Effectively Wild: A FanGraphs Baseball Podcast - Effectively Wild Episode 2003: Return of the Mack

Episode Date: May 5, 2023

Ben Lindbergh and Meg Rowley banter about more examples of players whose names describe what they do (like Colin Holderman), the return of Justin Verlander, Juan Soto’s overdue hot streak, Keynan Middleton calling out Carlos Correa, the difference between Craig Kimbrel’s leverage and results, and how success lowers the boo threshold, then (16:22) react to […]

Joey Manessis, walk-off three-run digger. Stop it. Walk-off three-run digger. Stop it. Walk-off three-run shot. Oh my god. Meg, he's the best player in baseball. Effectively Wild. Hello and welcome to episode 2003 of Effectively Wild, a Fangraphs baseball podcast brought to you by our Patreon supporters.

I'm Meg Raleigh of Fangraphs, and I am joined as always by Ben Lindberg of The Ringer. Ben, how are you? Doing well. How are you? I'm just fine. Last time we brought up Colin Holderman, and I put out a call for better examples of nominative determinism. I can never say nominative determinism. There we go. It's like Arnold Palmer. If you don't slow down.

It always takes me at least two tries, yeah. But we are looking for better examples of that, players whose names mirror what they do on the baseball field better than Colin Holderman, who gets a hold almost every time he pitches. Well, Kevin mentioned that we had noted that Grant Balfour, or Balfour, is an especially good example because his name is a full sentence. So is Colin Holderman. Got a three-run or closer lead in the eighth inning? Colin Holderman. I had not considered that aspect of things. Colin Holderman, it works the same way. Yeah, that's really very good. Yeah, okay. Chris W. suggests that a worthy contender for Holderman could be Zach Short. 90% of his career starts and 84% of his career appearances have been at shortstop.

Okay. He's also listed at 5'10", which would be below average height for a big leaguer. Also, we got a suggestion from Daniel who said, to me, Jason Castro being a catcher and an astro, C-astro, for eight seasons between 2010 and 2022 is the quintessential example of nominative determinism in that his name fully and accurately describes two different aspects of his job title for the vast majority of his career. Not bad. Hadn't considered that.

We also got a submission from Ben Zimmer, who said, it's not as apt as Colin Halderman, but a nice historical example is Early Wynne. Early was really his name, not a nickname. He signed with the Senators when he was 17, and the pun started early. Early Wynne may start Senators on an early win, read one headline before the 1938 season. But he wouldn't get his first major league win until 1941 when he was a September call-up, not early at all. By the spring of 52, he was earning headlines like early win chalks up early win. And early does win, just as punsters always predict.

So I guess that's not bad. Especially, I don't know if he was a quick worker, but if he could get you a win early, that'd be better. Early in the day as opposed to early in his career, early in the season. So, yeah, that's a good one, too. And one more from Michael, Patreon supporter, who said, I can think of one historical example that's probably better than Halderman. Matt Batts. Matt Batts did exactly what his name said every time he stepped up to the plate. That is B-A-T-T-S, Matt Batts, who played in the 40s and 50s. But he was a batter, so you can't get much better than Matt Batts. We haven't had a pitcher named Pitches, I don't believe. So Matt Batts, that's pretty good. Yeah, it's really good. It's really very good.

Can't beat it. All right. Well, thanks for the submissions and the nominations. Appreciate it. We are spending most of this episode answering your emails, and we will be joined by one of our top-tier Patreon supporters for that exercise. Just want to note, Juan Soto, as we speak here on Thursday afternoon, has a 181 WRC plus over his last 10 games. He's batted 333, 489, 528. So maybe he's back.

Hopefully he's back. He's pulling out of the slump. And also Justin Verlander is literally physically back and is about to start as we record. So another main character coming back to the game always makes me happy right now one asks will it go well i mean i don't know have i seen part of the future can i answer a piece of that question yeah i can ben it hasn't been going great for um yes so the game has begun. I mean, Verlander... It's not done. No, it's not done.

I guess his part of it is done. I mean, he was, you know, he was okay. He pitched two innings, five innings, two runs, five Ks, one walk, five hits. The latest news on MLB.com. Verlander finds groove after bumpy first frame. Yeah, okay. So there you go. Yeah. I had not realized that that game had actually begun and not only begun, but his part of it was finished already. So his comeback went better than Max Scherzer's comeback from the sticky stuff suspension, at least. So that's nice. Did you see Kenan Middleton trash-talking

Carlos Correa? No. There was a little AL Central intrigue, and the White Sox were playing against the Twins, and the White Sox came back, and they beat the Twins three in a row for the White Sox. Miraculous winning streak for them. They haven't had one of those in a long time. But Kenan Middleton got the save, and he struck out Carlos Correa swinging,

which he said was particularly sweet. He said, I knew I was going to face Correa and I don't like him. I don't like him. So it was kind of cool. I like that. I enjoyed that a lot. I mean, he's a cheater. How about that?

