Effectively Wild: A FanGraphs Baseball Podcast - Effectively Wild Episode 1904: Keeping Tabs

Episode Date: September 16, 2022

Ben Lindbergh and Meg Rowley banter about minor leaguers officially joining the MLBPA and what minor league unionization might do to the game’s distribution of revenue, follow up on Gold Gloves for utility players, toilet flappers, and Joey Meneses, discuss Jon Berti’s pursuit of 40 stolen bases, what pickoff-attempt restrictions will do to the running […]

I'm sick of watching you leave I'm sick of feeling afraid You can sleep on my couch if you want to I'll just pretend that today is the trick of the day Guess this charade is getting harder to maintain But you make it look easy It's easy to give you what you want It's easy It's easy to give me what you want It's easy

It's so easy Hello and welcome to episode 1904 of Effectively Wild, a baseball podcast from Fangraphs presented by our Patreon supporters. I'm Ben Lindberg of The Ringer, joined by Meg Rowley of Fangraphs. Hello, Meg. Hello. So it took about two and a half weeks to go from having no inkling that a minor league union or that minor leaguers being part of the MLBPA was even a remote possibility on a short timeline to it just happening and being done. It's done now. Minor leaguers are unionized as part of the MLBPA.

Just two and a half weeks. I can't think of a precedent, I don't think, for something in baseball that changed that quickly, something so sweeping and fundamental. Not that I would have discounted the possibility that it could happen. I guess I might have thought it would be more likely that they would unionize separately than to join the MLBPA, but wouldn't have put it out of the bounds of possibility that it could happen at some point. Obviously, it seemed a lot likelier than it did, say, several years ago. But still, just like even people who are pretty plugged into the industry and reporting on these issues just did not know that this was coming down the pike so soon. And now it's just done. I don't want to say that was easy because I'm sure it was extremely not easy to do all of the organizing and lay all the groundwork that had to be laid for

this to happen so quickly. It just seems like, oh, that was easy because we didn't know what was going on in the background and behind the scenes. But still, wow, who knew? And who knows what could be the next big thing that changes way more quickly than we anticipated. Right. And, you know, you're, I don't know. It's like I had a grad school professor who would talk about like the thinkability of a thought a lot, which is not a thing i'm going to bore you with with like a protracted explanation but it's like you know you would have you have these like sea

change moments in intellectual history where something that we just couldn't conceive of suddenly becomes rote and we are able to suddenly look at the world differently as a result of it and you know it's not that there hasn't been a call for this coming from some quarters for a long time, but that the sea change within, you know, the MLBPA would be, I think, like a broader, as we talked about with Evan, sort of a broader shift around the American conception of unions and their importance generally with, you know, the activism and organizing work that, you know, Advocates for Minor Leaguers was doing, like all of those things could coalesce together in a way that was

productive and collaborative rather than antagonistic is like pretty incredible. And I don't say that to, you know, knock any of the individual participants in that, but these are, these are big and profound changes. And that stuff is often really hard one and this was hard one but sometimes can lead to acrimony and i don't know it's just like a profoundly cool it's profoundly cool so of course they actually need to negotiate right like they still have to like do get a cba union part of it like they have to do the being a union part right being a union is an important part to being a union. That isn't profound at all. But you know what I'm trying to say.

Like you have to walk before you can run, right? I think we're going to answer some emails. So I'll just pluck this one out because it's related to this topic. Andy asked, do you think that higher minor league pay and benefits will result in an overall increase in the share of revenue going to players, or will it just divert some money from major league payrolls? Well, that's an interesting question, isn't it? Yeah. I mean, that's the question, isn't it? Yeah, that is a question.

Yeah, no wonder Andy asked it. Yeah, that's a good question, Andy. You know, that's a question. Yeah, no wonder Andy asked it. Yeah, that's a good question, Andy. That's a good one. People at the PA must think the former, right? I would think that they would not have been so gung-ho about organizing if they thought that they were just shifting some money from current union members or future members of the pre-existing union to others who were not in the union at that time, they must think that it might mean getting a greater share of the pie for the players as a whole. I don't know if they're right about that or not. So I guess it depends. Of course, we talked about the possibility that MLB would double down on its plans to try to downsize the miners. That would have some bearing on this if

they were able to carry that out. But even if we just assume that the structure of the minors stays the same, same number of teams and leagues and players, I still don't know for sure. You could say from a utilitarian standpoint, I guess, that it might be better than the status quo if that was all that happened. If they had the same percentage of the pie, but they just handed out little pieces of the pie to players who were getting very little before. If you're just robbing the wealthier to give to the less wealthy without robbing the really wealthy, the owners of the team. Not that there's robbing going on here. It's negotiating. But you could say that the need for funds was more acute for minor leaguers than even for someone who's making the league minimum from a utilitarian standpoint.

So I guess you could say that it would still be a good, in a sense, even if it would not necessarily be fair to the players as a whole. But obviously, they will be pushing to not lose anything for the existing members and to gain something for the new members. Well, and I think that this is one of the places where, and I can see an argument where the counterfactual to this is true, that the minor leaguers union and the major leaguers union existing under the same broad umbrella maybe puts these units at odds with one another around this question. But I think that there's a really profound opportunity to be sort of in lockstep in terms of how you're demanding things in your respective CBA negotiations, right? So I think that the major league players, as they gear up for their next CBA negotiation, which I can't believe I'm mentioning. The last one was just so easy and not at all stressful for anyone involved, right?

Let's do it again. Run it back. that point and having been assured of some increases to the league minimum and to some growth in the competitive balance tax thresholds and being able to sort of battle back some of the more draconian taxes that were being proposed at various stages that like they will continue to press this question of the bigger you know a bigger slice needs to come to players just generally and then you know the the minor leaguers as they push forth are probably going to say like, no's like to you and me when you aggregate that number together, like it's a big number. But relative to the revenues the teams are pulling in, it's f***.

You know, excuse me, I did like a bad swear. Ooh, Dylan, bleep that one. You know, it's pocket change, right? Like it's just not, it's really not that much money, which is why it was always- It would be hard to even notice, I guess. Like if the owners gave the minor leaguers more and then they were like, we're going to dig our heels in and- Really? Over this? You wouldn't even necessarily be able to notice the difference because the minor leaguers, even though more of them make so much less per player that even if they got a decent percentage bump, it would still be a whole

lot less than the major leaguers are making. So it's just like a drop in the bucket, basically. So it seems like, and it'll be really interesting to see what is the posture of the league when they actually get to the table, because a lot of people didn't think that they would voluntarily recognize the union. I'm sure the reason they did is because michael bauman told them to and they always listen to what michael has to say but you know like i don't think a lot of people anticipated that they would voluntarily recognize the union and then they did it will be interesting kind of what posture they adopt once they actually get to the table but it seems like this is just an easy place for them to like win one by giving money to people, right? This is just an easy spot for them to be like, look, you're all making 60 grand,

you know, and we took care of the housing and like, you're all doing fine now. And we don't have to keep having this conversation. We'll peg it to inflation and we'll just move on. Right. And then that becomes a subtle question that like Rob Manfred doesn't get asked about when he goes to the BBWA meeting at the all-star game. You know, we just don't ever ask him about that again. Cause these people are making a living wage and they're able to make enough during the season to train during the off season, the way they want to, without having to be substitute teachers or sell solar panels or whatever else they were doing to make ends meet in the meantime so i don't want to be pollyanna ish because mlb has demonstrated in the past that they will fight over every inch but this is just

such a small amount of money it's such a small amount of money. It's a couple of relievers. Right. Yeah. Like that's what we're talking about, really. It's like a couple of relievers a year. So to dig in over that seems like, you know, you are you're damaging in a pretty profound way, a new relationship and probably drawing ire in your existing labor relationship over what maybe a couple hundred million maybe not even though right like it's a couple relievers probably yeah so i wonder because they know what the going rate has been for wins and for free agents at the major league level and that sort of thing so if if they saw that suddenly that was dipping, I don't know if owners held firm and had some kind of conclusion going on where they were

just like, we're mad that they're unionized now and we're going to make them pay in some way, then there'd be some sort of showdown. But I would guess that it would be a bigger piece of the pie. They'll obviously be pushing for a bigger piece of the pie. Each side is always pushing for a bigger piece of the pie. So that's going to be their goal. And I would guess that things would move slightly in that direction toward a bigger piece of the pie for the players if I had to bet one way or the other as a result of this. Yeah, I think that I agree with that. So here is a much less profound change that has happened on that same sort of timeline, but I figured I'd follow up and mention it. So on episode 1885, I believe, which was early August, we answered a question from Patreon supporter Mitch, who asked whether we thought there should be a gold glove award for utility players. And we said, sure, why why not and now there is there's a gold glove for utility players was just announced this week that Rawlings is going to start handing those out they didn't exactly say what the specs are or what the innings minimum is or what the distribution of innings has

to be but there's going to be one and I think as we said when we answered that question we kind of had forgotten that there was one because the fielding Bible has had one for a while, but Rawlings is getting in on the act now. You heard it here first on Effectively Wild. Maybe they heard our email answer and said, hey, we should get on that. That's a good idea. Let's make up for lost time. Anyway, that's happening now. Not quite as significant as the minor leagues unionizing, but I figured I'd mention it. But, you know, we like awards. We like smart awards. We like awards that don't inspire debates about the definition of value.

