal assessment is at the PA now as to what support they have.

Look, as I've kind of expressed here, I think the cynical take is why now? Because possibly, potentially, speculatively, they were at a moment where they had to choose, where finally now somebody organized this group. And if they didn't do it, well, then potentially, maybe somebody else was going to. And that had never been the case before, right? It's not as though anybody had ever done the legwork that advocates had done. And I think all those environmental factors, Ben, you're talking about are what allowed that groundwork to happen. The fact that there is a generational difference. There's the attitude of, well, I ate crap for years and years and walked up the hill barefoot in the snow for 10 miles. People are thinking a little bit less these days

than they used to. But once you got to the point of, okay, we have the organizing going on, why the PA did it now? It's kind of the big question there. And I think it's, again, it is speculative, but you wonder if they were at a point of, if not now, then we're not going to have another chance at it. This is it. And if we don't have them, what does that mean for us going forward? This is sort of a related question. And I would imagine that for the minor leaguers who, you know, you don't have to impress upon them how dire their material conditions can be at times. But I'm curious if you have a sense of any tactics that the union has used that have allowed them to communicate successfully with a group that I think, you know, the perception of baseball players is that they tend to skew more politically conservative than certainly other, you know, the average member of other bargaining units might. Is there any concern around that as a barrier to successful organization? I don't think so in the sense that the PA has

been strong representing the major leaguers and that has also been the case that these many players have been concerned. Despite that and despite kind of the, I guess, how do we want to say it? The stereotypical way of thinking about it that if you're right wing, probably aren't as supportive of unions as you are if you're left wing. Despite that and despite baseball players having often been right wing for a long time, the union has been strong. I don't at this point – It would be something I'd like to learn a little bit more about is exactly how Advocates has done this. They built up their staff. They had funding. It is not clear at this point where that money was coming from.

I imagine at some point that will become public. If you have a nonprofit, you do have to file publicly available tax returns. And so at some point, I assume we'll have a little bit more of an understanding of who was kind of powering advocates financially. But they built up staff, they hired a director of communications, they had ex-major leaguers doing outreach. And so they really kind of quickly became this full-fledged operation. It wasn't just one lawyer, Garrett Brocious, and then a second lawyer, Harry Marino. It was Marino plus a bunch of others doing a lot of work here. And so the exact mechanism of the communications, I don't have that at this point. They did a pretty good job at least keeping it away from me. There might be other reporters who have seen a ton of it. I haven't. But clearly, they were successful enough to the point they felt they could go public. out just because obviously the unionization of the majors and when the union became a really powerful force under Marvin Miller, that changed everything about the sport. I don't know that the

effects of this, if it happens, would be as sweeping as that, but you'd imagine that there will probably be some pretty big effects, whether it's on player development or the draft. As you said, it's hard to forecast, I guess, and it's hard because there aren't perfect comps in other sports. I know that professional hockey players, they've had a union, they're minor leaguers since the 60s. And the NBA developmental league, the G League, unionized just a couple years ago and was voluntarily recognized by the NBA. Those are different situations probably for any number of reasons. The baseball minor leagues are just so much more expansive than other sports, but also they had separate unions.

So it's not the NBA players and the NHL players in the same union as the minor league players for those sports. It's separate entities. So I don't know if there is a perfect comp, but I'm just trying to think like what could change because of this that I'm not even anticipating. I mean, obviously, the first things would be like, let's get better wages and food and living conditions. And those things have already improved somewhat, but have a ways to go. Those are maybe the obvious things, but I'm just trying to think of just more massive structural changes that could come from this.

And it's hard to conceive of just because this is such a potentially momentous shift. Yeah, and this is my instinctive response right now, right? With allowing for the fact that we don't know exactly what their bargaining – we do know generally what their bargaining priorities will be. More money, right? It's everybody's bargaining priority. what their bargaining priorities will be. More money, right? It's everybody's bargaining priority. And, you know, they have to, once they form the union,

then they'll set all those agendas. But there's been enough communication on that that we have an understanding generally of where they're going. I think, I don't think this is a hot take, but I think it's a reasonable, I think because they're under the MLBPA arm, under their umbrella, it might be a little less likely that you have a real rock the boat