So Keenan Middleton is not forgiven and forgotten. So a little rivalry and intrigue here, intra AL Central intrigue between Keenan Middleton and Carlos Correa. You don't normally hear guys being that direct about it, but I mean, I doubt strongly that it is like, I really doubt that it's like a unique thing, but you don't normally hear a guy saying like, yeah, screw that guy. Right. Yeah, I know. I guess Middleton was in the AL West. He was on the Angels during the banging scheme. So I guess he's still holding a grudge and expressing it very plainly. How did we not call the Dodgers having everyone on paternity leave the banging scheme? We really should have made that connection at some point.

Ben, I don't know if you know this, but the Dodgers and Dodger faithful are still We really should have made that connection at some point. results in, you know, a bunch of happy, bouncy babies is really in the cards. I don't know that they would appreciate it, you know? Yes. Plus scheme. Scheme. You don't want any. Yeah, scheme sounds, I guess it's nefarious, right? Yeah, you don't want any schemes associated with that kind of banging, you know?

That's not what we're aiming for here. So, I think our, really, it's a testament to our good taste. Yeah. How about that? Our restraint. We never just, our minds are not in the gutter. We don't go for the obvious pun. We didn't even talk about the fact that Logan Wegg said that three-quarters of the giants have diarrhea after their Mexico trip. Is that what he said? Is that exactly what he said, Ben? Well, no. He did not exactly put it in those terms. But here I am just being refined. And yeah, so I put it in a palatable podcast format that Shane didn't need to bleep out anything. So you'd think that would have been in our wheelhouse. And yet, until I just brought it up, we had let it lie. We had let it lie. Now, is that because I received just so many notifications about it on Twitter?

Just a number of them? Is it because of that? I mean, maybe. Maybe it was because of that. Maybe. But, yeah. I also figured I'd mention when it comes to the Dodgers, they had a big win over the Phillies on Wednesday. They did.

Max Muncy hit a walk-off grand slam against Craig Kimbrell. And that made me marvel at the fact that Craig Kimbrell is still in the position to surrender hits like that after all this time of not being effective for some time. I just looked from 2019 to 2023, among the 105 relievers who had at least 150 innings pitched over that period, Kimbrell has the 18th highest starting leverage. So when he comes into a game,

how high is the leverage? So like one is just an average situation and his is like 1.4 something. So 1.44. He has the 18th highest starting leverage index and the ninth lowest win probability added. Oh, boy.

Negative 1.16. So, he is still being used as a closer in these high leverage situations, even though his WPA over that period has been negative. He has been actively hurting his team, at least when it comes to a win probability perspective. And he has, like, maybe they should stop using him in those situations at this point. Like he was just so good for for such a long time that it's like he still has that kind of closer aura around him. And I guess he did have one good year. Was it 2021 when he kind of got the magic and mojo back? But largely it's been really, really shaky, like the Craig Kimbrell experience. And yet he's still getting used in pretty high leverage spots. I don't know if I would continue to do that if I were Craig Kimbrell's employers.

Yeah, it seems as if it is a mismatch. You know, it doesn't seem like it's quite right. And it is surprising given, like, I get that guys can kind of coast on reputation. Like, that can be a thing for a little while. But I, like who had been used in prior days, you know, who else was available. So in this particular instance, maybe it was an act of necessity. But the fact that there has been such a persistent mismatch, it is a little confounding, you know? Yeah. And I said that 2021 was a good season, and on the whole it was. Yeah. And I said that 2021 was a good season and on the whole it was, but even then it was a tale of two Kimbrels because he was totally lights out for the Cubs and then they traded him to the White Sox and then he was really bad for the White Sox. So like even within the same season, it's sometimes he's the old Kimbrel and sometimes he's just old and not very good anymore. So I guess it's tantalizing,

but he's been shaky enough for a while now that I don't know, maybe try something different with him. Perhaps. I was just putting Craig Kimbrell into my Google search bar because I wanted to know exactly how old and I accidentally typed Craig Bimbrell. Who's that? Don't even know. He's really just 34. Oh, my God.

Yeah. God. I feel as old as Methuselah. I can't believe he hasn't cut off the little ponytail. Oh, I know. You know? Like, maybe do a reverse Samson. Yes.

And see what it can do for you. Yes. Probably nothing because superstition is often rooted in, you know, anecdotal ephemera. But, you know, you could try. Yeah. He won't be so hot. Maybe it's making him too hot, you know? Could be.

That could be the problem. Yes. That could be the problem. And one more observation I had is that the Cardinals were getting booed pretty lustily the other night. And they had a game where the Angels came back and beat them in the way that often teams come back and beat the Angels. Was the Angels doing the coming back and beating? I felt quite disoriented. I felt like I didn't know up from down anymore. So we've talked about the White Sox plenty and their start to the season. And even after their

three-game winning streak, they are 10-21. And then we've also talked about the Cardinals' start to the season. And I thought they would get better, but they have not since we spoke. And they are now 10-21. They have, I think, the worst record in the National League. They have the same record as the White Sox.