So, you know, seems like a good idea. Might inspire a debate about the definition of utility player, I guess. But that's a matter for another day. Another follow-up. We got an email from the toilet flapper people. We sure did. flappers would reach Corky's ears. Who knows how often they get discussed on baseball podcasts because they compared the size of their toilet flappers to baseball. So we got an email from listener Jonathan who says, as a longtime Effectively Wild listener, I didn't need much

motivation to queue up the next episode. But with episode 1899, you had my attention at the title Crapper Flapper. You see, I kind of grew up with the Corky, which is manufactured by Lavelle, a Wisconsin-based company that has employed several of my relatives. I reached out to my uncle to get input on the baseball softball references. He sent along my question to Joe Blank, Lavelle's digital marketing manager. And here is Joe's response. I always say that there's always a listener who does the thing or knows about the thing that we are talking about. So of course, there would be someone with a quirky connection.

So this is from Joe Blank, digital marketing manager for Lavelle Industries and Quirky Toilet Repair. And Joe writes, Paul shared with me your email about quirky being mentioned on the Effectively Wild podcast. Cool. And thanks for sharing. Your email about Corky being mentioned on the Effectively Wild podcast. Cool, and thanks for sharing.

To provide a bit more context, this was the burning question that I had. We reference a softball and a baseball to help with ease of selection. We use those because even though the toilets or flush valves are referred to as a standard 2-inch or large 3-inch, the flapper sizes tend to be a bit larger and very similar to that of a baseball or softball. So that was one pedantic observation I made that they were saying that the standard size flapper was two inches in diameter and they were comparing it to a baseball. And I pointed out that actually a baseball is bigger than that. It's close to three inches in diameter, but it seems that the flapper sizes actually are a bit larger than that listed size. And so they are similar to a baseball or softball. Joe Blank continues,

oftentimes shoppers aren't always aware that there is a size difference. And we can't have that because if you get the wrong size toilet flapper, then it'll be flapping. And then you won't be able to flush and you'll have a leaky toilet and that would be a disaster and the water would keep running. So once shopping in aisle or online, we feel the baseball softball analogy is a good point of reference for helping shoppers determine what product they need in the event they don't have easy access to their toilet to measure, which is usually the case if you're in a store, probably don't have your toilet handy. If you do, then you probably need more than a new flapper.

Yeah, right. Joe continues, as an American-made brand, I pointed that out. They advertise that quite often. Corky strives to be as helpful as we can. That's nice, especially as it relates to ease of selection. Fun fact, we are also woman-owned. Fun fact. Oh, fun fact. Feel free to share any or all of the above,

as well as my contact information, if they have any questions. I don't know if I do anymore. I think all my questions may be answered. I guess my one remaining question is, why did they offer the fruit as the alternate sizing comparison online? When did that get added to the picture?

Yeah, mystery's still abound. And Joe concludes, we are honored to be mentioned and that Ben chose Corky. Actually, my mom chose Corky, but I'm sure they're honored by that too. All right. Well, good digital marketing, Joe. You just got some digital marketing happening on this podcast there. So thanks to everyone involved in that. What other updates do we have?

People keep sending me Joey Manessis updates. Believe me, I know. I'm monitoring the situation quite closely. Joey Manessis is uncomfortable. What the hell is closely? No, I'm kidding. He may be. I'm sure he's happy for the attention. There was a sort of a viral story about Joey Manessis because Joey Manessis threw a ball to a kid, to a 10-year-old girl who was like in the outfield.

And there was a guy who just came in and vultured the ball from her and then just left. I don't think it was Zach Campbell. It was someone else, just like some grown man, just like ducked in, plucked the ball just out from in front of her face, just stuck his glove, intercepted the Joey Manessis throw, and then just left. And this came to the attention of the Nationals and Joey Manessis, and he sent the girl a ball and a nice note, which was nice of Joey Manessis. And we also got an update from listener and Patreon supporter Rick, who caught Joey Manessis' walk-off, or at least retrieved the ball, and he informed the Nationals,

and he was able to attend the game and go to batting practice and meet Joey Manessis and hand him the ball and get a thank you in person. And he said Joey was very nice. So those are all my updates about Joey Manessis and balls. Oh, Ben. Another thing that I should probably bring up is that we talked the other day about the rules changes that are coming in for 2023. And the one about the pickoff attempts and restricting those to two per point appearance, that we almost just skimmed over. It was almost an afterthought. We noted it.

We noted what the effects might be, but we ended up talking more about the pitch clock and the shift. And Russell Carlton wrote about that this week about the pickoff rule. And he argued that this is actually the big one, that we shouldn't overlook this. He said, make no mistake, of all the rule changes coming next year, this one is the biggest. This is a fundamental change in how base running happens in baseball. And he goes through and he points out that if you look at pickoff attempts, something he's written about often, when the pitcher does throw over there, it really does decrease attempt rate and success rate. And he tries to game out what the effects of this will be.

And we don't really even have to speculate because they tested this in the minors and there was really a pretty significant uptick in stolen base success rates and attempt rates. And new full-time Fangraphs contributor Michael Bauman wrote wrote this week you're taking anyone these days take it bauman boy i love michael we'll have him on the show oh we will yeah he's on fangraphs audio this week he is yeah talking about where baseball players went to college yes predictably he can only be himself he's playing the hits yeah so we miss him at the ringer. I wanted to mention that he blogged about the fact that it looks like there may very well not be a 40 stolen base player this year for the first time since 1958, depending on whether John Birdie gets six more because he has 34 as we speak. And I had not noticed that necessarily. I obviously knew that people were not stealing as many bases these days, but did not know we were in danger of not having a 40 steal person. And so Michael argues that this is no fun not to have anyone

going for it often and that it's probably a good thing that they're trying to juice the stolen base totals. And I think it is too. That's probably why we didn't talk about it that much. I was not up in arms about this change. But it is a pretty significant one. And I was trying to figure out why that doesn't bother me, because they're really changing something pretty fundamental to baseball. And they're saying, let's make it a lot easier to steal bases. And we all like steals, or most of us like steals, and we enjoy seeing them. And they're saying, let's make it a lot easier to steal bases.

And we all like steals or most of us like steals and we enjoy seeing them. And I think we enjoy them because there's some suspense and some tension. So if it were to get to the point where people were just walking down to second, then that would not be as fun. But if it doesn't get to that point, if it's still exciting, but it's happening more often, then I'm on board with that. But it's almost like we get so exercised about other fairly small changes. Like if the ball gets juiced intentionally or unintentionally and suddenly it's easier to hit home runs, we talk about that to no end. And that bothers people a bit. Or if strikeout rates creep up, that bothers people a bit. I guess in that case, you're looking at something that is maybe a bit spectator unfriendly,

whereas you hope that this will be spectator friendly. But still, this is a big change to something pretty fundamental about the sport, just like how the base running game works, how the cat and mouse between the pitcher and the base runner plays out. They're just sort of taking a weapon away from the pitchers or at least blunting it a bit. Yeah. And it really doesn't bother me at all, which is kind of interesting because there are other

things that if you made them a lot easier, I don't know that I would like that. Like, I don't know, like what's rare, like a triple or something. Like if, I guess if you said like, we rare like a a triple or something like if i guess if you said like we'll make it a lot easier to get triples because the runner won't have to run as far or something it'd be like well that almost defeats the the purpose it should be kind of a hard fun play i guess by making the third base slightly bigger they actually did do that but i'm just saying that in many cases it would feel like destabilizing or it would bother me because it would put today's stats out of whack with earlier era stats like isn't that what people

always say about the PED era and how baseball fans got so upset about that because it just sort of broke up the scale that we were used to and and record holders and and just what we assumed that the baselines would be. And baseball fans care about continuity and tradition and stats. So suddenly they're saying, hey, here you have a leg up, base runners, just go for it, go to town. And we're mostly approving and saying, yeah, this is good. This is fine.

Just kind of interesting that that does not bug me more because it doesn't. Yeah, it is interesting. But I think I'm with you. I don't find myself going like, no, ick. That's not the reaction I have to it because I think even if it does alter the landscape in a more fundamental way than a lot of the other roles we've talked about, it's like, but I like what it's trying to do, though. I like the thing that we're going to on hopefully if it happens because we shouldn't look i don't want to knock john birdie but we shouldn't be relying on john birdie for stuff like i'm sure he's a reliable person you know he's been a good contributor to the marlins if he hadn't been hurt and hadn't had

covid like who knows maybe we're not even having to have this conversation because he's just playing enough that he's easily going to pass 40. And then we don't have to, you know, then poor Bowman doesn't have anything to write about that day. He has to find something else like college baseball, but like the statistical record, I feel comfortable saying probably shouldn't hinge on the John birdies.

Right? Like, we don't, we don't want that. We want, we want other names that, you know, better on teams that aren't the Marlins. So, and again, this isn't a knock on John Birdie. I bet like if you need to move and you need someone to help that John Birdie does that,

and I'm sure the Marlins like him, and he, as I said, has done well for them. You know, I'm sure he's a good, I don't know if he's a good person. I feel comfortable assuming, though. It's fine. We don't have any evidence to the contrary. I don't mean to say he's a good, I don't know if he's a good person. I feel comfortable assuming, though. It's fine. We don't have any evidence to the contrary. I don't mean to say he's unreliable. He did well for me in the 2019 minor league free agent draft. Of course he did.

Oh, man. We got to stop. Oh, no, Ben. I don't even want to look at the standings right now. I think Ben Henson's just- Oh, no. No, I've made my peace with that. Yeah.

