Effectively Wild: A FanGraphs Baseball Podcast - Effectively Wild Episode 1912: Write-In Campaign

Episode Date: October 6, 2022

Ben Lindbergh and Meg Rowley banter about Ben’s efforts to get the new dictionary definition for “ghost runner” changed, how to watch the playoffs when one has cut the cord, Meg’s Rookie of the Year voting deliberations, the underrated Jeff McNeil, the two teams whose per-game attendance declined this season, MLB’s problem gambling PSAs, a […]

Well, now that I can see, my eyes won't weep. Now that I can hear, your song sounds cheap. Now that I can talk, all your corn I'll reap. I'm not so sure that Joey wed a Virgin Mary. There are no words for me inside your dictionary. There are no words for me inside your dictionary I'm Meg Raleigh of Fangraphs. Hello, Meg. Hello. Meg, never let it be said that I did not leave the internet a better place than I found it. Because, as we reported yesterday, there was some disconcerting news about dictionary.com. Yeah. And a term that was added to the index over there. They just added all the new names, all the new words that they do every year. That just happened on

Tuesday and there were two baseball terms in the big new word dump. I guess we can't use dump anymore without thinking of Mariner's Hero. But I saw that Otani rule was one of them. Fine, no objection. But another was Ghostrunner. ghost runner abomination yes absolute abomination on multiple levels really as always just the zombie runner is an abomination in itself the rule but the use of the term ghost runner to refer to the zombie runner or even the automatic runner or any other term that you want to use that's more palatable to me. That's an abomination. And then a third abomination was that the entry, which said, the definition said and says, noun baseball, a runner who is automatically placed on second base at the beginning of each half of an extra inning before any pitch is thrown, but then includes further down, origin of ghost runner,

first used in 2020 per an amendment to the rules of play. And we just instinctively recoiled when we saw that. And I had to file an amicus brief. I had to write in and express my objections. I did not send a sternly worded letter. I sent a friendly worded letter and I just offered my insight and my expertise on this subject. And I directed my polite, respectful feedback to the authors of that dictionary.com post, Nick Norlin and Heather Bonikowski. And I have already received a response. Yeah. Heather Bonikowski, lexicographer for dictionary.com has written back to me and she says, I enjoyed your thorough response very much. I couldn't read my thorough response. It's not as thorough as it could have been. I actually,

I kept it tight. It's like held back than 500 words i could have gone yeah i know i really restricted myself because it could have been a impassioned screed yeah but heather wrote back i enjoyed your thorough response very much and we thank you for it i sent all of your documentation on to the lexicographer who works on our baseball words and she did indeed find the original sense of ghost runner in her second edition copy of dixon because i had referred her to the third edition of the dixon baseball dictionary which includes the definition for the real definition of of ghost runner the real meaning that we grew up familiar with,

which is, quote, not a real base runner employed in playground baseball and variations of softball when there is an insufficient number of players or when it is a base runner's turn to bat again. The ghost runner could only advance as many bases as the batter attained. That is a ghost runner. So I shared that definition from the Dixon Baseball Dictionary. So the lexicographer who specializes in baseball words for dictionary.com found this original sense of ghost runner in her second edition copy of Dixon and is digging through a pile of books for her first edition as we speak. She continues, these things take some time, but the information you shared is being further researched now, and we hope to incorporate it in a future update. Ben.

Yeah. You did surface change. Yeah, you did surface journalism, I think. I think so. I feel like I wrote to my congressperson and got an important bill put on the floor or taken off the floor or something. I didn't, of course. It is much more meaningless and inconsequential than that. But it sounds like something might be happening here that they might correct this wrong. They cannot undo the existence of the zombie runner, which would be great. But I am powerless to do anything about the rule itself,

But I am powerless to do anything about the rule itself, unfortunately, other than use my podcast platform to rail against it. So I suppose I will have to settle for an amended dictionary.com entry, at least unless and until they actually do away with the rule. And then all of this will be moot because we will never have to use this term again, except, I guess, in exhibition games in the minor weeks, etc. Does it feel really good to, like, write a letter and actually have some change result? Because let me tell you, like, I spent a lot of time trying to correspond with the senior senator from my state, and I don't find it nearly so satisfactory. Yeah, she doesn't write back to you and say, thank you for your thorough response. We enjoyed it and we will immediately do what you want. Yeah, like her staff does respond after a while in a way that indicates that my thorough objections were not actually read in any kind of specificity. Yeah.

You know, that's neither here nor there. That's neither here nor there, but I appreciate that this suggests to me that the spirit with which they are approaching these entries is just, let's get it right. We just want to get it right. just an earnest desire to properly express the language as it is currently spoken and written and the origins that have led to those expressions. And, you know, like, again, in marked contrast from my recent constituent experiences, what a nice thing, what a refreshing, you know, approach to these things. Really nice. Yeah. So I will just be over here refreshing the dictionary.com entry until something changes. Although she did warn me that these things take some time. I guess I shouldn't take it for granted that something will happen here, but it does sound like changes in the offing.

So it's nice. Just a nice, friendly correspondence between lexicographers, one professional and one amateur and pedantic and obsessed with the zombie runner. But it does seem to have been taken in the spirit with which it was intended or in which it was intended. And I am happy to report that it has been read and considered and that change is coming. i you know i appreciate your efforts and i appreciate the lexicographer in question lexicographer lexa lexicographer i gotta get it right because otherwise this entire segment is undone for uh for receiving it in the spirit in which it was meant and and deciding yeah hey we're gonna we going to do something about that there. Yep. Really nice. All right.

I even prefaced my response with, like, if you've gotten many messages like this, I'm sorry to pile on, which sometimes people who email us in response to something will say that. You're probably getting tons of these messages. Sometimes we are, and sometimes not at all. It's the only one, and I did not get the sense that I was one of many emailing dictionary.com about the inaccurate etymology of ghost runner here. So I don't think that the mail was flooding in. But anyway, whatever the case, however many people wrote in, we have achieved our goal

here. So I am pleased. I feel like I accomplished something today. Yeah, you were the change you wanted to see in the world. Exactly. Alright, I should warn everyone that I am watching Shohei Otani's final game as we speak here.

He just singled. Yeah, I don't usually multitask like this, but it just so happens that he is pitching and hitting right now. And it's the last game of the season. So there's not going to be another. So I'm going to try to talk and also watch. But if I just suddenly trail off and just dreamily gaze at my phone and stop talking,

then it's probably because I'm just wrapped because Shohei Otani just did something. But I will report if he does anything notable. Speaking of service journalism, I was hoping you could do some for me, which is how do I watch the playoffs? Because I have joined the crowd of cord cutters since last postseason. Oh, that's right. You were a cable guy. postseason. Oh, that's right. You were a cable guy. I was. And a big part of my rationale, other than just laziness and not wanting to have to deal with the cable company, is that,

well, how am I going to watch the playoffs? I got to watch the playoffs, right? And I have finally taken the plunge because I understand that there are alternative means of watching playoffs and watching them live. I mean, I don't mean watching archived games on MLB TV or like the weird angles that they sometimes have. So what's your solution if you have a good one or what would you recommend that I do here? Well, I think that it's first important to understand a couple of things. Assuming that you are going to pursue legal means

of watching the postseason, which we will assume for the purposes of this segment, lest we run afoul of the powers that be. So I think the first thing for you to know is to learn from my experience and know that Hulu does not have MLB Network. Okay, so that's the first thing for you to know. I think that either Sling, Sling, Sling, or YouTube TV,

and perhaps both do have MLB Network. Hold on, I'm going to cough. I have coughed. Okay. So when watching the MLB postseason, you have to venture into strange lands, one of which is MLB Network and one of which I think is TBS. Yeah. And then perhaps also TNT. Don't know. Again, I am assuming that you are pursuing legal means and that you do not have a friend who works for an MLB team who might give to you a login for the unblacked out MLB TV. If such a thing existed, you wouldn't be partaking in it because you don't work for an MLB

organization. No, of course not. This is all above board. All above board. Yes. So given that, I think that you should factor into your analysis which of the live streaming options actually have MLB network because it isn't all of them. Hulu has NFL network, but it does not have MLB network, which I find to be irritating some of the time. I think that most of them have TBS, so that's good. But I think that what you should do, Ben, if you have not already, is you should sign up for a free trial of one of the streaming services. And then some of it you won't have to pay for. And then after that, you'll probably have to sign up for one of the you know streaming thingamajigs you know yes thing that is a magic you know one of those yes one of those because the wild card is being broadcast on espn and also abc so you will need something that has

abc although again i think most of them do and then after that you will need fox or fs1 and then you will also need tbs maybe you don't need mlb network actually maybe we don't have any mlb network games this year maybe it's all on espn i do know that mlb network is going to be doing some simulcasts of of playoff games. I do not know which ones, but some playoff games in Spanish, which I think is great. So for folks who are listening and might be interested in checking those out, a little digging might be in order,

but then you'll be able to watch stuff in Spanish, which is very cool. But so I think it's just as simple as signing up for a thing. And now that you don't need to worry about MLB Network, if the schedule on MLB.com is to be believed, you could pick Hulu or you could pick Sling or you could pick YouTube TV. And which of those you pick is between you and your God. Okay. All right.