That's not where you want to be these days. And Cardinals fans are booing. Look, Cardinals fans have had it pretty good for quite a while now. You know, like they've led a pretty charmed life. The Cardinals fans are booing. Look, Cardinals fans have had it pretty good for quite a while now. You know, like they've led a pretty charm life. The Cardinals are always pretty good and always in contention, which is why I think it's such a shock to the system that they've been so bad to start this season. They haven't had a start to a season this terrible in decades. And it occurred to me that success does not lower the boo threshold.

It raises the boo threshold. You would think that it would buy you a grace period. Well, isn't it the reverse? It is absolutely the reverse. No, but from what you just said, it lowers the threshold at which you boo. Right. I said that wrong. Yes. That's right.

Yes. It lowers the boo threshold in that you are more inclined to boo a good yeah because i thought of this like when aaron judge was getting booed right in the playoffs last year and everyone was like i beg of you to relax yeah dude just hit 62 homers and is the mvp and then has a few rough games in the playoffs and suddenly we're booing him. And you'd think that it would earn you a little leeway. It's like, hey, this guy got us here, right? And hey, what a nice time it's been to be a Cardinals fan. Maybe they haven't been the

super team or the best team, but they've been consistently winning the division and being in the playoffs and being good. And you'd think it would give you more room for being bad before the booze started. guess it's good in that you've like set such a high standard that fans are quick to punish you for not matching that standard, but it feels unjust. It feels like there should be sports fans famously rational and patient and measured in their responses should be like, you know what? Like they've given us some great baseball over the years. So let's take it easy on them. Let's give them a chance to right the ship. But no, it's not that at all. I struggle to relate to it at all because I'm not a booing type.

And so although there have been times I have booed, I don't want to imply that I am perfect because I am decidedly not. But it is not my first instinct in a fan setting, right, where I'm there as a person consuming the game rather than as like a casual, a normie, rather than as a media member where you must not boo, you cannot boo, you simply cannot. I don't know. I think that on the one hand, the instinct to boo, even in the face of a very good team, speaks to like the depth of the feeling that that organization is inspiring in you, right? You are booing because you are feeling keen disappointment. But also, you could chill. You know, you could just like chill. And I don't say that to defend the level of play that we are seeing from the Cardinals, which is quite poor right now in at least some regards. There are exceptions to that. Good for Nolan Gorman, man. What a year. And he's not the only good player they employ, obviously, but it hasn't been a good start to the season for them.

But also, you know, one could if one wanted to relax, you know? Yep. Colin Holderman just pitched an immaculate inning against the Tampa Bay Rays. Yeah. He pitched in the seventh instead of the eighth. Wow. You'd think he would be totally out of his element. Some inning other than the eighth

for the first time this year. But no, not at all. Although he will not get a hold because the Pirates were losing at the time. Anyway, still a good inning. All right. Last thing before we bring on our Patreon supporter, I'm writing something for The Ringer that should be up on Friday. And for that piece, I spoke to Morgan Sword. Morgan.

Morgan. And he's been one of the driving forces behind the rules changes lately. And I'm writing about something that I spoke about briefly on the pod, which is basically just that even though the rules changes have had dramatic effects and the intended effects, they have not done anything really to address the strikeout rate and the three true outcomes rate. And so I'm basically writing about, well, will they eventually have some long-term effects or will there need to be more rules tweaked in order to address that? Or is it not such a priority now because if the games are faster and there's more action once people do actually reach base, then maybe it's a little less urgent to address the ball and play problem and the fact that the strikeout rate is still really

high. So Morgan Sword was talking to me just a little while ago about how the effects that they've seen from the rules changes have been totally in line with what they expected to see based on their projections and the minor league testing and everything. But I asked him about the strikeouts and we were talking a little bit about that

and a few things. And I thought I'd play a couple of quick clips here and we could even more quickly respond to them. And I thought I'd play a couple of quick clips here and we could even more quickly respond to them. So I asked him basically, like, do we still need to address the strikeout rate? Is that still something that you think fans want? And how do we do that? And here is one thing he said on that subject. The Fienn research, which underlies all of these rule changes, had really two thematic priorities. One was to improve the pace and reduce the length of the games. And the second was to increase the amount of action.