Okay. Oh, you mean we got to prep for the coming one? Well, I want to i want to not embarrass myself i've lowered the bar you know yeah i think another point bauman made it is that even though we know that steals are down league wide that it does help to have even just like a couple outliers right you need to have some outliers right like they aren't john birdie maybe they are players again who you're more familiar with but yeah he made the point that like this is not

without historical precedent there have been outliers that have sort of boosted our sense of like how often base stealing was happening just by being good at it themselves you know i think that if you had a couple guys who were going for 60 or 70, then that's something to get excited about. And even if it's a strong contrast to everyone else and no one else is running, that's something. So maybe it's just the fact that there hasn't been a lot of consistency when it comes to stolen base rates in general, just like over baseball history, you've had really high stolen base rate eras and you've had really low ones as well. And it's fluctuated a lot. I guess most things have fluctuated over a long enough timeline, but you know, you have like the eighties where everyone's running and then you have like the fifties where no one's running and just everything in between. And so maybe because of that, like if it had been constant the whole time and then they were like, oh, we're suddenly going to juice this. Or if we were at a not a low ebb, but a high tide for stolen base rates and then they decided to do something, then it'd be like, OK, this is getting out of hand.

But as it is, there's been enough just natural variability that maybe having some artificial variability and actually tampering and interfering a little just doesn't bother me as much. Or maybe it's just not as sacred. Like those records just don't matter as much to us as home run records maybe. And like probably no one's going to be breaking Ricky's records because of this, you know? Like if we went back to like people were just lapping Ricky because of this rule, then I think it might be cheapened and we might want to do something about it. But if it's just bringing it up to a more respectable level or kind of more of a median level in a historic sense, then that's probably fine and no one will get upset about it. at it so do you think that the reason for that is i think that maybe we perceive bass running and stolen bases as like less of a trained skill right i'm wondering if the reason that we're i mean like people look at ricky's records and they're like whoa because they're amazing but

in terms of i think you're right that like the general reverence with which we hold them is different collectively than like home run records tend to be, even though so much of our understanding of hitting a home run as like so much more of a skilled pursuit because it's like there are a lot of fast like really fast guys who end up being kind of lousy base runners so it's not as if there isn't skill there right that you that you don't have to cultivate like expertise i just find it interesting i think you're right that we don't view them the same and i'm trying to understand why because it's like how i don't think even now we don't we don't respect on base streaks ben like as you know nobody talks about that i mean they do but not to the same degree they do when like hitting streak numbers start to creep up there and i've

speculated in fan graphs before that part of the reason for that is that like we don't see it as work in the same way we see it as charity right you're being given a base on balls as if like we don't know that having a good batting eye isn't incredibly difficult and something that like some guys don't have to the extent that it like torpedoes their careers and they can't be big leaguers so it's quite interesting like what we sit there and think about with reverence as if like oh you have you've accomplished something that has like a learned or skilled component to it i don't know i don't maybe i'm off base but i find it interesting that we're not as worked up about that but maybe it's just because no one has come remotely close to breaking this record and so we haven't had to have a conversation about stolen bass records because right now we're like rooting for John Birdie.

Yeah, we'll take anything. We're desperate. I'm sorry, John Birdie. If you listen to this, I'm sure you're lovely. And you're having a heck of a season for those Marlins. It's fine. I'm still grateful for those plate appearances you gave me back in 2019 or 2020 or whatever it was.

So now you've made it about you again, Ben. Yes. Yeah. That's what we all do with players on our fantasy teams or our minor league free agent draft teams. It's a fair point that you raised. It's a fair point. Which is what made me appreciate, I don't know whether you saw Jake McCarthy's attempt

to get a walk-off steal of home, if you can call it that, which I probably would not call it that. I'm so glad he wasn't hurt. I was worried he had, like, broken his face. Yeah. See, that was an exciting play. Yeah. And it didn't work. No, it did not work.

I don't think it was a bad play. And he came quite close to pulling it off. And it was a decent situation to do it. No one was expecting it. He did take the opponents by surprise. And he was the only runner on base. And it was two outs. And so he's not going to score on a sack fly. And you'd have to get a hit. And you have a good pitcher in at that point. I mean, it's like, yeah, why not go for it? You don't have to have a perfect success rate to justify it.

You need to be above some reasonable break-even point. And he made it close. He did. It looked to me like, you know, I'd have to take another look to make sure he wasn't in there. Like he waited. He lulled the Dodgers into a false sense of security. And, you know, it was like the catcher lobbed the ball back obviously wasn't expecting him to go and if you make it that close in that situation i think nice job you know it was exciting

for fans and it was not a bad percentage play i don't think it just didn't pay off and diamondbacks ended up winning anyway yeah that was that was fun they're not again they're not good. They're not, again, they're not good, but they're not bad anymore, those Diamondbacks. Yeah, they have some sneaky, good, and interesting players. Yeah, they sure do. We didn't talk about them much in the first half, and it was like Joe Mantaply was their all-star representative, right? And it was like, he was good on the Diamondbacks. But all of a sudden, it's like, Zach Allen is good Yeah. Dalton Varshow is good and really interesting also. And Christian Walker we talked about recently.

Like, you know, they've got some guys. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. There's some of their young guys are up and doing well. I want to, before we move on related to McCarthy trying to steal home, I want to say two things. One is about Jake McCarthy and the other is about something i said earlier so jake mccarthy walks up to brain stew like that is his walk-up song

i really want to know first of all as like a elder millennial the invocation of good green day is really nice because i'm like oh jake mccarthy like yeah you you know that song how do you know that song Jake McCarthy you're a young snapper 25 yeah you're a young person you've you've you know so anyway that's the thing about that the other thing I wanted to say and we will link to this piece in the show notes is that I have finally found in the course of you talking that the piece that I was trying to pull up where Russell Carlton tries to more accurately estimate sort of what it would cost to do a bunch of different things to assist the minor leaguers to live lives that are not like awful and abysmal and this entire thing is kind of worth reading but there's other stuff on like in season housing and helping to provide meals and what have

you but just from a salary perspective not living at the poverty line would help and it could all be done for something around four million ish per year per team not in toto um so again like this isn't it's fine can do a lot score some big points maybe more minor leakers when he wrote that also right yeah, yeah, that's true. That's true. So anyway, we will link to that so that people can take a peek. But it's just not a lot of money, so everyone should do it. Also, like, thinkability of a thought

is the way that my professor talked about it. Like, having that conversation is like a much broader conversation in political theory. So I don't want to make it sound like he came up with it. So the five political theorists who listened to this podcast,

it's fine. You guys are okay. I know, political theorists who listen to this podcast, it's fine. You guys are okay. I know. But I'm just trying to keep the ball in play, keep the train on the track, keep the moving. You know? Brains do. Jake McCarthy's good. He's having a good year.

Yeah. Again, they're not good collectively yet, but they're not bad like they're gonna be if they if they keep getting if the youth movement persists if christian walker can hold on to these gains if zach allen stays good you know if they are willing to spend some money like the nl is hard but they're not bad that's not a bad baseball team anymore and you know that's so. You heard my hesitation there about whether to call that a potential walk-off. And I have just been wracked with uncertainty and anxiety surrounding what isn't a walk-off ever since we had that discussion about it. supporters wrote in to suggest a way that we could get around this, which was that in NPB in Japan, they're called sayonara hits instead of walk-offs. And that just means goodbye. Right.

And so we could switch to that potentially. Maybe we could just call them sayonara hits, right? Like, yeah, that might work potentially if it's not a true walk-off but it's what many people would call a walk-off except that you know they're not actually walking off for whatever reason it's just a game ending play which is the very boring alternative that i think we discussed a sayonara hit might be nice yeah we. We got to like zhuzh it up a little bit. But, you know, yeah, I could contemplate something like that. I think that having, I mean, I want to say,

I think everybody knows what you mean, though, when you say walk off. Like, I don't think that we have a breakdown of communication. I know that we want to entertain pedantic questions. And that's fine. We're going to do that. You know know that's one of our bits now but i think we all generally know what we mean right don't we know what we mean another term that i think we should borrow from npb because i was writing about murakami and sasaki i have an article about those guys up at the ringer we've talked about them a bit on the pod but I'm endlessly fascinated by the record rewriting seasons that they're having in NPV.

But the hero interview is another term that I think we should import, which is basically like the post-game interview with the star of the game, like the sideline interview. They call it a hero interview. Cool. I like that. I like that too. Yeah, we should start using that. I'm going to start using hero interview. I'm into hero interview.

yeah we should start using that i'm gonna start using hero interview i'm into hero interview plus like you know the odds there's there's like a contingent of big league broadcasters where i'm like do we want to trust this person with the sayonara hit like as a term of art i don't know you know there might be like we get us in some trouble but the the hero interview i feel like is much less fraught and one email that we got actually about stealing home we got a question from chris this was a while ago it was referring to the july 31st astros mariners game and chris wrote jose altuve was credited with a stolen base of home in the first inning when i got the the notification on my phone, I couldn't wait to see the excitement that was stealing home. Yeah. The game situation was first and third, one out,

Yuli Gurriel on first, Altuve on third. Gurriel takes off on the pitch to steal second, catcher throws to second to try to catch him stealing. Only then does Altuve start to steal, quote unquote, home. He's safe and the Astros take a 1-0 lead. Only I really don't think this should be a stolen base any more than I think a runner taking the extra base when the defense tries to make a play on another runner is. You didn't get a triple. You got a double and took third on the throw.