This is all helpful. And, yeah, it does appear that the only MLB Network broadcasts are in Spanish, according to the schedule I'm looking at also. So yeah, I have not dipped my toe into the waters of live streaming so much because I'm not a huge non-baseball sports watcher. So you haven't had occasion to do that. Right. And this is why I cut the cord because I was not watching very much live TV other than baseball this month specifically. So, yes, I have not had to explore my options there. I have a vast suite of streaming services, just not the live ones. So I will probably do something temporary.

And I may actually already have YouTube TV access, at least through a family member or something. Sure. If that's still kosher. So I think that may be a solution. But my uncertainty about this issue probably kept me paying for cable longer than it should have. So now I've finally gotten on board or off board. And I am figuring out these things that probably you and a lot of our listeners have figured out years ago but I'm heartened to know that it is doable and that I can figure it out

I mean it might be fun it could be fun to watch exclusively through the weird camera angles I have done that at times yeah yeah but I think that you will enjoy your viewing experience more in all likelihood if you don't do that. Yes, probably. And simply pony up for like Hulu or YouTube TV or something. So, yeah, it's not hard, Ben. You know, I have faith in you. I have confidence in your ability to stream. You are a noted streamer.

I guess we need to figure out our Patreon postseason streams, don't we, Ben? Yeah, we need to do that too. But yeah, look, if I can get the Ghostrunner entry on dictionary.com changed, I can do anything. Yeah. That's how I feel right now. Yeah, let's set you to work on some other stuff. Again, it might involve corresponding with my senior senator, so good luck to you. Yep.

Climate change, put me on it. I'm on a roll right now. I can do this. Okay. All right. So good luck to you. Yes, and so we will talk about it at some point when you are at liberty to discuss it. How many names do you need to put on it? Is it 10? No. Oh, it's only three. Oh, it's only three, okay. Yeah, it's not like the MVP ballot where you have to do just a whole mess of names, a bushel, a peck. No, I believe it is only three if my memory serves from the last time I had a ballot,

which was also a Rookie of the Year ballot, but it was for the American League and it was in 2019. I believe we only had to do three. Okay. Well, you can disregard this because if it was a 10 ballot dealie, I was going to do a little for your consideration kind of thing, like they do with the Emmys, just to remind people, hey, did you see that show? That was a good show. Just, you know, keep that in mind. Not that I was going to lean on you to vote one way or another. I was not going to try to, you know, put my thumb on the scale or anything. I was just going to point out that I believe that Joey Meneses is in the top 10 in war among NL rookies.

I just thought I would point that out just in case. Yeah, you just would note it. It had not crossed your radar, but I suppose it's not relevant unless you want to get really aggressive with your placement of Joey Manessis and put him in the top three, which is probably a bridge too far. But again, you cannot divulge at this time. I can't, but I would. Yeah, yeah. It would be an aggressive but i i would yeah yeah that would it would be it would be an aggressive

place it would yeah it would be a pretty it would be pretty aggressive i have to concede that yes yeah now i i think it's safe to say that he may have brought a top three quantity of joy to the people and to me specifically and to nationals fans also among NL rookies this year. But it's not necessarily the most joy award, although it's correlated with joy created and generated, I'm sure. Yeah. Yeah. Top three, you know, that might be asking a bit too much. Yeah.

I think that it might be a touch, a touch aggressive, just like a touch. Yeah. Although, really, well, I guess it was a two-player race when we last talked about it. I suppose Brendan Donovan has inserted himself into that race, depending on which war you look at, at least. Sure. He's right up there in baseball reference were not so much as fan crafts were but yeah we have again i am not saying this to divulge a vote i am simply noting that there is a difference to be had in our perspective sites estimation of his defense acquainted meaningful

difference as it as it were i have not i will admit to have not having looked today, I did earlier, but today at where he falls in terms of baseball prospectuses version of war. Yeah, because I was going to say, you know, if it was a clear top two and then a bunch of other guys, then, you know, what would be so bad about using a third place vote on Joey Manessis, right? using a third place vote on on joy manessas right if we all know right it's coming down to say harrison strider then really it's it's just a it's a free roll what you do with that third spot you could be the new person who accidentally voted for ryan tapera except you could vote for joy manessas on purpose and all the joy manessas fans would say, great job, Meg. Thank you for recognizing our favorite NL rookie of the year. My goal, well, I'll say this. So BP has Donovan at 2.8 warp, which is pretty close to our estimation of him at Fanagraphs,

where we have him at 2.7 war. Just to close the circle there. So my first priority in awards voting is to take it seriously and bring appropriate rigor to be able to defend my eventual vote, which in a year like this, one could argue on the one hand that that is very easy to do because it's hard to go wrong with your choices given how closely bunched the Braves guys in particular are. One could also argue that it will be impossible to defend the choice because they are so close to one another.

So, you know, that weighs on me. The other thing, so after I have decided based on the merits of the player and hopefully have given it the consideration that it deserves because it is a serious thing, my goal is to not be talked about at all. Yeah. That's my secondary goal. It needs to be secondary

because if that is the primary goal, one might not bring the rigor to the decision that you should, right? It needs to be about the players. It's not about me, right? It's about them and what they have accomplished in some great rookie campaigns.

And, you know, that's the primary thing. Secondarily, though, I would like to, again, just not be a character on Twitter even a little bit, you know that's the primary thing secondarily though i would like to again just not be a character on twitter even a little bit you know which i think you know again it can't be the primary motivation but i think that resisting making it about you is a good sort of resting heart rate for stuff like this because that can lead to wackiness right if you're trying to like make a point or make a name or I don't know, engage with people more on Twitter,

which seems like it can't be anyone's motivation, but sometimes you wonder about these things, right? You're like, is that what you really think? Or is that attention seeking behavior? Who could say? But it's not about me. It's just about these players and what they've been able to do for themselves.

But yeah, I have not yet cast my vote. I have time locked in my calendar to sit with it and not look at anything but them and what they have done and then hopefully make a decision that people feel was, even if they don't ultimately agree with it, was sort of rooted in the right understanding of what a Rookie of the Year is and how these guys measure up to that. Well, this is kind of concerning. I was just tagged in a tweet by dictionary.com, which maybe while I was discussing the coming amendment to the dictionary.com entry for Ghostrunner, tweeted the definition of Ghostrunner, the, in my mind, erroneous dictionary.com definition of this.

This was at 4.05 p.m. Eastern, which is while we were recording. So I'm going to just chalk this up to the lexicographers not yet syncing up with the social team, probably, and informing them that, hey, you might want to sit on that Ghostrunner tweet because we might be changing that up because we've gotten a very thorough email from an interested party. Right. Yeah. Sent us a lot of documentation. I'm seeing this now. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. So I was quote tweeted in this perhaps for the first time. One of the other three quote tweets as we speak here is by Emma Tiedemann, who is a broadcaster for the Portland Sea Dogs in AA. And she has quote tweeted this and said, zombie runner, greater than sign ghost runner. So thank you, Emma, for representing my interests here. Yeah, it's just, you know, it's just

an important thing. Oh, hey, hey, Hulu hit a home run. And see, I wasn't looking at Twitter. I was trying, you know, I try to not look at other stuff while we are potting to your earlier points. I sent you there. I gave you a license to look at Twitter. Yeah, and now I'm just sitting here being like, hey, there's Julio Rodriguez soon to appear in the postseason hitting a home run.