Even though those are somewhat related, I think they're distinct in most people's minds. turnkey solution to issue one, right? Which is a single set of rules, which dramatically improves the pace and length of the games and gets it pretty close, not all the way there, but pretty close to the length of a baseball game that fans desire. On the amount of action, which, you know, there's a couple of different ways to define that, but, you know, think of it as the frequency with which the ball is in play. There is no analogous turnkey solution to that issue, at least not one that we've identified that is realistic, palatable for the baseball world nudge the game toward getting the ball and play more. And, you know, the, the strikeout rate in baseball is on a hundred plus

year trend upward, and it's a really difficult thing to deal with. Uh, and it just stems from the fact that pitching is so dominant these days and the pitchers have become so not only so talented but so clever about how to how to miss bats that uh but that's that's the kind of leading edge of the of the fight there so he's uh saying that yeah it's uh still important but it's also more difficult that there isn't necessarily one thing that you can do to change that quite as effectively as a pitch clock changed pitch times, which is true, I think. And they're kind of trying to have a bunch of different things that will have maybe cumulative effects and kind of a bank shot sort of thing. But it is true, I guess, that even though the time of games and the increase in the time of games was just as long-term and seemingly intractable a problem as the strikeout rate, both were rising very steadily for decades and decades. You could very quickly reverse the time of game just by putting the clock in.

Right. And strikeouts, it's a thornier issue, I guess, to address with sort of one fell swoop. Right. I'm encouraged that, you know, and there are smart people who work for the league. So this isn't so surprising, despite me enjoying saying Morgan. But I think that the first, you know, step to trying to course correct on any of this stuff, because you're never going to, you know, the goal isn't to alleviate the existence of strikeouts, right? You want strikeouts. Some strikeouts are fun.

Too many? So I think it's good to know that in the diagnosis phase that they are sort of clear-eyed about the mechanisms that will and won't be effective and how sort of ready, ready they are to put in place. But I think it is going to be, it's going to be a real problem. And I don't know, it isn't as if it is only the result of teams being indifferent to the idea of like putting the ball in play. Right.

Like I don't think that it's a result of like an incorrect calculus on value on the part of hitters it's like you try to hit that yeah right like there is gonna be just a part of this that is these guys are really good now and teams are good at developing velocity and they're really good at developing movement and they're good at doing those things even absent like sticky stuff and all of that so there is just uh guys are really they're really good now yeah so yeah i guess it's good to acknowledge that you can't just turn on a clock and make it go away but i'm i remain a little bit skeptical about how much we are going to be able to curb this this issue well so i did ask him whether he thinks the jury is still out on what the effects, when it pertains to strikeouts, of the current rules will be. Like, is it too soon to say that

we've seen them all? Or might there be some longer term effects that show up over the course of the season or seasons? So here's a little clip of how he responded to that. I don't think it'll be the whole solution, but it does make sense to me that over time, increasing the value of putting the ball in play will increase the frequency with which the ball is put in play. And that'll take a while to wash its way through hitter approach at the big leagues, development plans, and approach for the clubs in the minor league level, the way clubs scout and select players in the draft, the way amateur players are developed. And what you're trying to do, right, is change what's rewarded at the highest level so that that effect kind of filters down all the way through the giant baseball system around the

world. And we do know that hitter approach is a pretty significant factor here. So, for example, if you compare the strikeout rate with a man on third base and less than two outs to where, you know, a situation where a strikeout is really harmful to the strikeout rate where with nobody on and two outs, the strikeout rate is much lower. Right. And that suggests that the hitters that do have at least some ability when they really, really want to, to prioritize contact and get the ball in play. So that's good. It's not going to get you all the way there, but, but I think it gives us like hope that turning more of those balls into hits over time will encourage players and encourage clubs and to prioritize that skill to select for players that, that have that ability to reward players, you know players with playing time or financially that are able to do those kinds of things. And in the long run, you do nudge yourself back a little bit.

So do you think that there will be some overtime effect of the rules changes that have already put in place that have encouraged or discouraged certain things that we might see manifest over time? Or do you think, you know, the lack of change that we've seen thus far is probably pretty representative of what we will see barring any further changes? I don't know. I don't want to be like a downer, but I'm a little bit skeptical because I don't think that like, I don't know, maybe I'm thinking about this problem from the wrong direction. I know that approach and like who you have and whatnot is going to play a role, right? Obviously, like there are hitters who have higher strikeout rates than

other hitters. So it's not as if everyone is striking out at exactly the same high rate. other hitters. So it's not as if everyone is striking out at exactly the same high rate. But I wonder if we're failing to appreciate the pitching piece of this. I really do think that a lot of it, a lot of it is being driven from the pitching side. Now there is a greater tolerance for higher strikeout rates, but even teams that have are like, yeah, you can strike out more than you used to be able to like have a they have a ceiling in mind right they're not like letting a guy who strikes at 50 of the time like have a big regular big league role i don't know i'm yeah i'm i don't want to be a downer but i kind of am a downer but maybe i'm maybe i'm attributing too much of this to pitcher skill and not enough of it to hit her approach