And sorry, Altuve, you didn't steal home. You scored on a stolen base attempt by Goriel. You didn't steal home. You scored on a stolen base attempt by Goriel. It does seem like we should have some way to distinguish between an exciting version of that play and the boring version. Yeah, because, yeah, you hear steal of home. Right. And usually it's not like a straight steal, I guess, is what you would call the exciting kind. Right.

Otherwise, a delayed steal or something like that but but in the box score it it would not make that distinction probably and then you would be misled right you're you're mentally picturing something between what jake mccarthy tried to do and like randy rosarino right exactly that's the that's the zone you're operating in and then you get there and you're like oh that's just not what i thought i was gonna get at all and that would be disappointing so i i think that point is well taken yeah speaking of a rosarena ben clemens notified me that there was a vlad grow jr and a rosarena hidden ball trick situation vlad tried to pull it off and didn't. Didn't work. And Rosarena basically saw him doing it and just called time. And then Vlad was very sheepish about it.

Yes. And they were laughing about it throughout Rosarena's stay at first, which I guess that is the downside that we've talked about. What's the downside? Why not just try it? It's kind of embarrassing, I guess, if you very transparently attempt to do it and it doesn't work at all yes he was he was quite delighted because that whole trip around the bases for rosarino was quite dynamic and interesting and he's like and there's a hidden ball trick he was very excited and slack it was nice yeah and last bit of banter, I guess, is what has gotten into Eugenio Suarez?

Yeah. Wow. How about the Mariners, Ben? Yeah. I don't know why I just emphasized your name like you've been antagonistic toward the Mariners before now. That's not true at all. No, not at all. I'm pulling for them.

But he has out-homered everyone over some span of time. I forget exactly how long a span, but like a week's long span. And he's up to actually exactly as many homers as he hit last year in basically the same number of play appearances. So it's not shocking, I guess, in that respect. But he was like kind of an afterthought in the trade that brought him to Seattle. And he's basically like he's having as good a year once you adjust for the offensive environment. He's tied with his career high single season WRC plus. So it turns out that it was not really the Jesse Winker trade that was in the other way around. Yeah. Yeah. It's it's kind of incredible because you're right like that. The way that we conceptualized that trade was you're going out to get Jesse Winker,

who has been not very good. It might be fine. Who knows? It's a problem when you're a left fielder and you only have a 107 WRC plus, but that's neither here nor there. We were like, oh, I can't believe these stinking Reds aren't going to, or like doing a salary dump with Eugenio Suarez. And it's not like it

was like such a wild amount of money, which was part of what made it so like insulting that they like insisted on it. Like his entire deal is like seven years and 66 million. It has like, I think the AV is like less than $10 million a year. So it's, it's very like fine. It's totally fine. But yes, it was like, they're getting Jesse Winker, who was coming off this incredible season. And also there's Eugenio Suarez. And we don't know what Eugenio Suarez is going to do when the ball isn't super juiced.

Like, he's probably not going to have the same year. And they're going out and getting Jesse Winker in his 147 WRC+. And he has not done that. But Eugenio has been been great so it doesn't matter right I remember Suarez being really ridiculously hot at the end of last season it was just like his September October split 370 460 808 with eight homers yeah and he just had not hit much up to that point right but he was I think mentioned maybe as a bounce back candidate but yeah it was not the centerpiece of that trade but But because he's had this flurry of homers here,

he now is again or still is the major league home run leader dating back to the beginning of the 2018 season, which is just really wild to think that. It's so weird. He is one homer ahead of Aaron Judge over that span as we speak right now and 10 homers ahead of anyone else. Eugenio Suarez who like you don't think of. I remember like Eugenio Suarez's 2019 when he had

49 homers. Right. That seemed like it would stand out as like the ultimate example of like the peak juiced ball. Right. Yeah. Suarez would almost hit 50. But I mean, he hit a lot before and after that. He hit 34 the year before that. He's hit 31 each of the past two years. He just hits homers. He's not a great overall offensive player. He's struck out 30% of the time too. So he's going to be a low batting average guy and he's not going to be a

superstar, but he does do that one thing about as well as anyone in baseball just he hits homers yeah i mean like the only the only mariner with a better wrc plus and a higher war at least among the position players for any of their guys who have a minimum of like 200 plate appearances is julio rodriguez like he's also man that julio he's sure good 25 25 yeah is that a thing yeah you know what we're making it a thing you know yeah because it's just as exciting it's just fun and exciting in this low stolen base era we should era just the 30 30 club to the Yeah. I mean, like, he probably has five more stolen bases in him, right? Don't he? Yeah.

Sure. Could be true. Hope so. So I thought you were going to talk about Cal Raleigh hitting a bunch of home runs. They've been hitting a lot of home runs lately, those Mariners, you know? Yeah. Exciting team. Oh, man.

They're going to make the postseason. I'm going to be a disaster. I'm going to be a stupid wreck. All right. So I do have a few emails here that I'm very excited to answer because I think I thought we were going to answer more emails early this week and I opened up

some tabs in preparation. And then we talked to Scott Boris. Yeah, it may have been the episode before that. And so I've had all of these tabs open all week. It's just unbearable. Ben, that's so stressful. You should have told me and we could have like emergency potted so that you could close your tabs. I don't know if it's an emergency,

but I have thought several times like, should I just close it? Maybe I could just like save the links. I think I have one of those extensions where you could just concentrate the tabs in one tab, but then you forget they're there and you never look at them again. Anyway, it's a dire situation. I like to keep my desktop and my tabs tidy, and it's just been out of control all week because of this email situation. So now we can finally clear the plate leading into the weekend here. So here's one. This is from Jabron, Patreon supporter, who said, I just listened to your podcast about the new rules changes. I had two questions. First, I was wondering if teams will start reprioritizing defensively capable middle infielders given the shift restrictions.

And will this have the contrary effect of having generally worse middle infielder hitters being selected who will not be able to make contact at all? And maybe, I guess, could counter whatever gains you make from the shift is what jabron is implying here and second will the pickoff restrictions lead to an increased usage of pitch outs i know pitch outs are at all-time lows now sure and i never expect they will reach previous levels but will they start becoming more useful to the point that we see them more than like once a week across all mlb games, if that, probably less than that at this point. So will we see more emphasis placed on defensively talented middle infielders because of the shift being banned or at least restricted? And will pitch outs come back from not quite the extinct list, but the endangered list?

Well, I'm trying to think if I'm about to be like too cute by half in the way that i'm answering this i think that i don't know if it's going to be like a a new emphasis on defensively gifted middle infielders or a lower tolerance for the shift aided second baseman that's probably the same thing right and i'm just trying to be too cute about it but i mean i think that the answer is probably yes but i don't know that there's that every team has like de-emphasized that so much as there are teams where they're like well we can we can move someone else over there to help you out. We can kind of hide you depending on where we know this hitter's batted ball tendencies

to lie. And so you're just not likely to have to feel the ball. But I would imagine that in conjunction with the universal DH that sort of the shift aided guy will start to become a little less common just because you have another place to put him if it if he's on a national league team and you have to be a little more concerned but i i don't think that we're like if you look across the league you're not going to be like wow all the second basemen are terrible and all the short stops suck like that's not it still helps to have range even if you are more optimally positioned there's still going to be balls that are not hit right at you right and you're still going to have range. Even if you are more optimally positioned, there's still going to be balls that are not hit right at you. Right.

And you're still going to have to react to those. So I think that while it is absolutely true to say that there are guys who have come up through the minors in the last couple of years where it's like, wow, we're tolerating a level of defense at second in particular where we previously would have insisted on someone with a lighter bat but a better sort of defensive skill set i don't think that that has been taken to like an extreme such that we're going to be like oh now all these guys are out of jobs like i don't i don't think that that's really how yeah the trend has trended there may have been certain cases like mike moustakis or someone like that like would he have played as much second base as he did in an earlier era where you had more balls in play because of fewer strikeouts and then maybe you couldn't compensate for some range deficiencies? I don't know. But yeah, I think on the whole, you're still prioritizing good gloves at those positions,

even if you can shift. So I don't know that we'll notice that much. There might be some slight effect there perhaps. And I think there was a year where there was like a record number of home runs by second basemen or something recently, maybe a few years ago. And people were speculating that maybe that was because of this new trend, like people reimagining the position in the shifting era. But I don't think that held up or really continued that we just had like massively slugging second baseman constantly. So, yeah, I don't know how pronounced the trend that has been. And as for pitch outs, I think maybe you might see more like I don't know how accurate the flagging for this is. more like I don't know how accurate the flagging for this is but if you go by baseball savant which does allow you to search for the number of pitch outs per year going back to 2008

so in 2008 according to this there were 619 pitch outs across the league last year there were 33 and there have been 35 so far this season so I don't know if they're catching all of them or classifying some that shouldn't be as pitch outs. But if you believe that, and I'm sure that regardless of the exact numbers, there's been a massive change in the magnitude there. I think I may have written about that even recently or several years ago and maybe Sam did too. So you rarely see a pitch out these days. And I guess if you've taken away the pitcher's ability to suppress the run value of throwing a ball instead of potentially throwing a strike, it's pretty significant. So I think even when teams were doing that in the past, it didn't really make sense analytically for the most part. And I think it makes sense that they've cut down on it, both because the running game has been restricted in general, but also because it was probably over-applied, just like intentional walks used to be, just like sack bunts used to be, right? These were often counterproductive strategies,

and I think the pitch-out typically was too. So might it make a minor comeback because of this? I guess I could see that happening, maybe. Maybe. I think my favorite shift thing that I've noticed lately, Ben, was one time I was watching the Philadelphia Phillies. And you might know that they employ Alec Baum, who's the third baseman, and isn't always very good at it. And then they were employing a shift where he suddenly had to be a shortstop.