approach. It might just be that at the end of the day, they bargain for better wages, they get the housing stuff maybe codified newly and some other stuff that we've been hearing about and talking about for a long time that I'm not necessarily sure that it means that there's going to be some massive change. And that's kind of the, you know, which scenario would have been more likely to have taken up as massive a fight as possible? Would it be the union that also represents the major leaguers or would it be a separate outside union and you know i i don't know you know it but those are the kinds of questions right now today that i'm thinking about and i would certainly never profess to have any of the answers but i i think it's very possible that as you sit there

and wonder ben what's this gonna what are the massive changes this could produce you know i think in the end it might just be the kind of stuff you thought about and that'll be that. Yeah. It would be worthwhile on its own and would certainly matter to a lot of players. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And I guess we should note if we haven't already, the things that we talked about last time

we had you on about some of the efforts that have been successful, the legal efforts, the class action suit that led to a large settlement for some minor leaguers, and then I guess the ongoing examination of the antitrust exemption. Some of those things perhaps may have emboldened people to think this was the time, right? Or they got some concessions or they got some signs of progress there and they thought, okay, let's keep pushing. This is encouraging. This is the time to keep going. Let's not stop and lose the momentum. So maybe that's part of it too.

I do wonder whether if it looks like this is going to happen and if there is a great response and I don't know exactly when we'll be able to assess for sure whether we know that this will actually go through. But if it becomes clear that this is going to happen at some point, I wonder whether any team will kind of break ranks and say, we're not going to wait for the next round of bargaining or whenever we talk to the MLBPA about minor leaguers, because we can assume that certain things will happen. And so let's get a jump on those improvements. We have seen certain teams take small steps, right? Or we're going to give them raises, or we're going to do a better job of housing than other teams typically do. And now, of course,

they're all obligated to provide housing. But people have been writing for years, Russell Carlton and others, about how just purely on an analytical level, on a competitive advantage level, it would seem to make sense to give your minor leaguers every chance to succeed by giving them good food and taking away some of the stress of housing uncertainty and all of that. So I wonder whether if the writing is on the wall that, okay, we're all going to be forced to eventually make these concessions, whether some team will say, all right, let's just get a jump on this and we'll actually treat them better before everyone else is and we'll get a slight advantage. And if that happens, I wonder whether that then changes the bargaining stance

when they actually get to that, because it seems like there's been a pressure all along, like no one wants to be the first owner to break ranks with that, right? Because then it would put pressure on other owners to do it, even if they could derive a short-term advantage. So I wonder whether there will be less solidarity among major league owners when it becomes clear, okay, finally, they're going to compel us to do this. So let's just get a head start while we can. Yeah. You saw a little bit of that. I think the Astros were the first on the housing. And maybe that was, I have no idea if that was kind of a planned thing where, all right, let's give the Astros who probably could use a little bit of good PR to get out

there first. I don't know. Maybe Jim Crane just really felt strongly about that. Then obviously the league put in its policy. If you go back a few months ago, Advocates for Minor Leaguers was meeting with the Mets in a meeting that was brokered by a New York State senator who is the chair of the Labor Committee in the New York State Senate. And so the Mets were showing some interest in it. And obviously, Steve Cohen has the pockets to do that, to potentially pay minor leaguers more or offer better housing, whatever, right? To kind of separate the environment for his minor leaguers compared to others. Yeah. So I think you could see some of that. You often see in a situation where an employer is trying to dissuade people from organizing where all of a sudden there will be

little gifts that are new things that pop up. Oh, we're going to do this now. Oh, we're going to do that now as kind of a way of dangling a carrot and saying, look, we're so great. I think in this case, that wouldn't, you know, the idea of MLB being able to effectively halt a minor league organizing sounds far-fetched to me, but it's to be seen.

It's to be seen how much of a, if they try, maybe they don't try. Maybe they don't want to take on that PR effort. So at the end of the day, presumably, eventually, if they get the union, then there will be new minimums that all these teams have to meet. And then could some teams want to go beyond it? Sure. I guess my instinct a little bit is, what is the effect of that going to be?

Maybe from a competitive advantage standpoint, it's an interesting thing if a team decides that they want to separate their farm system from another team's in the near future. But as far as like, I don't know, impacting bargaining or otherwise, I don't see this being necessarily a large effect. But I'm sure the players would welcome. Sure. No players can sit there and say, don't feed me better food. Sure. Well, this is all fascinating.