maybe right and i also asked him about the difficulty of making comparisons just year over year because the conditions have been so inconsistent, whether it's because of the pandemic or the lockout and the length of spring training and the WBC and then the ball and everything else. And he acknowledged that it's tough to untangle these things and pinpoint the effect of any one change or even all of these changes compared to inconsistent conditions of previous seasons. So I did ask him about the ball specifically because the ball is flying a little bit better, has been flying better than last year. Basically the same as say 2020 and 2021. So not like 2019 level, but it has bounced back a bit. And I asked him why. I don't know why that is either, honestly. I mean, yeah, we see the same thing that drag is down a

little bit this season relative to last season. It's up relative to the couple of years before that. We're kind of in the range of, you know, where we've been, I guess, on a multi-year look. It's not due to any, there's been like no change in the baseball or the storage conditions, or even the mud application process now is sort of uniform. So all that's left, I guess, from our perspective is the kind of randomness associated with the natural materials and the handmade product that, you know, that the baseball is. But it's not, you know, we did introduce over the last couple of years, humidors to store the baseball is. But if not, you know, we did introduce over the last couple of years humidors to store the baseballs. And the primary effect of a humidor is to manage the coefficient of restitution of the ball, the bounciness of it. And the real goal there, I mean, we weren't

really seeking an outcome in terms of moving the ball to be more or less bouncy. We were just trying to seek uniformity. So it sounds like they are something somewhat at a loss to explain this too. Like it's not the most dramatic effect, but again, you know, he's saying they don't know exactly. There's no intentional effect here and it might just be natural fluctuation. And if that's the case, I guess it just, it does kind of hammer home just, it's a hand-stitched product. And it's hard to depend on it being incredibly consistent. I kind of wish you could a little more, but that just seems to be the case, basically. So, I mean, part of the rationale for deadening the balls, you know, he's saying it's about uniformity and consistent conditions for pitchers and everything.

I think part of it was also just, yeah, there are too many homers. And maybe if we deaden the ball a bit, then hitters will be encouraged to put the ball in play and not swing for the fences so much. So the fact that they've been rewarded more than they were last year for swinging for the fences makes me think that that would kind of counter any trend toward encouraging hitters to try to aim for contact as opposed to power. Yeah. I, I, I know that it is, it's a tricky thing. There is just going to be natural variation. I wonder if, if you ask league people, if they could go back in time and change the way that the commissioner has talked about anything, if it would, if there's anything that would register more than the ball. I i mean the answer to that is almost certainly yes because he

manages to put his foot in his mouth a fair amount but like it's just i think this is a reasonable answer right i think it's reasonable to say look we've tried all the things we can we're we're induced we're introducing uniformity into the process wherever is possible. And there is just going to be some variation on a hand-stitched ball. And that is true. And there's always going to be someone out there who's like, but you messed with it, right? Didn't you tinker with it? Because we just don't trust anything they say about this stuff, at least not all the way.

And I don't say that to impugn Morgan's answer, but just to say that this is the environment that those answers are being given and is a skeptical one. Right. Second to last one, because we are somewhat skeptical, as Morgan was as well, that we're going to see a dramatic downturn in the strikeout rate based on rules that we've already seen change that there might have to be more. And so I asked about moving the mound back. I asked about limiting the number of pitchers on the active roster. I've advocated both of those changes, especially the latter recently. And I asked him if we might see one or both of those things be considered or implemented in the years to come, whether we might see the limit of pitchers reduced from, say, 13 to 12.

There's a couple of things that aren't probably ready for prime time that we're thinking about on that issue. I mean, the two things you mentioned, certainly we talk about all the time. We actually talked about the pitcher limit during the recent CBA negotiation with the players. And you're right that one of the effects of the progress that's been made in pitching performance and development in the last decade or so is that clubs just need a lot more pitchers to get through a season than they did historically. So limiting them even to where they were voluntarily five or 10 years ago is a real challenge for the clubs, just given the way that they have prepared everybody to pitch.

So I think that there is broad agreement that it would be effective in the long run, you know, limiting the number of pitchers and creating more consistency among the group of players that pitch for a given team and reducing the overall number of pitchers that contribute innings. There's a practical challenge that we haven't fully worked through with sort of reversing the effects of multiple years of preparing for this high pitcher version of baseball. So it sounds like that's very much on their minds. And one thing I also asked them about elsewhere in the interview is like, is it easier to make additional changes now because you've broken the seal and people are kind of used

to differences now? Or do you have to pump the brakes a bit and be even warier of introducing more changes because you just made so many changes that you don't want to push too hard? So it's like, maybe let's back off a bit and kind of let these sit. And he did acknowledge that, you know, they don't want to do too much too soon in too short a period. So there might have to be a bit of an adjustment period. And of course, as he said, there are some considerations when it comes to trying to undo some of this damage by kind of rolling back the clock when it comes to how many pitchers are on an active roster at any given time. It sounds like the perfect solution in my

mind, but also there could be some problems with just snapping your fingers and saying, yeah, you're only allowed 11 or 12 now. I think that we're right to think that there might be a greater baseline comfort with rule change because we've seen rule changes that have been successfully implemented and have been, you know, beneficial to people's enjoyment of the game and the watchability of baseball. But like the reason that we are good with those is because they worked well. Right. So I think that taking a sort of slow and steady approach to them just so that the likelihood that you're really dialed in on the issue that you're trying to solve and making very specific changes, understanding the side effects those changes might have beyond whatever intended effects you want, I think is a big part of it.