And I was like, that seems like a downgrade. I know that there's like a positioning advantage here, but like now he has to play shortstop. That seems bad. He's not very good at third. Anyway. I'm seeing several tweets and emails and comments. People are surprised by how much they enjoyed Scott Boris. Yeah.

Scott Boris Pod. Like people are questioning all of their beliefs, like people who were not necessarily pro-Boris before. who were not necessarily pro-Boris before. And then they heard him engaging on the whole nautical analogies question and being a pretty thoughtful person and having interesting things to say about the sport. And they're like, what's happening here? Suddenly I like Scott Boris. So that's interesting.

Yeah. I mean, like, I wonder if it's just, first of all, I think that being able to hear someone rather than just read their quotes makes a big difference, right? I think that you you really gain a lot of you're able to pick up on social cues and and tone and sort of intent in a way that makes you realize like oh scott boris is being a good sport about this like kind of silly question about his analogies and you know so like i think that that aids with stuff like that. And not that he doesn't give one-on-one interviews,

but I think so often the context that we have for his remarks publicly are like at winter meetings in the scrum and he's getting questions from a lot of different reporters. And those questions are good. I don't mean to say that they're not, but it's just going to be a different kind of interview when you're doing a standup in front of a hundred people where you can like tell from the other side of winter meetings where Scott Boris is. Right. You know, then when you're having a conversation with two people while you have five TVs on.

Yeah. And you're not actively. I mean, he always has an agenda, I guess. Sure. But he wasn't plugging any particular client. It wasn't, you know, he wasn't trying to drum up business for the big free agent right now. It was just. We don't have signing authority in that way.

Yeah, that too. You know, it's a little less important to impress us with, you know, the amazing aptitude of his clients because it's like, well, we're not giving out $100 million deals. That's not our job. Yep. Anyway because it's like, well, we're not giving out $100 million deals. That's not our job. Yep. Anyway, it's okay. Allow yourself to like Scott Boyce or not dislike him. I think that's fine.

I think so too. All right. Here's a question from Aaron. My wife and I are playing a Mario Party baseball minigame. Occasionally, the game tosses an extreme ethos, which fools everyone each time. However, quick players can swing a second time before the ball reaches the plate. What? My wife asked if this would be legal in a real game,

assuming a player had time to swing after the pitch was thrown, reset, and then swing again to make contact with the ball. I couldn't answer, so I turned to the weird baseball situation experts. What do you think? The Mario Party baseball minigame scenario of swinging twice when the pitch is on its way to the plate. Well, I mean, you can't do it. I mean, like, you physically can't do it. But let's imagine for a moment that you could.

I was trying to imagine if you could on an extreme slow Ephus. I don't think you could, Ben. I've reported this before. Mike Fast calculated once that the slowest possible pitch you could throw that would be on a trajectory that could conceivably be a strike is like 27 miles per hour or so. It would get there. It would get to the plate. So if you threw that slowly, this is why I had so many tabs open or one of the reasons it's like, if you just look at like the number of milliseconds, like if I Google, Google tells me that a baseball swing requires a full 150 milliseconds to complete. This takes into account the time for muscles to contract, move their attached limbs, and bring the bat around at a speed close to 80 miles per hour.

And 100 mile per hour fastball, Google also tells me, takes roughly 375 to 400 milliseconds to reach the plate, which is basically the blink of an eye, like literally. Basically the blink of an eye, like literally. So you can swing faster than the ball gets to the plate. And you could, in theory, if it takes 150 milliseconds to swing and it takes 300 something or 400 milliseconds for the ball to reach the plate, then I guess conceivably you could. I guess conceivably you could, but that wouldn't account for, I think, the time it takes to reset and pull the bat back, let alone any time to track the ball or make a decision about it. This would have to be pure, I'm going to set out to swing twice. I'm not actually trying to hit the ball, really. If I do, that's a happy accident. But there's no time to process and think about it and do it twice. time to process and think about it and do it twice. But if you set out, if it were a very slow pitch, even like a position player pitcher pitch, and you just said, I'm going to swing twice as

fast as I possibly could. Don't care if I hit it. I'll try to, but I'm not really trying to. I'm just trying to do this thing. Maybe you could, especially if you timed it so that you were already swinging as the pitcher was going through his delivery, right? So like you swing when the ball is on its way and then you quickly pull the bat back and you swing again. Maybe like you could kind of do it. Like it wouldn't work. You wouldn't hit the ball, I don't think. But I think you could kind of like approximate it to the point where the umpire would have to make a decision on it at least. Although I guess the decision would just be a swinging strike either way because you would probably miss and so yeah you're not going to

get two strikes on you like the question is i think what if you swing and miss and then you swing again and you hit it and i'm pretty sure if you did that only the first swing would count if you swing and miss i i think that's it yeah Yeah, you don't get to go again. No. It's not a roller coaster you get to get back in line for. Yeah. No, no backsies. You don't get do-overs, at least on one pitch. So I think, A, it would be extremely difficult to do, at least in a way that would give you any control over the swing.

And then beyond that, there would also be no purpose in doing it other than it might look kind of funny. I mean, it would be hilarious. And someone would write about it, and that would be compelling in its own way. But I don't think that you really get much out of it other than being gift a lot. Right.

You can, I think, technically hit the ball twice. And by that, I mean if the ball makes contact with the bat multiple times. Right. That's allowed. Yeah. There was a Hunter Pence famous example of that in 2012 in the NLCS. And he had like a double hit and you slow it down and it looks weird. It does look weird.

Yeah. But that you can do. I think there's a rule, rule 6.05H, or at least it was in 2012, states that a batter is ruled out and the play is ruled dead with no advancement by the runners when the batter hits a ball a second time in fair territory. But the rule does include a comment specifically to address the circumstance of a broken bat causing a double hit. It states if a bat breaks and part of it is in fair territory and is hit by a batted ball or part of it hits a runner or fielder, play shall continue and no interference called. So you can kind of do that technically.

Yeah. OK, that makes sense. I mean, it's just it's such a strange circumstance. I mean, it's just, it's such a strange circumstance. I do think that sports would be better, not just baseball, but all sports if we had a like, but that looked cool though rule. Yeah. You know, like I have this thought in football more often than I do in baseball, but you know, it's like sometimes like a wide receiver will do something and I'm like, I know that's not technically a catch, but it looks so cool though. It should just count as a catch because

it just looks so cool and i understand we're trying to have a society whatever we can't do that sometimes i'm like what if we had like one game a year where we had the but that's so cool though rule and just saw like exception yeah like how much chaos does it actually you know bring to the game is it an acceptable amount because then we should do it because it looks so cool though here's one from jacob i wanted to run an idea by you to see if it passes muster this is going to be a weird one when a base runner passes the runner in front of him the trailing runner is out yes i believe this means that if a fly ball is hit with a runner on first base the batter could run to first base and pass the runner to eliminate the need to tag up.

As soon as the batter is ruled out, the runner on first could start running to second without having to wait for the outfielder to catch the ball. Uh, I don't think that that's right, though. No? Let me finish the question, because it might not work anyway. Oh. Jacob says.

Do you mean to say that there are multiple points of failure in this idea? Yeah. Okay. Much like the Mario Party minigame scenario, it would just be difficult to do, I think. Which Jacob acknowledges. He says, this could be advantageous in pop-up situations and shallow sack fly opportunities. advantageous in pop-up situations and shallow sack fly opportunities it would only work with faster batters and on fly balls with lengthy hang times greater than five seconds in the air but in certain situations it seems like you could steal a base or even a run am i wrong about how this rule works does the base runner still need to wait to tag up does the timing even work out to provide

an advantage in any situation and that's the part I was trying to figure out because like, boy, you can obviously run down to first base in, let's say, four seconds or so or even faster in some cases. So if you have a very fast runner and a lazy fly ball or sky high pop up and it would be up there longer than it would take for the batter to run to first base, the batter runner. than it would take for the batter to run to first base, the batter runner. But then by the time the batter runner passes the runner who was already on base, it's not like that runner can get a head start or a running start because you have to wait to be passed then, right? And so then you're starting from a standstill.

Yes. And if you go much beyond the bag that you would be tacking up from, then it's going to take even longer for the batter runner to reach you and pass you. And so you can't go actually that far. So I don't know if mechanically it would actually work out. Even if you could do this, if this were allowable, I'm not sure how often it would actually confer an advantage. And I would need to go back and reread that part of the rulebook

because I haven't had reason to in a while, which might shock people because I think they think I do it as part of my Friday wind down. But I'm pretty sure that you still have to tag. Like you're not absolved of your tagging responsibilities just because you've been passed. It doesn't – I don't think that it works that way i think that if you tried to do this it would just be the weirdest double play there's ever been

probably yeah so i would not recommend trying this for multiple reasons really yeah if it were legal i guess i'd like to see someone try i mean mean, it sounds like sort of a Savannah Bananas style thing that you could at least do for entertainment value. But it's so cool, though. I don't know if it would actually qualify for the it's so cool, though. But I'd like to see you try to do this just to simulate whether it would even be possible and whether it would give you an advantage if it were legal, which it might not be. I don't think it's legal. I still think you have to tag up. And so I think you would do it,

and then the umpires would be like, what did you just do, though? What did you think you were trying when you did that? No, also, can you imagine? So there would actually be three people involved in this sequence, right? Because you would have the hitter at the plate, you'd have the guy at first base, and then you would have the first base coach

trying to tackle one or both of them as they concocted this scheme. Unless they were in on it too. Well, yeah, but also the other thing about it is that you have a lot of time in spring training to try stuff and practice things, but you only have so much time. And so, like, are you really making time for this? Like you said, how many scenarios does it really unfold over? I feel like not a lot of scenarios, you know? Here's a question from Daniel, Patreon supporter.