So there's that. Oh, boy. Shohei Otani is through one inning, which means that he has now qualified for the ERA title, for whatever that's worth. So he is now officially the first player to have qualified as both a batter and a pitcher in the same season, which is a pretty impressive accomplishment, I would say. And, you know, he's basically been the best pitcher in baseball for four months or so at this point. Not saying anything about awards. I'm just making an observation about Otani. I can say something about Otani or Judge without it being construed as an argument against the other one. I'm praising one. I do not come

to denigrate the other. They're both great and wonderful and amazing at baseball. It's not a political statement. I'm just saying that Joey Otani is really good at baseball. Does not preclude Aaron Judge also being really good or even possibly better. Just making an innocent observation. You have to be careful these days. You say anything about one or the other, you almost have to just preface it with some sort of disclaimer or else there will be a clamor. i mean look these are touchy times people are on edge about stuff so we don't have to be we could be fine we could decide to not be on edge about stuff but we have decided to be on edge about stuff you know i'm personally

relieved in a lot of ways that like i don't have a an al rookie of the year vote oh yeah not because it's not also a very close race it's incredibly close race at least by our estimation of war but you know now that i've rediscovered my mariners fandom i would not want to be accused of bias so i'm relieved to be spared that yeah the only reason really that you could think julia was good was that you were a mariners fan who was just biased i can't imagine any other reason why sure yeah like but you're reasonable you know is the thing ben you're famously very even keeled you're a reasonable sort and not everyone out there on the internet is reasonable. You know, some of them come with axes to grind and teeth to gnash.

And so I would worry about that. I don't think anyone's going to accuse me of any particular bias in the NL rookie of the year race. Because like, what do I care? You know, just a bunch of guys who play in the National League. I guess the AL race comes down to a Mariner and an Oriole much like the race for the wild card in the AL. Yeah.

We'll see if it goes the same way. Yeah, I mean Julio did just set a new Mariner's rookie record for home runs in a season. How much do we care about team specific rookie records? Not very much, right? Not very much.

It's a couple of qualifiers there. So I would care about it if I were that player or even perhaps a fan of that team. But beyond that, probably not a whole lot. Yeah, that's fair. He's done a lot of other very impressive things and been the fastest to this and that. So I don't know that that's even the biggest bobble in his crown on this season when he has accomplished so much.

Yeah, I mean, I think that there are probably other things that we will point to when it's all said and done. But, you know, it sure is. You have to change the minimum plate appearances on the just general leaderboard, not the rookie leaderboard, to get Julio in there. But can we take a moment to appreciate something? Are you prepared to appreciate something? This is just on the AL side. We can do the same exercise on the NL side if we want to. But you'll be unsurprised to learn Aaron Judge at the top of this leaderboard.

Aaron Judge getting a well-deserved day off. Available off the bench in the Yankees final contest, but getting to rest a little bit. Gosh, at some point, we probably should have been talking about Jose Otufe's season a little bit more, huh? He's been great, man. Yeah. And he was already on basically a Hall of Fame career path, and he's having, I haven't looked very recently, but last time I did, it was like a career year, right? Or at least offensively. Yeah. I mean, I'm sure that his Hall of Fame case, much like the other Astros from that era of Astro will be complicated. But yeah, I mean, he is, well, 2017, right, was the MVP year notoriously, 7.5 wins by FanGraphs. Yes. And then 2016-

Better WRC Plus this year, just slightly. But yeah. You're right. You're right. So some of this is, you're right, from an offensive perspective, he's really putting up a campaign. Right. And I will note here again, I'm right now looking at the batting leaderboard. So that is why Otani is not going to appear in this.

So everybody relax. It's fine. So we have Judge. We have two Astros. We have Altuve and then Jordan Alvarez, who is just having a tremendous season at the plate. Andres Jimenez, which just makes me happy. Xander Bogarts, who will have some decisions to make.

Jose Ramirez. Mike Trout. Again, I have knocked the plate appearance minimum damage 300 here bragman he's gonna fall just short of qualifying even though he's gonna have the second most home runs in the league so yeah and then bragman and then two rookies adley retchman and jolio rodriguez so how delightful is that you know yeah you know i wanted to mention someone who who must have been just below the names you were naming on your list jeff mcneil yeah well i was only looking at the al oh right okay yeah

well you would have gotten to him before then probably if you have been looking at both leagues or the nl because he's going to win the batting title yeah and that's all well and good but jeff mcneil is he, he's really good. You know, like he had an off year last year. But beyond that, he's been like one of the best hitters in baseball. If we were to just throw out last year, which we can't really do, but if we did it anyway. I mean, he's solidly in sort of like the 140-ish WRC Plus OPS Plus range year after year, and he does it in a really rare way in today's game. I mean, he's like a six-win player this year. That's no joke. You think about

a batting title winner. You think about like Luisa Reis, who I love Luisa Reis, and he is going to win the batting title, but he has not had that sort of superstar all-around season. He doesn't provide the well-rounded value that some others do. So he's obviously been an above-average player, but he's not going to give you a ton on defense on the bases, etc. He's a guy who makes a lot of contact and gets a lot of hits, and that's fun and rare in this era too. and gets a lot of hits and that's fun and rare in this era too but McNeil does that and more because he's also going to give you good defense and probably decent base running and he's not just a batting average guy like you know he he has a little bit of pop like not a ton obviously but like it's a really rare combination of skills like Like, looking at his war, which is just right around six, according to both Fangraphs and Baseball Reference.

Like, I did a little stat head. This is not even a sponsored stat head search, which will maybe come a little later in the program. This is just an organic. I was curious, and I used stat heads because it's good and not even because they sponsor the podcast sort of search. But I was looking for seasons that were war this high. So he's at 5.8 at baseball reference. So war of 5.8 or more. And then I limited the fielding runs. He's at six fielding runs above average, according to baseball reference. So I limited it to six or below because I didn't want to get a bunch of seasons where someone had a really extreme defense year, which can maybe sometimes be a bit suspect or more so

than the equivalent value on offense, at least. Just not to say that you cannot be that much above average on defense, of course. But sometimes if someone is not that big a bat and they end up having a 5 or 6 war season or something, and it's because they were like plus 20 or plus 25 or something on defense, you know, you raise your eyebrow and you think, are they really that good? Or is it just some wonky, small-ish sample defensive stat fluke? So I limited it to where he is on defense, of stat fluke so i limited it to where he is on defense where he is on war and then home runs less than 10 because he has nine homers right and that's a really rare combination of skills and value in today's game or even like going back a bit because to be that good overall, to be like a six-win player essentially without an outlier defensive rating and without a double-digit home run total, that's really rare. Like you have to hit for a high batting average, which he does, especially considering the era.

So the last player to fit those criteria was Joe Maurer in 2010. to fit those criteria was Joe Maurer in 2010. So it's been a while, and he was kind of that same sort of player offensively, too, who would hit for high averages sometimes. And other than that, one year, generally not hit a lot of homers. He was a catcher, of course, which was immensely valuable. But 2010 Joe Maurer, the last McNeil season like this one, and then Itro in 2007. And then before Itro, you have to go all the way back to Roberto Alomar in 1992, Bip Roberts in 1990, and then some 80s guys, Wade Boggs, Brett Butler, Ricky Henderson, Tim Raines. So he's kind of like an 80s-style player. He's sort of like a a throwback like it's it's a strange skill set for

this day and age but a really fun and entertaining and pretty consistent one like people have doubted whether he was actually this good he wasn't like this highly touted coming up as someone who would be this sort of star but he is he's uh he's quite good yeah he's quite good you know you're you're not wrong about that yeah yep yeah i like jeff mcneil quite enjoy his work so everyone appreciate jeff mcneil along with me so i wanted to bring to your attention something that i saw in the baseball reference attendance page i was just scanning attendance by team and by season and the average by game, just because we are a game away from having final numbers here. And generally, obviously, attendance is way up over last year when most places started limited at the beginning of the

season. Attendance was restricted because of COVID. So just about everyone has upped their attendance year over year on an average basis. Attendance is still down a bit relative to 2019, but not drastically so. It doesn't seem that there was any pent-up demand that has manifested itself, really. I remember doing a little stat blast about the idea that there was pent up demand and that everyone who couldn't go to the ballpark during COVID for so long was just like raring to go and would just be like pounding down the doors as soon as they were able to go. And I sort of was skeptical, cast some doubt on that. It doesn't seem to have happened, although I guess it's hard to tell because a lot has changed and people are just naturally cautious about things that maybe they weren't as cautious about before. Anyway, I noticed that there are two teams that have actually had their attendance decrease relative to last season.

Only two. But those two are kind of interesting. So one of them is the Cincinnati Reds. Sure. That's not shocking. If I gave you some time to think about it, you probably would have guessed them. They would have been close to the top of your list because, of course, they traded away most of their good players. And they also actively repelled people. The team president was like, where are you going

to go? we're your only option so what are you gonna do and i guess the collective response of the reds fan base was well maybe we can't go to another big league ballpark but it doesn't mean we have to go to yours if you are not giving us a good reason to be there so the reds this year having very publicly broadcasted the signal that they were not going to try to contend this year and very obviously taken a clear step back and sort of given up on the season. The fans did too, to some extent, understandably, and they're down about 1,380 fans per game relative to last year. And I don't remember the specifics of how restricted their attendance was yeah I assume

it was somewhat the only other team that has had its per game attendance decrease since last season Texas Rangers which is interesting now I think they were the team that opened up from the get-go last year right yeah we talked about that we talked year, right? Yeah. We talked about that. We talked to Bradford Doolittle, I believe, about that. They kind of threw caution to the winds and were just like, yep, let's go. So I guess they were not restricted or at least not as restricted as most teams were. So that may be part of it.