So, yeah. And lastly, I just asked, well, what should the strikeout rate be? And it's kind of complicated because we've seen the stolen base attempt rate and the time of game go back four decades or so to where they were in the 80s. But if you were to try to roll back the strikeout rate that much, it was like half as high roughly 40 years ago as it is now. And that would be a bigger percentage change than we've seen in time of game or in stolen bases. So can you do that? And should you even want to do that? You know, this is one place probably where those two goals of pace and action probably

diverge a little bit because on the piece issue, we were able to ask fans, how long do you want a baseball game to be? Right. Like all else equal, what's the ideal length of a baseball game? And every fan, casual, intense, whatever, can answer that question and give you a real helpful answer to that question. Right. What do you want the strikeout rate to be? I don't think there's a fan in the world that could tell you like the optimal strikeout rate for a baseball game, myself included, right? Because it's never, there is no sort of equilibrium in baseball history number there. It's hard, frankly, without watching an incredibly high volume of baseball to tell the difference between a 23% strikeout rate and an 18% strikeout rate in the way the game looks. So there's not the same precise goal. And as a result, it's a little tricky to sort of

engineer toward a result like we were able to do on the pace issue. But I do think directionally, there is consensus across baseball and all of the various groups that we should try to push that number down. And maybe the fact that there is no real target is consistent with the idea that we're going to approach this with more subtle changes that are aimed at just bending the curve, if you will. And maybe at some point along the way, we hit something that feels good and and you know we've been able to do it without totally um ripping up the rule book so as he's saying that's kind of a tricky question like where do we think the ideal strikeout rate should be like you almost have to decide what you want it to be right before you start pressing buttons and pulling levers to try to get closer to that

i guess you can just say, well, we want it to be lower than it is now. And so we'll do things that will lower it, but by how much, right? So you almost have to answer that question, but I don't know if anyone really has an answer to that question. Well, and I think that the point about, you know, can you really discern the difference between a 25%out rate and a 18 strikeout rate or whatever like unless you're really watching is that you know how many how many k's in a in a game is that really so i yeah i think it's hard to know exactly what the right thing is because i don't know it's just a it a tricky thing. And I don't think that the differences are as discernible

when you're making small adjustments as people maybe assume that they are. Well, you don't have to fix everything in a single season. So I am appreciative of some of the things that they have done. I never thought that these changes would directly address the root cause of the lack of contact.

And I'm not surprised that it hasn't really. I do tend to think that it's more because the pitchers are amazing than because the hitters are bad or they've just decided that they're okay with striking out, although that certainly plays a part. So because pitchers are throwing harder than ever and they're throwing unhittable breaking balls more than ever, you're going to have to do something that limits that. And right now there's still very little that is limiting that because they're doing it more than ever, you're going to have to do something that limits that. And right now, there's still very little that is limiting that because they're doing it more than ever this year. So I think there will have to be additional changes made.

And it does sound like MLB is thinking along the same lines. So we will see what they choose to do and when they choose to do it. So we will take a quick break now and we'll be back with our Patreon supporter of the day to answer some emails. Effectively wild, effectively styled, distilled over chilled beets, effectively mild. Follow the plot, Samson in his garage bed with a reverb of 20 in his menage. And after 2000 episodes, we got more inside jokes than Carrot Top's prop box before he got yoked. Lab League, Banging Ski, Planting Trees and Trampolines, Minor League Free Agent Drafts, Stat Blasts and Pass Blasts,

Minimum Inning, Hall of Fame Donation Shaming, Tyler Wade and Taylor Ward, The Rot Slog to Rigor Mortis. Answer a couple of emails, do a play index, call Ned Garver, Eddie Robinson, Johnny O'Brien, Ron Teasley, Charlie Maxwell, Bobby Shantz, Kiki Hernandez shit his pants, Dilly, I'ma make a swear, too late, fuck it, no one cares, Chris Davis 247 tattoos are the new mnemonics, Scott Boris nautical analogies are tragedies, keep them honest, vroom vroom, here's your primer, I'm Beef Boys, Baseball's End, Roger Angel, and Super Pretzels, Williams' Ask the Deal, and Mike Trout Hypotheticals, waiting for the perfect bat from a volcanic eruption. Ladies and gentlemen, the Effectively Wild introduction. All right, well, we have the pleasure to be joined now by one of our Mike Trout tier Patreon supporters who is cashing in the perk. I guess he sees it as a perk,

the option to come on to the podcast to answer some emails. His name is Mac Mashburn, which I find very satisfying to say. Mac Mashburn just really rolls off the tongue. Mac, welcome to the show. Hey, thanks. Yeah, it's got a real Marvel superhero name to it.