I don't know whether there's anything you think we haven't discussed that we should consider because there are so many angles and wrinkles to this. And you've probably thought about it more and talked to people more about it this week than we have. But it's just kind of amazing to me that we're even at this point. And I know it's all still pretty hypothetical at this point. But even to get to this point, I'm saying this point a lot, but it would have seemed so pie in the sky just until very recently, I think, that there would be any unionization effort like this or that it would be the MLBPA leading it and just ingesting advocates for minor leaguers into its organization. Just things have changed quite quickly on this issue, which is nice to see whatever happens next. Yeah. That would be the one thing I would kind of bring us back to is a bit of the bigger picture because as my own mind, and it sounds like your guys' mind too, kind of go down the rabbit hole, but what does this mean? How did we get here? That's where my brain is centered on. What it's centered on at the moment. You do have reason to step back and say, like, whoa, that's pretty crazy that we're at the point now that the minor leagues are nearing potentially having a union.

And the fact that the MLBPA is the ones doing it. And, you know, if you remember a week ago, that wasn't the case. You know, it's like at least at least you know not that anybody knew publicly and so it is it is remarkable i think there's a potential for look when you look back on tony clark's career and the legacy of the mlbpa in 20 30 years for this to be a really monumental thing that doesn't mean there aren't questions attached to it that you know some reporter somebody somewhere's got to try to answer some of them but yeah in the bigger picture that that's that's the thing i would reinforce because we've we've been in the minutiae a bit here that this is pretty wild and i think back to when i was oh

an unpaid intern covering the minor leagues in 2007 2008 binghamton mets and the brooklyn cyclones just just how different the conversations were about minor league baseball. And these didn't exist, at least not nearly with the same level of prevalence. So it's pretty wild, like effectively. Oh, I hate to not let that be the note we end on because it was so clever. But you mentioned legacy. It wasn't clever at all. You mentioned legacy. And I think you're right that this will absolutely impact the way that we look at Tony Clark's tenure with the union maybe decades from now.

But more immediately, what do you think this unionization effort, particularly if it proves to be a successful one, means for Rob Manfred? It's an interesting juncture for the commissioner, isn't it? You've got the antitrust exemption under attack. You've got probably the one thing, I don't know. I didn't go to Cornell's ILR. I don't know what you're taught when you are trained as a management side labor lawyer, except I think it's a safe assumption that the one thing you work very hard for as a management side labor lawyer is to not get to a point where any of your employees organize. Why? Because it transfers some power from the employer, from your boss to the employees, and your job is to preserve that power and the

money that is associated with it, right? At the end of the day, I'm sure you could try to create some arguments, well, it's better for the league if the MLBPA is represented. I've started to hear people constructing some of these arguments that this is a better outcome for the commissioner's office than if the players have been represented by an outside union. I'm not saying that's true. I'm just saying that's an opinion that exists that people can suggest. At the end of the day, the league would be in better shape for their interests and purposes if there was no union. And so that's something that the commissioner probably has to face his bosses on. And I think it's similar to the kind of thing,

I think we were talking about this at the end of the last one about the antitrust exemption, where, so what's the argument Rob Manfred can make for himself or attempt to make is, well, I pushed this off as long as possible. I don't know that that argument would stand up. I think it's very fair to ask whether there are things that he did or could have done or that the owners could have done or that he could have convinced the owners to have done that would have delayed this. And he's got 30 people to answer to on these types of things. And it's a very interesting question going forward here, as you guys alluded to earlier. You know, we haven't heard anything from the league.

What are they going to do? Would they voluntarily recognize? Would they go on the offensive publicly? Are they just going to stay quiet and try to make it as small a PR fight as possible? We're waiting for some shoes to drop here. But yeah, it is a legacy impacting thing for the commissioner. Absolutely. Yeah. And as the expert you talked to said, if anyone doubts that this would actually be beneficial for minor leaguers, look at what MLB does, right?

Because if MLB is not championing this and saying, yes, rah, rah, please unionize, then that probably tells you what the league thinks that the effects would be. It's amazing how often that – if you apply that argument to a lot of different things, it really can provide a lot of clarity. And that's true for individual issues and bargaining. Like, well, if this was so good for players, then why is the league fighting against it? And the same thing with the antitrust exemption, the central argument in that was, look, this is actually good for the communities. And it's a common type of argument that comes up. Yep. All right. Well, it's always a pleasure to talk to you. Who knows what earth-shaking news will happen next that we will be compelled to summon you back sometime soon. I know that we will want to talk to you about your book, which is pre-orderable and has