However, they sort of sent the opposite signal that the Reds did, right? Like the Rangers, maybe not convincingly, but they were like, we are going to go for it. Or at least we're going to sign some big free agents here. We're going to go get Corey Seeker. We're going to go get Marcus Simeon. We're going to go get John Gray. Like we're going to spend a lot, which you would think some people might have wanted to go see those players.

Now they didn't get off to great starts and obviously the season has not gone great and they've changed their manager and they've changed their president of baseball operations and they've lost a ton of one-run games like it has not been a successful season but kind of interesting that they are the one other team because they almost took polar opposite stances in the offseason where it was like we're tearing down we can't compete we're gonna whatever the reds gm said they were gonna do align their payroll with their resources or whatever the phrasing was i've tried to put it out of my mind but that sent one signal the rangers sent the opposite signal which was hey we're gonna try

to win here we're gonna go get some big free agents and spend some money. And they appear to have had basically the same results, again, with the caveat that maybe the Rangers park was opened more fully earlier. So the Rangers are down about 1,200 fans per game year over year. So I don't know what to make of that exactly. Maybe how you fare in the season has a greater bearing on your attendance by the end of the year than the tack you took over the winter yeah whether you tried to signal that you were contending maybe whether you actually did contend yes ends up being more important but like even oakland ended up gaining fans on average i know i did not expect to see that at all.

Now, maybe they were restricted last year too. I don't remember. Yeah, I don't recall. I wouldn't be surprised given where their park is located. I know that California did take things more seriously than Texas. Yes, you could say that. Although, not that they were pushing capacity as it was. Right, right. could say that although not that they were like pushing capacity as it was right but but they

drew an average of 85 58 last year and this year entering this game which perhaps will be boosted slightly by shohei otani starting sure 98 31 which actually that is higher than i would have guessed and that is higher than probably some of the dire estimates would have been earlier in the year when they had like whatever they were drawing just you know three or four thousand or whatever it was for for some games as I recall so not that they ended up giving ace fans any additional reason to come watch that team as the season went on but I guess a few of them did anyway yeah I mean we also have to like factor in that it's not like you're only watching the a's right you're not only watching the reds so i don't know maybe people were just like this is the baseball

that we can go see and they went and saw other teams come through who they were excited to to watch play i mean i guess that's a possibility also. Yep. I just was tagged by someone on Twitter on the dictionary.com tweet who said, I assume no one at all has tagged you in this. But their display name is Shohei Otani and Joyer. So that's okay. I don't mind the extra tag. So the biggest attendance gain was Toronto. Okay.

So they were up 22,690. Again, that's a case where they were playing all over the continent last year. So that's skewed somewhat. Yes. And the Cardinals. The Cardinals are about 15,000 up this year per game. So Cardinals fans have returned in force maybe to see the last act of Pujols and Molina and potentially Wainwright. Although it doesn't seem like Wainwright is actually retiring.

Like it seems like he intends to pitch again. It does seem like that, doesn't it? He's getting lumped in with Molina and Pujols. I mean, I get why. Like, why not have the three of them take their bows together? But also it's like, actually, I'm not leaving yet. I think I'll be back. But they are up second most.

And then the Yankees, despite all the ups and downs, they are up 14,500. And then your Seattle Mariners wedged right between the Yankees and the Dodgers. And then the M mets after them so the mariners are up 13 600 something per game so this is all skewed and and i'm just interested in it in a relative sense yeah because it's all kind of out of whack because of how weird last year was and obviously the year before that. But yeah, interesting that those two teams were in the red, I thought. Yeah. I don't know that. I mean, I would have guessed the one, but probably not the other.

Yeah. And did you get the press release from MLB about the gambling thing that they're doing, the gambling initiative? No, I don't know that I did. I got this release the other day. The subject line was MLB announces new strategic initiatives to promote responsible wagering. And the body of...

I hate it here. Yeah, my eyebrow went up, or both of them did, when I saw the subject line and did not go down as I read on. Yeah, because I was going to say, are they promoting gambling responsibly or are they promoting responsible gambling, right? Like are you trying to get people to bet more or are you trying to get people who are already betting to bet responsibly? Right, yeah.

So the text of the email says, Major League Baseball announced today a new partnership with the American Gaming Association's Have a Game Plan, Bet Responsibly public service campaign to educate fans and broaden the league's responsible gaming efforts. In addition, MLB expanded its partnership with the National Council on Problem Gambling with the league now serving as a platinum member and a part of the group's leadership circle. Does that mean it gets to use airport lounges or like? Yeah, they get they get comped their suites at the casino or something in the platinum member. I don't know. Quote, as legalized wagering continues to grow across the country, MLB is committed to ensuring that fans who choose to wager also have the tools and resources necessary to bet responsibly,

said Kenny Gersh, MLB Executive Vice President, Business Development, with the expertise and additional resources of the AGA and NCPG, we'll be able to expand our responsible gaming efforts further, driving new education, awareness, and support service initiatives that will help keep sports betting safe, fun, and entertaining for all those who participate. Wow, that sounds great. As Havoc Game Plan partners, MLB will run responsible sports betting public service announcements across select MLB broadcast and digital media channels, starting with the 2022 postseason.

So that's something to look forward to. The league will also extend campaign partnership opportunities to all 30 MLB clubs. The AGA will provide MLB with counsel and expertise to deepen league-wide responsible gaming knowledge through benchmarking and annual trainings on best practices. I love to read about benchmarking and best practices. Welcoming Major League Baseball as a Have a Game plan partner is a milestone for the campaign and responsible gaming efforts nationwide, says the senior vice president of the AGA. MLB understands that as legal sports betting grows, so does our collective commitment

to responsibility. This partnership will have meaningful impact, teaching fans across the country the fundamentals of responsible wagering. And it notes that MLB was the first professional sports league to join as a member of NCPG in 2005. Now, as a Platinum member and part of the organization's leadership circle, it will work closely with the executive director's team on various initiatives related to problem gambling and promote the NCPG's national problem gambling helpline across all of MLB's media platforms. So I've been kind of reading this with a certain tone, a certain skeptical tone. There's also a quote here from the NCPG executive director who says,

we applaud MLB's ongoing commitment to addressing problem gambling and look forward to their expanded effort to support responsible gambling education to fans and families across the country. If gambling becomes a problem, knowing the resources for help is crucial. MLP's extensive reach will make a significant impact in raising awareness of the National Problem Gambling Helpline and the resources available for treatment. So I haven't done a deep dive on this research. I don't know how legit all of this is. Sure. I don't mean to mock the helpline. If the helpline is helping people, I'm glad of it.

But I'm sure that there is a somewhat cynical aspect to all of this, I would think. Not necessarily so cynical as like we want to run PSAs about problem gambling because it will remind people that they can gamble. I don't know if it's that dystopian or not. It's not like there's any shortage of gambling advertising as it is on baseball broadcasts or every broadcast under the sun. I imagine that this is more about providing cover probably. If you're a sports league and you're promoting gambling because you're making money off it, you know that some percentage of people are not going to be able to gamble responsibly.

I mean, some people are just wired that way. And there's plenty of precedent from other countries and there've been all sorts of problems and some other countries have had regulation about how you can advertise and who can serve as sponsors and all that sort of thing where we're kind of behind on that. Maybe we'll get there someday. Maybe we won't, but we've been behind just because it got legalized later here. But I've read all kinds of concerning things about the effect that it has had in Europe and in other places around the country where it was legal earlier. So you know that there's just there's going to be some fallout from that.

They're just going to be casualties. They're going to be problem gamblers, whatever percentage it is. And if you really wanted to stop that entirely, you'd have to say no gambling at all. So I guess if you are partnering and doing these initiatives and PSAs and everything, I mean, look, if it helps people, I hope it does. I hope it does stop one from developing bad habits. But also, I assume it's something that MLB can point to and say, you know, if they ever receive criticism for the way that they are promoting gambling or what

they have or haven't done when it comes to helping with problem gambling, they can say, hey, we're a platinum member of this and that, and we've run all these PSAs, and therefore we've been proactive about this, and you can't bother us about it anymore. I would imagine, again, I haven't spoken to anyone, I haven't done any reporting about this. Just, you know, uninformed or semi-informed or as informed as I am about anything in baseball. Observation that I imagine that that was one motivation, maybe a main motivation for doing this, which, you know, I guess makes sense from a business perspective. Right. I guess, makes sense from a business perspective.