Yes, it does. For that reason, I go by it professionally, but I actually prefer to go by Andrew. But Mac Mashburn, like you said, always has that satisfying sort of alliterative feel to it. So I'm always glad to go by it publicly. What is Mac short for, if anything? Nothing. I am one of the few remaining Macs in the world. I know for giggles, sometimes I look up the census name data and it's just,

I have a very popular name if I was born in 1950. Right. Yes, it does sound sort of old school. It sounds like you're in Guys and Dolls or something. I don't know. But I like it. It's great. I apologize. I did not practice my soft shoes, so I can't get in and take dancing today for you guys. Well, it's an auditory medium, so that's fine. Yes. Yeah.

I guess we haven't had a whole lot of Major League Macs. There used to be, I guess, along the lines of what you're saying, used to be plenty of Macs. Not just last name Macs, but first name Macs. But they have kind of fallen by the wayside, as you're saying. You're an endangered species, it seems. But we should bring back the Mac because I like Mac. I'm here to tell anybody listening out there wanting to have children in the future, Mac is a great name. Yeah.

Mackenzie Gore. Maybe you should just be Mac Gore from now on. Yeah. So as I always ask when one of our Patreon supporters joins us, what could have possibly possessed you to support us at the highest level that entitles you to come on this podcast? Tell us a little bit about what motivated you to do that

and I guess how you discovered the podcast in the first place. Well, thanks for asking. I, you know, as much as I knew that question was coming, I have not prepared myself. I am much a wing it kind of guy. I mean, I came upon the podcast originally probably sometime in 2016. My memories, I go for a vibe-based memory sort of thing. I can never really remember specifics very well, but I kind of remember just the feel of things. And I started listening sometime probably about 2016. The only rule it has to work was coming out sometime. Either it came out or it was coming out recently. And I was going through,

in my life, I've gone through many fitness trends. You know, I did the CrossFit thing for a while, went through some injuries, was doing rowing for a while. And I think I probably Googled something like best sports podcasts and came across it and started listening for a while and sort of fell off, you know, probably from 2017 until about 2001. I would listen occasionally, but not that often. But something about a lot of free time to kill in the pandemic. And I just started listening again and haven't looked back. And I decided to join at the highest tier because I'm a firm believer

in supporting the sort of products you believe in. And that's why when I saw the opportunity, I was like, hey, why not give this a go? I have the means. I may as well give back to the community best I can. Well, thank you so much for that. We appreciate that very much. We're glad you found your way back to the community best I can. Well, thank you so much for that. We appreciate that very much. We're glad you found your way back to us.

We did not pay Mac to say any of those things. In fact, he paid us to say those things. Tell us a little bit about your baseball background. Are you a fan of any particular team? And how have you followed the sport over the years? Well, I am a lifelong Atlanta Braves fan. My earliest baseball memories are of absolutely hating the sport. My parents used to take me to spring training games because when I was very small, we lived in West Palm Beach.

At the time, that's where the Braves did their spring training. That's where the Braves did their spring training. And so my earliest memories of just baseball was wanting to come home as soon as possible. But sometime around 1991, I saw my dad getting into the Braves and their World Series, you know, worst first run. And I just think I got into it as sort of a thing to get into my dad about. And I've just never looked back. So I have not had to suffer through as many bad years as he has, thankfully, but it's still sort of a, it's a family thing. And he actually grew up in Atlanta and he was a child when they came to town.

So I like to think that I came by the fandom honestly. Just having them on the TBS Superstation to watch anytime I wanted in my youth was just a very nice perk of that. Yeah, you've led a fairly charmed life, I guess, as a fan when it comes to at least your team being in consistent contention at the very least. So that's good. And tell us a little bit about yourself. Anything else you'd care to share? What you do and where you live and any other hobbies or anything else? Well, my social security number is... No. So, I work for the federal government. I turned 40 last week, actually.

So, I live... Happy belated birthday. Well, thank you. I live just outside of Washington, D.C. in Silver Spring, Maryland, and I work as a procurement analyst, data analyst, customer service. I kind of wear a lot of hats for the federal government. So I'm in the right place for that kind of work. You sound like a fixer or something. They call you in special government business when they need some insights. Is there like a particular branch that you're in, if you can share or what you care to say? I work for the Department of Housing and Urban Development in their procurement division. So I help the people that spend the money that help put the people into affordable housing and things of that nature. All right.

Well, that's a good thing. Okay. Well, we will answer some emails with you now. And I guess we'll start with one from a fellow Patreon supporter of yours, Jacob. This is more of a comment than a question, really. But Jacob wrote, related to your discussion in episode 2001 of how the pitch clock reduces variance in length of games, I did not fully appreciate the pitch clock until I went to my first game last week.