Why are,-unquote baseball shirts three quarters length on the sleeves what makes them baseball shirts that's not what a baseball uniform looks like it doesn't make any sense where did it come from i don't know random thought i had with an upcoming cardinals promotion and a shirt i wear a lot why is a baseball shirt a baseball shirt so technically this is called a raglan sleeve, right? It's a sleeve that is just like one piece to the collar. And then there's a seam, a diagonal seam from the underarm to the collarbone, as Wikipedia puts it, named after Lord Raglan, the first Baron Raglan. Oh, boy. Lord Raglan, the first Baron Raglan, who was said to have worn a coat with that style of sleeve after the loss of his arm in the Battle of Waterloo.

Oh, okay. So I'm really glad that you got to the part where he lost an arm before I started making jokes about it because I would have felt like a real jerk. Yeah. So Wikipedia says there's only three sentences in the main part of the Wikipedia page. How much information do you need about this? I guess more than we have. But the third sentence is the raglan mid-length sleeve is a popular undergarment worn under the jersey for baseball teams in MLB. So, yeah, that's, I guess, why it's called a baseball shirt is that it's popular with baseball players.

But that doesn't answer why it's popular. Now, this does cite a Smithsonian Institution website, Game Worn Baseball Treasures from the Game's Greatest Heroes and Moments. And it says the raglan sleeve provides mobility and flexibility in the arm and shoulder and has remained popular in baseball jerseys. So I guess the idea is that mobility and flexibility in the arm and shoulder is more important if you are swinging and throwing as baseball players do than maybe other movements. So there's that. Well, and I might speculate that it is nice to have, know some guys wear undershirts that go all the way to their wrist so you know you have that option i think especially when it's a little chilly out and you want and then they have the little like mock turtleneck thing and they look like like

they're going to a slam poetry session but i would also think that you know there's the possibility that like some of the stitching might be kind of itchy and uncomfortable it might chafe a little bit and so it's nice to have a sleeve that extends beyond the end of the uniform sleeve so that you have a little bit of guard against you know itchy chafing someone wants no one wants itchy chafing ben that's terrible itchy chafing in baseball multiple body parts are subject to that. So minimize it at all costs. I did.

When I was Googling this, I found a post on insidehook.com that says, headline, take it from a woman. The baseball tee is the sexiest shirt you can wear. Okay. I've got to take it from this woman who said that I guess she's the authority but I think it's on the grounds that you're showing a lot of forearm with the baseball shirt so well I mean baseball players particularly at high levels do famously have like very impressive forearms like that tends to be a quite muscular part of their body right you know i think that just generally it's fine to say i like this and not assert it to be a universal

thing which isn't to say that they aren't like you know becoming for for some folks you know there are plenty there are plenty of kinds of people who might have shapely forearms so i don't know why we need to make it like a baseball player specific thing, but you know, you could just say, I like this. Take it from a woman. Okay.

What do I get to have an opinion about it? She has spoken on behalf of all women. For all of us. Oh, well that's dangerous too. You know, we're a diverse group. All right. Here's another weird one this is from jeffrey who says i've been mulling over something for a few weeks and would like to submit it as an if

baseball were different how different would it be hypothetical i appreciate giving it a few weeks to stew just ruminating for a few weeks before deciding whether this was worth writing in. Sure. Suppose that upon crossing home plate, the runner could elect not to score a run and instead go double or nothing, beginning the whole endeavor again by running to first. No run would be recorded, but should they make it safely home again, they would score two runs. I have an incomplete list of associated rules. There's still only one runner allowed. Our listeners are the best.

Our listeners are the best. There's still only one runner allowed per base, whether they are on their first trip around the bases or second. Okay, well, wait. Okay, okay. I'm with you. Okay. Therefore, it may not always be feasible for the runner to choose to go double or nothing. Because you might have somebody at first who couldn't advance and then just...

Right, if they're driven in by a single. Right. All you have to do in that... Content yourself with the one run. Yeah, you just have to be content with boring old one run. Yep. Can't make things interesting. On the way to first base for the second time, the force play would not be in effect because the runner is always entitled to just stay at home. However, once on base,

normal base running rules would apply. If a runner is entitled to score through an event that sends the ball out of play, they can choose to continue to first without being at risk. For example, a home run hitter may choose to continue to first for a second time. A runner on second when an automatic double is hit may choose to continue to first for a second time. An exception is a run that is walked in as first base would be occupied. Similar to the rules about overrunning first base, if the runner makes an attempt to go to first after scoring and thinks better of it, they are vulnerable. And lastly, the doubling runner may continue to second during a play or third or home again if they think they will make

it safely, though I imagine that would be uncommon. I'm sure there are a host of other problems and questions that would be raised, but that's what I've got. And now a question that might require some math. If baseball were different in this way, would it be worth going double or nothing? Never. Sometimes. Always. I figure that if a runner has a greater than 50% chance of scoring, then in aggregate, it is worth taking the double or nothing option as 50% times the two runs they are now worth

equals the one run they would have scored. I looked at some run expectancy matrices to determine whether it would be worthwhile, but my understanding is that those are technically representing the expectancy that any run scores, not necessarily a particular runner scoring, so it may not be a perfect representation. Further, there may be late game situations where run-run is functionally useless, but two runs would tie, so they might as well go for it. is kind of complicated i love the audacity of deciding to go double or nothing that would be fun you'd look very silly if you decided to go double or nothing and oh yeah not pay off and you passed up the run that you had already scored i mean i guess i mean it would be fun. It would be really weird because, like, i think that this tips the scales too far in the

direction of the hitting team versus the pitching team right because your project as a as a pitcher i mean you don't want anyone to score a run but your project as a pitcher is to keep people off base like that's the first part of the project right when you're doing a project management you're like trying to get out so that no one gets on base and so yes there would be circumstances where the hitting team would come away with no additional runs scored or potentially no runs scored right because they get their third out and then bing bam boom but you know it's so valuable to have a base runner. Even the possibility of no run scoring seems to me to be, I don't feel like the balance is quite right.

Yeah, I don't think you would want to do this often. There might be some extreme situations where it would make sense. extreme situations where it would make sense. Like if it's late in the game and you're down a bunch of runs, then you need to score runs in bunches. You need to score multiple runs to get back in the game. So you might as well go for it because if you just take the one run, then it's going to be tough to come back. So you need to go double or nothing. So that's probably the only situation where I think it would make analytical sense as opposed to entertainment sense. Again, forward all of these ideas to the Savannah Bananas and they will test them out. And we can see it would be fun to watch at least once.

But analytically, yeah, I don't think you would want to go double or nothing except in some late and not close situations probably. And forced plays would be all screwed up. They'd be all screwed up. Yeah. The run expectancies are confusing. I was talking to Ben Clemens about this. It's hard even to calculate, but I'm going to say rarely would it be the smart play. Yeah.

And even if it were, I'd be like, you still shouldn't do it. Here's one from Matt. The other day I listened to an ESPN Daily podcast about the NHL's emergency backup goalie rule, a.k.a. e-bug. We have talked about this, I believe, at times. I think you're right. Every home team in the NHL has been required to have someone in the arena who has experience as a hockey goalie for the very rare moment that either team on the ice loses not just its primary goalie, but its backup goalie as well. Right. In those rare but delightful times, a former college athlete or perhaps even beer league goalie puts on his pads and skates and enters the game, delighting fans and weekend warriors alike. Which brings me to baseball. and weekend warriors alike. Which brings me to baseball.

What could baseball do to embrace similar whimsy? To give local fans, especially those who are strong athletes, but not quite good enough to succeed at a professional level, a wee bit of hope. Here is a proposal that I'd love your feedback on. EBUP, baseball's new emergency backup pitcher rule. As you two have noted, the fun of position player pitchers has worn off as MLB teams routinely ask their non-pitchers to get a few outs or throw an inning or two during blowouts. So to juice up these scenarios, every Major League Baseball team should hold auditions at the beginning of the year to identify two or three fan pitchers who will wait patiently in the stands for their potential moment of glory.

potential moment of glory. Once one team is ahead by a predetermined number of runs, the fan in the stands, pitchers, makes their way down to the bullpen where they can be summoned once a manager has determined a game is out of control. So we no longer watch a backup catcher throwing an inning and getting shelled for six runs. Instead, we watch a high school gym teacher get called up to pitch his or her inning. How much more exciting would that be? How much more dramatic? How much fun could teams have with those tryouts? Perhaps their marketing teams even pre-record interviews and brief introductions so that fans in the ballpark and at home watching on TV learn briefly about their new temporary hurler. Maybe we get a sweet heartfelt story of the temp pitcher dedicating their stint to their dear departed dad. What a story. So move over, e-bug. Make room for e-bup. What do you think, you think meg and ben could this work i love it i think it's great i think we should do it tomorrow yeah i like it it's a good one yeah i've heard people say that we should be able to deputize emergency catchers like bullpen catchers should be able to come into the game in an emergency catcher situation yeah but like only bullpen

catchers you want someone who's actually done it because it is like terrifying yeah and feels like it should not be a thing that you force other people to do it should only be undertaken voluntarily because again it is terrifying i guess you could say the same about being a hockey goalie although i guess there's more padding but still sure yeah but yeah i like this yeah i like this a lot i mean by the point that you are considering putting that picture in the game's already over this would be like tantamount to a forfeit but that's basically already the case when you put in a position player pitcher and at least you get a good story out of it oh yeah it would be i guess more boring it would be more boring than having like yadier melina or Albert Pujols come into pitch as they have.