Right. Like, you know, there's a certain amount of problem gambling that they are deeming to be sort of a tolerable amount of it, right? Because we know that there are plenty of people who decide to gamble on sports and they do it as like a fun thing for them. And it isn't a destructive force within their lives it's not a compulsive force within their lives they just like are like i have opinions about the dodgers and i'm going to express those by betting right and there's like a large percentage of people for whom that is true and that's fine and then there is a percentage of people who engage in gambling and it is destructive for them.

And we have decided collectively how involved all of the interested parties are in that decision, how thoughtful it has been, how much we have grappled with, how different it is potentially. Again, this is not me speaking from a position of expertise, but just wondering, have we really unpacked, is it different to be forced to walk into a casino and place a bet at a sports book versus having it on your phone? I don't know if we know that. I assume that it's stickier to be able to bet on your phone versus having to go to a physical place. But like, I don't know that for sure. Right.

But we've decided collectively that there's like an amount of problem gambling that we're okay with because we let there be legalized gambling. We make that decision about all kinds of things from a public policy perspective. Right. There's an amount of problem drinking that we've decided we're okay with because it's legal to drink. And, you know, you can go on and on with these things, right? But yeah, it does strike me as like this is PR as much as it is anything else. Now, there are plenty of things that businesses engage in from a PR perspective that have some marginal good, right? That have

some utility. I don't think that their primary purpose is that utility. Their primary purpose is to provide cover for behaviors that that business entity was likely to engage in anyway, but we may as well make you feel better about us doing it while we're at it, right? Because you're more likely to think that we're like, okay, folks, if we do that, I think it's fine to point that out and also acknowledge that it's good that there be free resources for people who find themselves suddenly realizing that you know this thing that they thought they could do casually and in a fun way has has taken on a bigger prominence in their life than is healthy for them so like that's a good thing to have those are good and important resources but i don't think that that they're being provided just out of the goodness of MLB's heart. We can acknowledge that and not be wishing that they didn't exist. I'm glad those

resources are there for people, even though I don't think that... If MLB wasn't partnered with sportsbooks, I doubt that they would do this just out out of the goodness of their heart, right? They're not writing a check to an association that helps people who have issues with gambling if they aren't in bed with sportsbooks. So that is maybe one test of like how altruistic it is. But you know, what are you going to do? Yep. Well, something to watch out for during this postseason. You may see some PSAs if you still have cable or

if, like me, hopefully you figure out how to watch him play baseball without cable. So yes, we bring up this topic from time to time and mostly it's just that we find it unappealing personally to us and we have some level of concern about people who may have a problem with this. I am not someone who says that it should not be legal or that people can enjoy it responsibly, should not enjoy it responsibly. It's just it is a problem inevitably for some people. I don't know what the best way to counteract that. But that is obviously one huge drawback of it.

And the other is that we are just constantly damaged and bombarded that's not gonna get any better oh god no it's definitely not that's the main complaint yeah yeah so they need some psas about that like we apologize for just how in your face this is and right here's a psa which will remind you about it again. Yeah, and you know, like this is neither here nor there, but like if the gambling ads could also just be kind of sensical, that would help too. Like have we talked on the podcast about the DraftKings ad or have we just gotten a million and a half emails about it?

I mentioned it once on an outro because we got a couple emails about it. Yeah, just about the DraftKings ad that talks about pitchers hitting grand slams and four-man outfields, neither of which is going to be a thing next season. And the pitchers hitting grand slams already not a thing. So it seemed like an interesting kind of choice for ad copy because I believe that that ad debuted this season long after it became clear that pitchers were not going to be hitting grand slams other than Shohei Otani. Right. Because what happened was, you know, if people are as obsessed with some of the aesthetic choices of the DraftKings ads as I am, the woman who normally did them went on maternity leave. She had a baby, and then they had to shoot a new ad, I assume, because she was at home with her baby. I don't

know what her current relationship with DraftKings is. I'm not creepy. I just am interested in the aesthetic choices that they make on the DraftKings ads. They shot this new ad, and I don't know when it was shot. Maybe they shot it before the rule changes became permanent but I struggle to believe that that is true so yeah it's just like a lot of choices and the the derisive tone of which the nah is issued it's just like right yeah it debuted I believe it looks like June 22nd was when that ad was published. And I can't imagine that the lead time was terribly long. This can't have been a month's long production. It's not a masterpiece.

It's not up for any awards. Yeah. So they should have been well aware that there was a universal DH by that point, I would think. Yeah. I mean, you would think that. And then my thought was like, is he trying to refer to Otani specifically? But then wouldn't you make it about like a two way player? Like, wouldn't you?

Yeah, because that's an even better argument. Right. The thrust of the ad is that baseball is not dying, right? That it's actually good. And therefore, I guess you should bet on it. So I think Otani would be a better argument than just generic pitchers hitting Grand Slams. Like when I first saw it or someone first wrote to us about it, I thought maybe it dated from last year or something. And it was a reference to Daniel Camarena, the Padres reliever who hit that memorable Grand Slam, which was awesome.

But that doesn't happen anymore other than Otani. So by this June, I don't know how that ad got greenlit, but it is in heavy, heavy rotation because I just see it constantly. Constantly. Just like a, it's just constant. I can't decide which I see more, that or like a terrifying series of political ads. I forgot how much more you get advertised to when you live in a swing state man yeah it's it's a lot it's a lot of the time you get just a just a a lot

otani's only hit one grand slam i think yeah just the one grand slam yes yes just the one time he hit the grand slam and was he was he pitching that day i don't recall i'm trying to use stat head quickly and i'm not succeeding but that's because of my internet not because of stat head which is great use stat head use our code get some Yeah, that was on May 10th. I do not think he was pitching that day. So then what are we even talking about? These are the things that you talk about before the postseason starts, because if you don't, you never get a chance to talk about them ever again.

All right. So I have a couple stat blasts to share. Maybe I can do that here so we can play our little ditty. They'll take a data set sorted by something like ERA- or OBS+. And then they'll tease out some interesting tidbit, discuss it at length, and analyze it for us in a maze. All right. So we have mentioned the StatHead tool and sang its praises already in this episode. But go to StatHead.com, use our coupon code WILD20, and you can get a $20 discount on the $80 one-year subscription if you're signing up for the single sport. And baseball specifically, they have other sports.

They also have a multi-sport package you can utilize too, but they have souped up the playoff options. You can search many more playoff queries now than you could have before, and they've spruced it up and sped it up. And so you will want to have that handy as we embark on October baseball here. So I've got a few here. I guess first I will mention this one. So I got kind of curious about the worst best player ever on a team.

I think this was prompted by my maybe looking at the team page for the Tigers. Sorry, Tigers. Noticing that they did not really have any good players this year the best of the bunch was maybe Javi Baez it depends on what were you look at but I think Tarek Skubal is actually above him according to fan graphs war and he is uh long since injured so other than that it's javi baez and whichever war you look at and whichever player is the leader it's it's less than three war they do not have a three war player this season and i was wondering if if that was at all notable so they are not actually according to fangraphs war technically the team with the worst best player this season.

So the Nationals, the Nationals war leader this year is Juan Soto, who is no longer a National, but he had 2.7 war while he was a National. And then after that, 2.5 for Josh Bell, also no longer a national. So the highest war for a current national, someone who is still in the organization, is keeper Ruiz. And just behind him, a tenth of a war, is my man Joey Manessis. Yeah. That's something. And this is either position players or pitchers. They do not have any pitchers who are high on that list. You will be surprised to find, I believe, Hunter Harvey, I think, is leading them with one pitcher war.

That's the best they've got. So the Nationals topped out at 2.7 and not even someone who's still on the team. The Reds are sort of in a similar boat, maybe even a more depressing boat, as we were just talking about. So the Reds' war leader, also 2.7, according to FanCrafts, but it's Brandon Drury, not a Red.

After that, Tyler Maley, not a Red. Luis Castillo, not a Red. So you have to go all the way down to Nick Lodolo at 1.8. Again, for this stat blast, I'm not actually doing like, did you spend the whole year with the team? Did you finish the year with the team? If you accrued that value while you were with that team, then it counts. And the fans got to enjoy that.

So I'm not discounting that. It's just extra depressing when they're not actually on the team anymore and it's not an impressive four total to begin with. It doesn't feel good, you know? It feels particularly bad. Yeah. The Royals are also down there or up there. Brady Singer is at 2.9.