a release date and everything, and even an excerpt. You can find it at winningfixiseverything.com, which will take you right to the Amazon page. Winning Fixes Everything. It's out February 14th, 2023. And there is an excerpt out already at The Athletic, which we will link to along with all these other pieces. And I got to say, having read that, it focuses on your reporting on Jeff Lunau, who seemingly sneakily deleted some stuff from his phone when he was not supposed to and was not forthcoming about it when MLB was doing the sign stealing investigation. And he may have sort of made it known that this investigation would be happening and that phones would be seized and nudge, nudge, wink, wink, and we'll see. And so it's hard to know exactly what digital paper trail was deleted there. But

his explanation, as he said in a statement that's included in the excerpt here is, I had pictures on my phone of my wife giving birth to our son, and I deleted those at her request prior to handing over my phone. Now, you shed some doubt on that, I would think, just given that it seems like other things were seemingly deleted from the phone than just those photos. But also, having had a wife who gave birth in the last year, I don't think I took a picture of that moment. And if I could remove the picture from my mind that exists of that moment, I would gladly delete it. I mean, miracle of life and everything absolutely it's a wonderful and natural physical processes and such but boy i if i had taken a picture of that i don't think i would

want that on my phone or want to ever refer to it so the fact that his explanation was that he was savoring this photo of the act of birth, it just makes me question a lot of things about him that maybe I was not already questioning, and I was questioning a lot. Can't imagine that's where you thought that was going to go, Evan. Can't imagine that was what you had money on. No, there have been a lot of things. Let me just say this. I've had a weird, whatever, two and a half, three years of the reporting on this book. It has taken me down roads that I never would have expected. And frankly, Googling birth photography to find out whether that is a thing. And of course it is.

It is. I'm not giving any validity to whether. I cannot say, and this is the whole point. The whole point is we don't know. And the commissioner's office does not know whether Jeff Luno is being truthful because they have no way to review it. Right. He deletes the stuff. And then he says this is the reason.

But because the stuff is gone, they don't know. Right. And so that's where we arrive at. That's what the excerpt explains. And the commissioner in that letter to Luno says, I have no way to tell whether you deleted incriminating evidence. And it was one of the things he listed in that letter that was first reported by the Wall Street Journal back in 2020. Yeah, man, there's been some find Evan on Twitter at evandrelic, D-R-E-L-L-I-C-H. I'm sure he will continue to report on all of the subjects that we have discussed today, up to and including Jeff Luneau's birth photography. So thank you, as always, Evan. Thanks, guys.

All right. That will do it for today. All right, that will do it for today. It just occurred to me now as I was about to finish this outro that I should have said that bathrobe pass blast was a past bath or maybe a bath blast. But I didn't think of it. Not till now. This is what they call esprit d'escalier. At least now you hear the call of the keyboard and you have to heed it. The content cries to be produced. We were actually supposed to record this episode a little earlier in the day, in which case we would have been finished recording by the time that Joey Manessis hit his walk-off. So I'm thrilled that that worked out the way that it did. You got to hear my elation in real time. I mentioned earlier that the Yankees had promoted Oswald Peraza. My colleague at The Ringer, Roger Sherman, noted now on the Yankees roster, there's an Oswald and an Oswaldo, and there's a Trevino and a Trevino.

So Oswald Peraza, Oswaldo Cabrera, Lou Trevino, Jose Trevino. This could cause problems. Broadcasters, beware. We will monitor the situation closely here at Effectively Wild HQ. In the meantime, you can support the podcast by going to patreon.com

slash effectively wild and signing up to pledge some monthly or yearly amount to help keep the podcast going. Get yourself access to some perks and help us stay ad free. The following five listeners have already done so. Neil Posner, Jesse Severet, Nick Reza, Stephen M, and Josh Q. Thanks to all of you. Patreon perks include access to the Effectively Wild Discord group, monthly bonus pods, one of which we published this week. We answered all sorts of questions on non-baseball subjects from our listeners. You also get discounts on t-shirts and access to playoff live streams and more. You can contact me and Meg via email at podcastoffancrafts.com

or via the Patreon messaging system if you are a supporter. You can rate, review, and subscribe to Effect on itunes and spotify and other podcast platforms you can join our facebook group at facebook.com slash group slash effectively wild you can find the effectively wild subreddit at r slash effectively wild and you can follow effectively wild on twitter at uw pod thanks to dylan higgins for his editing and production assistance we will be back with one more episode before the end of the week and the long weekend. So we will talk to you soon.

Yeah. Brothers and our sisters, together we will stand. There is power in the union.