Like that was just kind of a, hey, they're at the end of their career. Like, let's let them get an inning here. But usually it's not a legend who's like on his last legs in the league or their last go round. It's just some generic bench player who you haven't thought about and never will think about again so it's not really that much more interesting than seeing a stranger do it a civilian do it and it might in many ways be less interesting so i kind of like it i think i'm on board and like i think it's important for us to say that when it comes to the molinos or the pool hoses like it's more boring than that for the first pitch that they throw.

But then after that, it's probably at least the same because that's not like they're an amazing pitcher. We should be honest about that. So imagine you played college ball in proximity to a big league city. Maybe you had a little you know little time spent in the minor leagues you shuffled around affiliated ball for a second and now you're like their designated guy to come in people would and you know what i bet that at least like one of those players would end up getting scouted

and they'd be like, maybe we should sign this guy. Maybe we should take a peek at this guy. Players get signed out at Indie Ball and I would assume that the baseline would be lower than that for the designated emergency pitcher. But a lot of people have played Division I, Division II, or Juco Ball, might be floating around and be like yeah i'll do that for to get to wear the jersey and be on a big league mound for an inning even in a

blowout what a blast that would be you'd have like the time of your life you get your name on a you know that would be awesome you tell that as an aside it would be a disservice to that person's family because that person would tell that story for the rest of their life. Oh, yeah. At every gathering, it would be like, did you hear about the time? And it would be like, yeah, Uncle Rick, we did hear about it. We have heard this story before. But you tell that story forever.

It would be incredible. Yeah. All right. And last weird one. This is from Chris Hannell, our Patreon supporter and recent guest about score bugs, who says, In video games like MLB The Show, when you're playing defense and the batter puts a ball in play, a directional indicator appears on the ground showing which way to run to field the ball, and a target is shown for the ball's eventual landing spot. Given that we have StatCast and other tracking systems and the technology exists to project projected onto the field. I mean, they'd never let this happen.

No, they would not let it happen. And I think it'd probably be against the rules. There's like electronics in game or remember that whole controversy with like the Mets and the Dodgers about like using laser range finders to like they're very where exactly they're very particular rules about being able to project anything onto the playing surface yeah with the idea of aiding the positioning of fielders so you got to use your little card you know if you don't use your little card it's it's out about or or if you don't use your little card, it's out of bounds. Or if you don't look to the dugout and see your bench coach wildly waving at you to go over there. Yeah, I'm not against or perhaps I'm in favor of even taking their cards away. Or maybe they won't need the cards as much if shifting is restricted somewhat in positioning. You don't think it'll just get a lot more precise and they'll need the card even more? They might still use the cards.

They probably are just in the habits of having the card at this point but even if you could project this i don't know how much it would help because it's useful in a video game because you're changing perspective because right you're looking from the center field camera view if you're hitting well not always i guess that's not true. It depends on the game, I guess. But if you're looking from one way and you're controlling the hitter and then you're switching control to the fielder who's closest and there might be some camera movement and rotation. And so to have that indicator of which way to push the control stick is helpful. But for a player, if they were even able to see it, if it were not more visible from above than it is from field level,

I still don't know how helpful it would be. Because I guess if there was a spot on the field that just said, go here, this is where it's going to land, basically, then you could just put your head down and run to that spot. But then you take your eye off the ball and you're not tracking it on the way. Sometimes you'll see outfielders do that where they'll just like put their head down and run and then they'll hopefully pick up the ball when they're closer after they've made good time to get there. But I think it might be disorienting not to be tracking the ball yourself oh yeah so i don't

know and and generally like outfielders they've tracked down so many balls like they basically know which way it's going it's just a matter of like how quickly they react and right i don't know that the directional arrow would be projected quickly enough to affect their first step or anything like that so i'm not sure it would actually help you all that much i would find it wildly distracting yeah it might be i would just think it was wildly distracting i'd be like and can you oh my gosh ben can you imagine like they do this right and it's the world series and john smoltz is in the booth can you imagine the discourse we would have around this and i would be forced to agree with

john smoltz that i would find it like too much it's too much intervention i think it's fine for a grown man to stand on the top step of the dugout and wave his arms around like a maniac to try to get a guy to move like two feet to his right that's fine but this feels like too it's too much right like part of what you are selecting for is in the outfield is the ability to like read the ball off the bat and to have a quick first step and to run an efficient route like you that falls squarely in the territory of things that like you're intervening too much on the tools that the player needs to have in order to play at the position and and you might ask me meg what's the difference between what you just described in the little card and to that i would say shut up you still have to think about it and you still have to

interpret the ball off the bat right you still have to track it so you you might have a general sense of where you ought to stand because of the propensities of the hitter but you still have to action the information that's being given to you by that hitter in real time on your own and if you don't then they get to run around the bases and potentially score two runs if they keep running i guess is what we're doing now so that's the difference that's a more compelling argument than shut up. Yeah. Speaking of the score bug, do we need to put the countdown clock for the pitch clock on the score bug next year? Is that what we do?

Oh, no. I don't think we should do that. Huh. I think we should do it. I think you should do it at five seconds. How long is it? It's 15. You don't want it the whole time.

No, because most of the time it's not going to matter and it'll just be distracting. I don't know what they do on minor league TV broadcasts. I have not noticed. I don't think they always show it, at least not from the top. I don't think so. I mean, in other sports, there are constant clock countdowns, right? I mean, you have shot clocks in the NBA or you have counting down to the end of a period or a quarter or whatever. You have a play clock in football. Right. So people are used to some kind of countdown.

I guess there would not be a revolt and sometimes it would be useful. But like it's in the ballpark. So if you're at the game game then you can see it somewhere and i guess you can count down and try to get in the pitcher's head but if you're just at home i don't know the only benefit i could see is like if a pitcher's really cutting it close then it could add to the suspense and the tension and and maybe it'd be a little less disorienting if there is a violation and a pitcher takes too long.

Sure. That's a good argument. You're not thinking about it usually. And suddenly if it's like, oh, nope, call off the pitch like it's a ball and you're like, what happened? Wait, what happened? Yeah. So if the clock is counting down, you'd be more conscious of it and maybe you could play

umpire yourself and see whether he's going to go over or not. So I guess I'd have to see what it would look like it seems like it would be distracting to see it constantly but yeah if you're gonna try it league i would start with like once they get to five once they get to five then you can start to be like okay but i think prior to that don't need to, you don't need it there. Like don't do the full, it's 15 and 20, right? Yeah. 20 when there's a runner on and 15 if there's, if the bases are empty. Right. Right. So you don't want to have a countdown that whole time. That's, I think that is very distracting, but I think that if you're starting to get into like the five second range or maybe even

maybe even the three second range if the bases are empty then then it's fine but mostly it's like don't keep junking up the scorebook right like keep that keep it clean because they're going to talk about it on the broadcast if a guy is like getting close to that limit all the time so it's not like you're not going to have a sense of it from the broadcast. And presumably the broadcasters will be like, oh, it was an automatic ball. Here's why. So maybe it'll be fine, actually. Yeah. All right. Last question, less weird one. This is from Zach, Patreon supporter. A few weeks ago, you got an email that jokingly asked if maybe the Rockies had a different philosophy where they don't actually care about winning. I wanted to pose a somewhat less extreme version of the question.