Bobby Witt Jr. is at 2.3. Those are the Royals' war leaders. I mentioned the Tigers, the Rockies. They have a three-war guy. Ryan McMahon is at 2.3 those are the royals war leaders i mentioned the tigers the rockies they have a three war guy ryan mcmahon is at 3.0 and the pirates have brian hayes at 3.1 those are the teams i spot checked figuring that they might not have anyone yeah who was uh all that high so i was curious like was this historic? How bad is that? How bad is the worst ever best player on a team, world leader-wise at least?

So Ryan Nelson searched this for me, frequents that less consultant. I probably could have done this through the Fangraphs leaderboards, I imagine, but he saved me the trouble. And you can find him on Twitter at rsnelson23. So I excluded pre-1900. So I went with quote unquote modern era just because there were some short seasons back in the 19th century. It would have screwed all sorts of things up. And I excluded 2020 and I

excluded the strike seasons, at least the most prominent strike seasons, 94 and 81. And that leads us with the worst best player on a team of all time is Ron Hunt of the 1963 Mets, who was worth a mere 1.9 war. 1.9 war. So that is the lowest war total ever, or at least with the restrictions I mentioned, for the best player on the team. 1.9. Yeah, so that makes

Tarek Skubal and Javi Baez and that bunch actually look pretty good. They cleared that low bar by a lot. So people remember Ron Hunt for his hit-by-pitch proclivities and for being hit by 50 pitches in 1971. But in 1963, he was hit by only 13 pitches, and he had a 110 OPS plus for the Mets, who were a new franchise, not an expansion team, but not far removed from

being an expansion team. And he was actually the runner-up rookie of the year that year, but he was the best the Mets had, and he was not that great. So that's the answer to that trivia question. After Ron Hunt, it is Don Hurst, who was a first baseman for the 1928 Phillies, he was at 2.1. Then, more recently, you have Elmer Descends for the 2001 Reds. He was at 2.2. Then, I guess I should have done this stat blast last year, you have Merrill Kelly of the 2021 Diamondbacks at 2.3. And then you have Julius Chassin, 2017 Padres at 2.3, Nick you have jewish chassin 2017 padres at 2.3 nick castellanos 2018 tigers

2.3 austin hedges 2.3 as well for the 2018 padres and the list goes on pitch framing is valuable yeah it is so i will link to the the full But basically, you can be an average player and be the best player on a very bad team. It is rare for that to happen, but it has happened. It's just going to feel not great for some teams for a while. That's one of my takeaways from that stat blast. It's like, you know, you're thinking about like the tigers and the reds it's like whose fortunes are going to be dramatically different next year and it's like i don't know if any of those teams are on my list yeah sorry yeah if you had told tigers fans before the season well if you

had told them hey javi baez is is gonna meet your team in war. Right, he'd be your best guy. They'd be like, great, sign us up for that. Perfect, all right, our big free agent addition. Looks like it paid off. Yeah, and then the monkeys paw curls. Yeah, that didn't happen. So not a successful season, not at all. No, definitely not. But not a historic worst best player either.

So that's the saving grace, I guess. That's something, yeah. historic worst best player either. So that's the saving grace, I guess. That's something, yeah. Of note, though, the lowest team leader in batter fan graphs were in a non-19th century non-shortened season was the

1962 Astros. So again, a new franchise. They had three players tie with 1.1 were on the batting side. Roman Mejias, Bob Aspermonte, and Al Spengler. And then the lowest team leader in pitcher fan graphs were with the same qualifications is the 2006 Nationals, who had two pitchers tie with 1.0, John Patterson and Levon Hernandez. But as noted, the 2022 Nationals pitching fan graphs were a leader.

At the time Ryan ran this, it was a tie between Hunter Harvey and Patrick Corbin at .8, and I believe it is now Hunter Harvey at 1.0. So I guess he has tied the earlier Nationals team for having the worst best pitcher. Yikes! So that

happened. Yikes! Nationals! Yikes! Alright, another stat blast comes to us from That happened. Yikes. Nationals. Yikes. Mm-hmm. All right. Another stat blast comes to us from Joseph, who writes in and says, As more and more teams clinch playoff spots, I've gotten to thinking about how many players make it to the playoffs at any point in their career. Do you all know what percentage of Major League players played in the playoffs at any point in their career? I presume this would have gone up over the years as the playoff field expanded. Sure. But you always hear players saying how

much it means for them to play in the postseason. So I wondered how many of them actually do. I also wondered about how many of them ever win a World Series. There might be some notable players here, like ones who have tons of career playing time, but never won a World Series or even made the playoffs or someone who played very sparingly, but somehow won several World Series, like mercenary pinch runners. So Ryan ran this for me as well. He looked at the playoff rate, and I think the making the World Series, I'm not sure if he ran the winning a World Series version, but making the World Series, winning a pennant. So for making the playoffs, and I will put this all online and link to it on the show page as usual, but he looked basically at the rate of making the playoffs for all players who debuted in every given season.

And, yeah, it increases a lot over time just because more and more teams have made the playoffs. The playoffs keep expanding. It used to be just the best team in each league when there even was a playoffs. Initially, there wasn't a playoffs at all, so it was zero for many years. So you have to go to 1887. That's the first debut year. I guess it's debut year, not birth year. That's the first debut year where someone who debuted that year did eventually play in the playoffs.

But it goes up and up, and obviously it declines in very recent seasons just because players have not been around as long and have not had as many chances to make the playoffs. But the peak rate thus far is 2012. That is the debut year when the highest percentage of players who debuted that season have qualified for the playoffs at any point in their career. And this is no career playing time minimum. This is if you were a major leaguer for a day, you're in the sample. And using that very broad definition, it's 41.75% of players who debuted in 2012 made the playoffs or have made the playoffs so far. So 86 of the players who debuted that year have made it, not counting this year, I imagine. And that's the peak. So it was sort of working its way up to that peak. And then it has been lower than that ever since, just because players have not been

around as long and have not had as many spins of the wheel. So one would imagine that the percentages for recent seasons will keep creeping up to be at least that high, if not higher, now that the playoffs are expanded even further. Maybe there will be a new peak sometime soon. But the peak thus far, yeah, it's, you know, 42% or so. So still, like, more than half of all players never make the playoffs, like even in that peak year. And I guess that percentage could continue to climb a little bit, but still like, you know, fewer than half of all major leaguers can say that they made the playoffs even at the very peak period. And before that, for much of baseball history, it was a lot lower. Obviously it was in the teens, you know, like looking at the 1930s, it was like in the teens or maybe 20 percent.

And then, you know, just kind of hanging around there for a while because until you got to the divisional era, there was no real expansion in the number of playoff teams. for decades and decades, like into debut years in the early 50s or even mid 50s or even late 50s or early 60s. It was like 20 percent or lower. So back then, obviously, like I don't want to say making the playoffs meant less. It still meant a lot. But I think probably we were less likely to judge players based on that like you know did they have rings did they make x number of playoff appearances how did they do in the playoffs certain players if you were on the yankees you were perennially in the postseason for long stretches of baseball history but most players were not they they never got to be in

the postseason just there were fewer spots open. So there was a real primacy to the regular season then for better or worse. So I asked Ryan to rerun it with a slightly more exclusive group. So players who had at least five-year careers instead of just anyone who was a major leaguer at any point. who was a major leaguer at any point. And if you limit it to that, then the sample goes up, of course, because the percentage that is goes up because we exclude some players who were just cup of coffee guys and didn't get lucky. So here the peak is still the same year, so debut year of 2012.

But now the peak is not almost 42 percent but almost 73 percent so almost 73 percent of players who debuted in 2012 and have had five-year careers they have made the playoffs at some point so far so you could say maybe three quarters or so roughly and you know it was uh gradually growing and growing but again even if you look back at the pre-divisional era if you look back at like the 20s and and the 30s of you know we're talking like a third of players maybe roughly 40 it jumps around a bit based on the debut year but still like into the the 50s we're talking like low 40 percent and you know 1960 debut year 33.33 percent of players who debuted in 1960 and had at least five-year careers ever made the playoffs like you know fewer players would debut per year back then so smaller sample and more

fluctuation but even then, it wasn't necessarily a majority of players who hung around for a while who could count on making the playoffs. It was much more of a rarity than it is now. And as for the World Series appearance metric, so this one actually has the opposite pattern. This actually decreases the percentage of players who have made the World Series because back then there were no rounds before the World Series. So if you made the playoffs, that meant you made the World Series. It was the same thing. So there were fewer teams, of course, and because there were fewer teams and there was no obstacle to getting into the World Series if you were the best team in your league, then it was somewhat more common.

So I think this was probably with the same career playing time minimum, maybe. And you actually had pretty good rates of players who debuted in some early years. Like the peak was 1918. And again, this is a small sample of just like players who debuted in 1918, but 65% of them went on to make the World Series at some point. It's only like 20 players. So that was an outlier year. The year after that, it was 30.6%. But it bounces around.

But basically, it was pretty high back in the day. And now, like if we go to 2012, the year that was the peak for the rate of playoff appearances, 33.6% of players, it looks like, who debuted that year and I guess have had more extended careers have appeared in a World Series so that is a lower rate than the previous two rates that I quoted obviously and then you know it goes down further from there so if you're looking at like 2007 debuts let's say or 2008 debuts it's like a quarter of players it's like a quarter of players. I'd say it's roughly a quarter of players or a quarter to a third have played in a World Series or at least made a World Series at some point in their career.

So, again, it continues to be a rarity. That particular thing is even rarer than it used to be just because there are more playoff rounds, even though there are more playoff teams, and there are many more teams than there used to be. So it's just, you know, we should celebrate players who win, and obviously players all want to win, but a lot of them don't get to. And you can't count on it, and it doesn't make you a failure if you did not ever make a World Series or even did not make the playoffs. Like, it happens to a lot of players, you know? failure if you did not ever make a World Series or even did not make the playoffs. Like it happens to a lot of players, you know. Now, the better you are, I guess if you're Felix, you know, if you're Ernie Banks, then you make your teams better and then you have a very long career.

And because of those two factors, it's less likely that you will never make the playoffs the way that they did not. So that's still somewhat notable. But still nothing to be ashamed of if you don't ever make it. less likely that you will never make the playoffs the way that they did not. So that's still somewhat notable. But still nothing to be ashamed of if you don't ever make it. And that's different, I think, in baseball than in at least some other sports, right? You talk about great NBA players, right? Like they're not great NBA players who have had long careers and never made the playoffs, you know, or like probably ever even made a finals like that would be rare, too, just because if you're a great player in that

sport, you're one of five people on the court, on the floor. So, you know, your team's probably going to be good. That is not the case in baseball where you could be the best player ever and your team could still suck. There are recent examples of that. So it highlights some of the differences, which could be good. It could be bad, but it is a very different world. Yeah. It's not that it can't happen in other sports, but it's just a lot less likely to because, as you said, your ability to be the difference maker is so much more profound when it's only a couple of guys on the court at a time. It's not as common of a thing.

I know. Yeah, exactly. I have one more here. And this was a listener and Patreon supporter who took it upon themselves to do some fascinating research here that a fellow Patreon supporter and Discord group member classified as, quote, the most EW shit ever. This was prompted by someone musing in the Discord group, which is great, by the way, if you're a Patreon supporter and you're not a Discord group member, consider joining. And if you're not a patreon member and you should still consider joining because it's a fun place to talk to other smart baseball people who listen to this podcast especially during the playoffs i imagine so someone was wondering about mike trout's long

observed tendency to tweet airplane emojis yeah when he's traveling somewhere, followed by some number of exclamation points, but not the same number, a varying number of exclamation points. And someone wondered in the Discord group, like, is there meaning to this? The number of plain emojis? Because it's a different number of plain emojis he tweets too. So does it correlate to anything? Like, does he tweet more plane emojis if he's like taking a longer plane trip or something? So people were wondering whether this signified anything other than Mike Trout just randomly mashing emojis. And listener, Patreon supporter, just wanted to be identified by their username in the Discord group Asian Brave. They have done the research here, really exhaustive research, and have chronicled every instance of Mike Trout tweeting an airplane emoji, followed by exclamation marks. And this goes back to 2013.

His very first one ever was September 18th, 2013. He tweeted, Anaheim with one plain emoji followed by three exclamation points. And the rest is history. He has continued to do this. This is a common topic of discussion, as I recall, early in the podcast history to talk about Mike Trout's Twitter punctuation. discussion, as I recall, early in the podcast history to talk about Mike Trout's Twitter punctuation because he had and maybe still has a habit of inserting a space before the exclamation points. And we wondered forever whether that was like an autocorrect thing, whether his phone was doing that or whether he was taking it upon himself to do that. I don't know that we ever

got an answer, but I assume that is an automated thing, and I don't know if it still happens. But this airplane emoji matter, I don't know that we ever did a deep dive into this. And so our listener here, our plucky listener, did really just like exhaustive research. And there's a spreadsheet, and it's color-'s color coded and it's broken down by season and there are all kinds of factors like how was Mike Trout hitting at the time oh my gosh like what was his his rolling weighted on base average at each time that he tweeted one of these things and like were the angels playing well like were they coming off a win or a loss? Like, he really, I don't know if it's a he, they, did a very deep dive on just every factor to come up with any kind of possible correlation. And we have, like, leaderboards here, essentially.

So his career year for this was 2016 when he used emojis very often per tweet and tweeted often. So just like broken down. So this was his age 24 season. a rate of 5.03 airplane emojis per tweet and 113 total exclamation points for a rate of 3.23 exclamation points per tweet. And there were 23 such tweets. So this is per tweet, I think, per airplane emoji tweet, not per all of his tweets, although he doesn't do that many tweets. But the record for the rate basis, that was the record 5.03 airplane emojis per tweet. He did have 3.29 exclamation marks per tweet way back in 2014, and that was 35 tweets, so pretty big sample there. So he was most exclamation point happy early in his career in

2014. And then the airplane emojis really just got out of hand. I mean, it was like a steep, steep increase. 2013, I mentioned he did his first one ever in September. So he only had two of these tweets in 2013. 2014, it ramped up to 35. and he went from one airplane emoji per tweet in his rookie airplane emoji tweeting season to 3.51. So that was a big jump. And then in 2015, he went from 3.51 to 4.03. And then the career year, 2016, 5.03. I don't know what the aging curve looks like for this across the league as a whole. We only have a sample size of one, 5.03. I don't know what the aging curve looks like for this. Like across the league as a whole, we only have a sample size of one, unfortunately, I think to judge by. But this year, at least I think this is up to date.

So he's had 28. Most recently, he tweeted on September 25th, Anaheim, followed by five airplane emojis and only two exclamation points. So again, I don't know if that means he's excited or not. Yeah. And again, it may not correlate to excitement at all. That was the purpose of doing this research. So this season, he's had 28 of these tweets, which is up a lot. That is double his rate from last year, presumably because he was injured for most of last year. So I guess he was not tweeting this, or at least not regularly when he was on the IL, even if he was traveling with the team. I guess he was not really in a emoji airplane tweeting mood if he was not going to get in

the game. And then 2020, he only had eight because it was a shortened season. not going to get in the game. And then 2020, he only had eight because it was a shortened season. So this year, bounce back to 28, which is his high since 2018. And he has tweeted a total of 128 airplane emojis this season, which is tied with 2018. At least, I think it's second after the career year of 2016. He's at 4.57 airplane emojis per tweet this year. It's, you know, pretty high. It's at least medium range for his recent several seasons. And he's tweeted 68 exclamation points with a rate of 2.43 exclamation points per airplane emoji tweet this season. They even broke it down by his destination.

Oh, my gosh. Yeah, a lot of labor went into this. So obviously, like Anaheim, the most popular destination, he has sent 63 of these tweets with a total of 282 airplane emojis when he is bound for Anaheim, Anaheim with a rate of 4.48 airplane emojis per tweet and 2.81 exclamation points, which is not notable particularly. So he has tweeted the most times heading to Anaheim because he goes to Anaheim most often, but he has not tweeted more than the usual number really of airplane emojis or exclamation points when he is bound for Anaheim. Read into that, whatever you will. When he's on a hot streak, he goes with 4.55 airplane emojis per tweet compared to 4.19 when he's on a cold streak. So slight difference there. Although the difference in exclamation

points is negligible, nothing there. And on opening day, he has done five of these tweets and he has a 4.6 airplane emoji per tweet rate on opening day with only 2.6 exclamation points. It's interesting. There doesn't seem to be a strong correlation between the airplane emojis

and the exclamation points, which you would think that if he's like in a really great mood, he's like mashing the emojis. He might mash the exclamation points too. But maybe it's like he only wants to use a certain number of characters. So you take away from one when you add the other potentially. But off of a good game, so coming off of a good game, 4.26 airplane emojis per tweet. Off of a bad game, 4.26 airplane emojis per tweet. Off of a bad game, 4.47.