Well-run, quote-unquote, baseball teams are in theory those that go through rebuilds and come out of those rebuilds successful. Or really well-run is just they never rebuild and they always win. They're the Dodgers. They're the Dodgers. I guess they rebuild on the fly without actually getting worse. The philosophy underlying this approach to team building is that it's worth it to have a few bad seasons if you follow them up with a few good ones and maybe win a World Series. This approach doesn't necessarily make sense. The miserable seasons are no less real than the good ones. Would it be viable, therefore, to maintain a

team that accepts it will never be great in exchange for never having to rebuild? Let's say you could guarantee a result between 78 and 87 wins per season. At worst, your team would be in the wildcard race through the end of August. At best, your team sneaks into the playoffs and lucks its way to a World Series. Given that the World Series win is unlikely, even for the best of teams,

might it not be the best of philosophies, both for ownership and for the fans, to guarantee your fans a vaguely competitive team every year rather than to buy into the rebuilding cycle and all the extreme pain it brings. I mean, I can kind of see the argument, but I think that, well, first of all, even if you're not the Dodgers, we have seen teams in the last couple of years that have taken like a third approach, which is like the temporary step back, right? couple of years that have taken like a third approach, which is like the temporary step back,

right? Where they will like strategically trade players and they are conceding a season. But the idea is that they're going to be competitive again, like pretty quickly. And they're not doing the full tear down. You should count on a hundred losses. You're going to see journeymen come through and fifth outfielders, and those guys are going to start every day, right? So I think that there is an intermediate step between the full teardown always be bad and being sort of truly perpetually competitive. And so I think that we can say like, no, you don't have to do that. Maybe you do that for a year, but that doesn't need to be sort of a constant state of operation and i wonder too like money solves a lot of problems but like at a

certain point people are going to notice that that seems to be your philosophy and that might affect your ability to execute that philosophy because like maybe free agents don't want to go sign with you because you're like kind of just always shooting for being a good also ran. And like maybe, you know, you have trouble attracting good front office talent because those folks want to win. So I assume this wouldn't be a stated philosophy on the part of an organization, although maybe it would be but i would be curious like how long a team is actually able to maintain that as an approach given the fact that if we go back to our answer about the rockies part of our rejection of that idea was that like baseball players really want to win and so do the people who work for teams for the most part you know especially at the more junior levels. Yeah, I think I'd rather be, say, the Cardinals, who are always good enough to

contend and rarely great. You would rarely call a Cardinals team a super team. They're not perennially winning 100 plus games every now and then. They might win exactly 100, but for the most part, it seems like they're winning 90-ish. Maybe they'll end up at 95-ish this year. They're a little bit better. But they're often somewhere between like 83 and 91 or whatever, right? And like they make the playoffs a lot and they win some World Series and they're never bad. And that's pretty good. So I think it would be preferable to be the Cardinals, I think, than

maybe to commit to an extreme rebuild, even if you knew it was going to work, which you don't always know for sure. But like, would you rather be the Cardinals than the Astros during the period when they were like the worst and then got good again? Or let's say the Orioles, you know, if they're getting good now, and let's say they actually managed to build a great team and they're really, really good for a few years, would that have been worth the several years in which they were completely terrible compared to, say, the Cardinals who are just chugging along at 90-ish wins every year?

I think that's pretty good. If you can't be the Dodgers and be the best or close to the best team in baseball every year, then be the Cardinals. I mean, that's not easy either. But like if that's the version of this question, if that's the ideal outcome that you're the Cardinals, then yeah, I think you could make a great case. But the Cardinals are like they've been one of the most competitive teams generally. Yeah. It's really hard to sustain what they've done for as long as they've done it too, even though they're not peaking quite as high as some other teams have during that span. So the dangerous version of this, though, is that you end up in the lower range. I guess it's the Rockies again, but you could probably pick other teams where it's like you're not the worst ever. You know, you're not sticking up the joint so much that you're like the mid tanking Orioles or Astros, but you're not good either. You're not really offering any real hope.

You're offering some patina of respectability. Like, you know, you'll be in more games, but ultimately you're going to probably win 70 games or 70 something games. Like if you're still just a losing team, but not an embarrassingly losing team, but you're like just hanging around in that range where you're usually a losing team and you're never a really good team. I think it would be preferable to bottom out completely if you were confident that there really was a plan and you had a great farm system and you could project out, oh, they're going to be good in this year or that year and I can see it coming together. That would be better than just milling around in no man's land forever where it's like, well, we're not the worst, but we're not good enough and we're not going to be good enough without doing something dramatically different. Right. We're not the worst, but what are we? Yeah, right. Okay, let's end with

the past blast. Boy, this is a relief. I can close all of these tabs. I can clean up my desktop. Oh my gosh, this will be wonderful. I can't wait. All right. This is from Jacob Pomeranke, Sabre's editorial content director and expert on the Black Sox extraordinaire. Jacob sends this piece on the 1904 Black Baseball World Series, an early Black was no World Series in the white major leagues because the New York Giants refused to play the AL champions from Boston, which is nice that that doesn't happen so much anymore.

Yeah. It's just, you know what? I don't think I want to go. I don't want to do it. I don't like that team. I don't like their owners. I don't like the cut of their jib. I think I'm just going to sit this out.

I have a TV show to watch. Yeah. No World Series this year. Sorry. Didn't feel like going. Watch. Yeah. No World Series this year.

Sorry, didn't feel like going. But in September of that year, the two best all-black baseball teams decided to play a rematch of their own championship series from the year before. Saul White, manager of the Philadelphia Giants and also the first black baseball historian, wrote about this postseason clash between his Phillies and the Cuban ex-Giants from New York in his groundbreaking book, History of Colored Baseball, published in 1907. Quote, The Phillies, owing to dissension in the team in 1903, were far from satisfied with their defeat of that year and claimed that with the proper harmony in their ranks, they could turn the trick on their much-hated rivals. This championship series consisted of three games, which were played in Atlantic City. This championship series consisted of three games, which were played in Atlantic City.

Both players and spectators were worked to the highest pitch of excitement. Never in the annals of black baseball did two nines fight for supremacy as these teams fought. Everything known to baseball was done by both nines to win, but the Phillies, by the nerviest kind of ball playing and the best kind of pitching by Foster, won two out of three and the proud title of Colored Champions of the World. And that Foster, referenced there as Jacob writes, that was Andrew Rube Foster, a star 25-year-old pitcher who signed with the Philadelphia Giants after winning four games against them in the 1903 postseason while pitching for the Cuban X Giants. He is far more famous today for his off-field accomplishments as the founder of the Negro National League in 1920.

Very cool. Yeah. I think we should bring back nines also. I think we should bring back referring to teams by the city name, just saying the Chicago's or the Philadelphia's or whatever. But also, I think we should bring back nines. I like the nines. I like the nines too. I'm not as strong on the city name as the Seattles.

I'm not into that as much as you are. And it's fine that you are. It's just not for me. But I do think that we need an infusion of verbiage to refer to squads, to clubs, to so-and-sos. Because sometimes you're editing a thing and you're like, oh gosh, we've said this word so many times. And it's not anyone's fault. It's just the English language only has so many words.

So let's redeploy some oldies but goodies. Yes, please. All right. That will do it for today and for this week. Okay. A couple of quick follow-ups from last time. First, in the past blast from episode 1903, there was a story that featured a town I kept calling Wilmar, Minnesota. Well, I've been reliably informed that it is pronounced Wilmer, Minnesota. Apologies to our Wilmer listeners. My bad. Obviously, who else's bad

would it be? Eh, maybe Wilmer bears part of the blame for spelling it with an A instead of an E. Secondly, listener and Patreon supporter Cold Coffee, or at least that's what they go by in the Discord group, raised an interesting question related to the stat blast from that episode, which, as you'll recall, was about Shohei Otani and the fact that it seems that he has hit worse, and maybe just does hit worse, on days when he's pitching. We theorized about why that might be. Is it mental fatigue? Is it physical fatigue? Is it both? Well, Cold Coffee wondered what the implications of that are for pitcher hitting in general. Could it be that pitchers were so bad

at hitting all along partly because they were two-way players on the days when they hit and pitched? Not by training, but that's the job that they were asked to do. Could it be that they were just distracted as Otani is? And as he perhaps suffers some offensive penalty on the days when he pitches, so did pitchers themselves all along. And maybe we just never knew because they were not hitting on days when they didn't pitch. So we couldn't see that they would actually be better on those days. It's an interesting idea. That obviously wasn't why pitchers were bad at hitting. There were many, many reasons why they were bad at hitting. And even if you took away some offensive penalty for doing double duty, they would still have been awful and probably unplayable as hitters. I mean, obviously they weren't selected for their hitting ability and

they didn't spend much time training for hitting. Many of them didn't have much prior experience hitting. This is really why they were bad, but maybe, maybe there was some two-way penalty baked in there all along. I could buy that that wouldn't apply to other pitchers. Maybe because they were so ill-equipped to hit, much more so than Otani, it was even more stressful for them to do it, even more distracting. Or maybe because they probably didn't prepare to hit on that day as much as Otani did, they were not subjected to the same string. Could go either way. You made me think, cold coffee.

Anyway, maybe we'll never know for sure, but that's okay, because we'd have to bring back pitcher hitting to find out. I can't say that at any point this season I have lamented the fact that I've been deprived of the ability to watch non-hitters hit or attempt to. You can support Effectively Wild on Patreon by going to patreon.com slash effectively wild. The following five listeners have already signed up and pled some monthly or yearly amount to help keep the podcast going. Help us stay ad free and get yourself access to some perks, such as access to that Effectively Wild discord group, where you can muse about such questions and perhaps have

them read on the podcast. Today's thank yous go to Jonathan Tran, Keith Teeple, Sarah, KenKenKenKenKen, and MCS. Thanks to all of you. Patreon perks include not only access to the wonderful Discord group, but monthly bonus episodes, discounts on merch, access to playoff live streams, and more. You can contact me and Meg via email at podcast at fangrafts.com or via the Patreon messaging system if you are a supporter. You can contact me and Meg via email at podcast.fangraphs.com or via the Patreon messaging system if you are a supporter. You can join our Facebook group at facebook.com slash groups slash

Effectively Wild. You can rate, review, and subscribe to Effectively Wild on iTunes and Spotify and other podcast platforms. You can follow Effectively Wild on Twitter at EWPod. You can find the Effectively Wild subreddit at r slash Effectively Wild. Thanks to Dylan Higgins for his editing

and production assistance today and this week. We hope you have a wonderful weekend and we will be back to talk to you next week. I wanna go home Steal the way I wanna go home Steal the way I wanna go home