So actually more emojis, more airplane emojis coming off a bad game than a good game, which, again, probably not a statistically significant difference here. We're talking about only like 75 or so tweets. But if we wanted to read too far into it, we could say he's happy to get out of town, coming off the bad game. You could say, well, he's in a good mood coming off the good game, but no, he's happy to get out of there.

He thinks his luck will change when he goes to the new city. So he tweets more airplane emojis. And I think that we've learned a lot here coming off of an angel's win, he's at 4.2 airplane emojis per tweet off of an angel's loss 4.46 so yeah again it seems like off of the loss he is more prone to tweeting emojis he's just like a change of scenery guy he's like yeah turn the page you know be optimistic let's look forward to the future. Better results lie ahead.

That's how I'm choosing to read this. Although he sends 2.95 exclamation points per tweet after an Angels win and 2.76 exclamation points after an Angels loss. So hard to say. It's tough to parse this, but I'm glad that the data has been gathered. And I applaud the research that went into this. Also, he sometimes tweets these in like December without saying where he's going. So like, he's probably just going on vacation and he doesn't want to announce where he will be. Well, sure. Because, you know, he cares about privacy.

Yeah. But the conclusion of the researcher was that the career year was 2016. Overall, the composition seems pretty random, but he does seem to have a slight tendency to use more planes when he's in a good mood on opening day or on a hot streak or going back to Anaheim, but it's very subtle. And also the Angels, 670 and 695 in this time frame, that's a 491 winning percentage. The amount of time Trout tweets after a win is also 49.1%. So there's a little fun fact for you. So thank you for this.

And apologies to everyone listening who I have inflicted this upon, but hopefully they've found it as fascinating as I have. And maybe I will make an effort to share this data if anyone wants to do some, you know, hardcore like machine learning type of analysis, look for some deep learning patterns here that maybe we didn't pick up on superficially, just looking at correlations and heat maps and that kind of thing i think that one of my favorite things about our podcast both uh when it comes to you as a host co-host and our listeners is not assuming that just because something is silly or small that it shouldn't be taken seriously yeah i think that's one of my favorite things about it so yeah i feel like i'm

the the close encounters guy with the mashed potatoes and it's like this must mean something yeah and i don't know that it does but man i haven't watched close encounters in a long time i love remembering that there's something i want to watch like two days before the postseason because that means i definitely will get to it soon you know maybe in november yeah okay i will retroactively devote that deep dive into Trout's tweeting habits to Trout himself in honor of his 40th homer of the season and his 350th career. He ended up having not too shabby a season for someone who played only 119 games, missed the rest of the time with a somewhat serious injury that also sapped some of his strength

before he went on the IL, and briefly, because of a comment by the Angels trainer, scared us all into thinking that his career could be over or that he'd never be the same. Long may he be the same, or if not the same, just continually improving or slightly altered versions of the amazing Mike Trout we know. All right, I had to cut things short there, or not short, but slightly less long, before the past blast, so I will deliver it now. And it comes to us, as usual, from Jacob Pomeranke of Sabre, Sabre's Director of Editorial Content and the Chair of the Black Sox Scandal Research Committee. This is episode 1912. This past blast comes from 1912, and Jacob headlines it 1912, player-owner versus owner-owner. It's common for a popular player to retire and join

a team's front office in some capacity. Less common is when a player has enough money saved up to buy shares in the team and become a partial owner, as Buster Posey recently did with the Giants. But it's been more than 100 years since a player joined the ownership ranks while still actively playing. In 1912, Frank Chance of the Chicago Cubs and Jake Stahl of the Boston Red Sox wore multiple hats by playing first base, managing their clubs, and also having a financial stake in the team. While Stahl led the Red Sox to a World Series in Fenway Park's opening year, Chance didn't get along well with the bombastic Cubs owner Charlie Murphy. As the Sporting News reported, quote, this stock proposition has worried Chance a lot. To the possession of a 10th interest in

the club, the peerless leader attributes some of his nervous troubles. The knowledge that part of his season's earnings depended on how much money his team could draw through the turnstiles has proved one worry too many when added to the worries of managing a winning team and playing first base too. He had to give up first basing or break down. Chance believes he can continue to manage on a straight salary basis and even hopes to be able to return to first base. Jacob continues, Charlie Murphy, who was about to start a fire sale of the Cubs dynasty, would not allow Chance to stick around for long in Chicago. Chance sold his shares in

the club for $40,000, about $1.2 million in today's money, and moved on to New York to manage the Yankees in 1913. And this sort of thing would be prohibited not long after, I believe. This came up on episode 1813, our stanky draft, because there's a rule, maybe possibly prompted by Rogers Hornsby, that prevents players or managers from holding ownership stock in a franchise, except under some specific circumstances. And often it is said to be because Rogers Hornsby, who was a player manager for the Cardinals at the time, he had a stake in the team, but then he was traded to the Giants, and so he was forced to sell his shares in the Cardinals in order to prevent a conflict

of interest. Then there was a rule subsequently enacted to permit players or managers to be part owners of the team they play for, but require a written agreement for how they will divest their ownership if they move on to another team, plus approval by the commissioner. And when Ted Turner, the owner of the Braves, took over briefly as manager after a 16-game losing streak, this rule was invoked and Turner's tenure as manager ended after one game. I believe the CBA has this provision. It was rule 4C, at least under the old uniform players contract. Kevin Goldstein wrote about this for BP a while back. 4C said the player represents that he does not directly or indirectly own stock or have

any financial interest in the ownership or earnings of any major league club, except as hereinafter expressly set forth and covenants that he will not hereafter while connected with any major league club, acquire or hold any such stock or interest except in accordance with major league club, acquire or hold any such stock or interest except in accordance with Major League Rule 20E. 20E said, no manager or player on a club shall directly or indirectly own stock or any other proprietary interest or have any financial interest in the club by which the manager or player is employed except under an agreement approved by the commissioner which agreement shall provide for the immediate sale and the terms thereof of such stock or other proprietary interest or financial interest in the event of the manager or player's transfer, if a player or playing manager, to or joining another club?

A manager or player having any such interest in the club by which the manager or player is employed shall be ineligible to play for or manage any other club in that league while, in the opinion of the commissioner, such interest is retained by or for the manager or player directly or indirectly. So that's why we don't see this sort of thing now, even with the modern equivalent of the peerless leader. But it is interesting that this was a source of stress for Chance to have a part ownership stake in addition to playing and managing. Having to worry about how many people the team was drawing and how that would affect his earnings, that was too much. Don't want that burden of the extra income contingent on performance and attendance. Also meant to mention,

if today's stat blast sounded at all familiar, it may have reminded you of episode 1743 from a year or so ago when I did a stat blast about the worst best player for a division winner. Today's was just for any team, and the answer to that one was Will Clark, who had 4.2 war for the 1987 Giants. The average war for a division winner's best player was 7.1. As I speak and prepare to post this podcast, every MLB game has concluded. So that is a season wrap on the 2022 MLB regular season. I had fun. Hope you had fun.

And before it was over, by the way, the Dodgers ran their run differential up to plus 334, which is the highest since the 1939 Yankees. It's the fourth highest, I believe, in the live ball era after only some 1920s and 1930s Yankees teams. So it's the best run differential since integration. That is unbelievable. That's a hell of a season. 111 wins and a historic run differential.

And now it all resets to zero, although there's still a first round bye and home field advantage. And now the playoffs begin. Exciting times. I already had a great day. I got to quote a dictionary definition to the people who make the dictionary definitions. mean the end of our podcasting. And you can support Effectively Wild on Patreon by going to patreon.com slash effectivelywild. The following five listeners have already signed up and pledged some monthly or yearly amount to help keep the podcast going, help get themselves access to some perks, and also

help us stay ad-free, aside from our StatHead sponsorship. Today's thank yous go out to Keith F., Casey Reed, David Sanchez, Alex Markle, and Liam Delahanty. Thanks to all of you. Patreon supporters get access to the aforementioned

Effectively Wild Discord group for Patreon supporters. You've got to get in on that action if you have not already. You also get access to monthly bonus podcasts, plus a couple of playoff live streams coming up soon, sometime this month, and access to merch and ad-free FanGraphs memberships and a whole host of other options. Check it out. You can contact me and Meg via email at podcastoffangraphs.com or via the Patreon messaging system if you are a supporter. You can rate, review, and subscribe to Effectively Wild on iTunes and Spotify and other podcast platforms. You can find and follow

Effectively Wild on Twitter at EWPod and you can find the Effectively Wild subreddit at r slash Effectively Wild. Thanks to Dylan Higgins for his editing and production assistance. We will be back with one more episode before the end of the week and I believe before the start of the postseason if all goes well. so we will talk to you soon Outro Music