The time between pitches is not just shorter, it is also much more predictable and interesting. Because of the reduced variance in that time and the potential consequence for being too slow, we know that after 12 or 15 seconds passed, either a pitch or a ball is imminent. Though there are a few violations, there is now some tension. Will the pitcher make it? Before the pitch clock, usually the longer the pitcher took, the less interesting that time was. We didn't know when the pitcher would finally throw and knew there would be no consequence

for more delay. So if Pedro Baez took 26 seconds, we could expect it might take just another 26 as easily as he might throw within three seconds. It is a huge improvement. And I think I noted something along those lines in a podcast very early in the season when I said I was almost anxious as the clock was counting down as they were showing it on the screen. I think I said I was also maybe even more anxious when they were not showing the countdown because I had not properly calibrated exactly what the time between pitches typically was. And so when I couldn't see the countdown, I was worrying about a violation because I couldn't tell for sure whether there was about to be one. that this is something he appreciated also, that there's this cadence, that there's this countdown in your mind that you know action is coming. If 12 seconds have passed, you know something is about to happen. And I also have seen, though, people express the opposite opinion,

that they don't care for this, that they think that the predictability maybe makes it less interesting. I was just reading in Joe Sheehan's recent newsletter. He wrote, my main subjective observation so far is that while the median pitch should be delivered more quickly than it has been in recent seasons, there are a lot of non-median pitches in a baseball season. I noticed the effects of the clock

when pitchers are in trouble, when the game is in a moment of heightened tension, when there used to be room to breathe. Now it's just an assembly line of pitches. I recognize that that works for some people, and those people have driven the conversation. And I guess we have been helping to drive that conversation. But how do you feel about that, Mac? Do you feel like the predictable regular cadence of it has helped or do you find it off-putting that it is so standardized and uniform i am pro pitch clock i mean i've been listening to pitch clock propaganda for years now so maybe i'm i'm just a bit indoctrinated but i mean i grew up playing

baseball right uh all the way up through high school. And you just didn't this downtime that we suffered through up until recently was not anything that I was ever familiar with from a game standpoint. So the fact that it exists now is sort of artificial itself, right? That normal cadence of the game is sort of the way the game should be played and has been played in my mind. So I just, I don't have a lot of sympathy. It's really what boils down to it, which may be unfair on my part, but I like just being, you know, playing, right? I just, I've never been the one that understood why the batting glove, you know, changes and everything else. Like I'm just, and again, I'm biased, but I would,

you know, I'm used to stepping out, taking a look at third base, stepping back in. And I mean, that's the pace of play. So I have no objections on my end. So we've obviously been and still are pro pitch clock the only thing that i i hope we get wrinkled out or wrinkled out ironed out is the actual expression get the wrinkles out yeah we're taking out the wrinkle there it feels like at least once a game there will be often in a moment when a batter calls for his time out kind of late into the countdown there's like this moment of like the the umpire and the pitcher being like what yeah you know like there's this back and forth and so we need a you know and some of them are starting to gesture at their wrists like hey

he called time but there does seem to be like one moment of confusion each game where either party is sort of unclear on why there has been a stoppage, which is probably a testament to how smooth this process is under typical circumstances, right? That there is this predictability to it. And for the most part, we aren't seeing a lot of violations. But that wrinkle needs to get worked out. There needs to be more uniform sort of signage back and forth so that the pitcher's not like, what? What? And then the manager has to come out and he's like, what? What?

And then there has to be a chat. And then I'm like, are we saving time in this exact moment? Yeah. But otherwise, I think it's going really well. And I don't feel a heightened or diminished sense of suspense, candidly. It just sort of feels like baseball now, which is, I think, to its credit. You know, it's just like, oh, you're just moving along here. Yeah, I think so, too. And really, if there is a difference in suspense, I can see what Joe's saying, that it's like, regardless of the situation,

you have sort of the same amount of time between pitches pitches and it all feels the same at all times, even though certain situations are obviously much more exciting and heightened than others. I mean, I guess there's a five second difference depending on whether the bases are empty or occupied. pitches would decrease the suspense because, again, like if we don't know what's going to happen or when something's going to happen, then that might be more exciting in theory. But I think the unpredictability really comes from the result of the pitch. It's not like, when is he going to throw the pitch? We're not all sitting there with bated breath thinking, when is he going to decide to throw it? We're sitting there with bated breath thinking, when is he going to decide to throw it? We're sitting there with bated breath saying, what's going to happen when he does throw it? So, yeah, we've lost some of the unpredictability of when the pitch will actually be delivered, but there's no real unpredictability happening before the pitch is delivered. It's just, it's non-action. It's not that there's nothing happening. There might be a little gamesmanship going on and you can savor the anticipation of what's going to happen. But the real unpredictability comes from the action itself. And now we can anticipate with greater clarity when that action will occur. And I think that is more exciting. So I do prefer this. Although,

yes, you're right. Now that we've been watching this at the major league level for a month, I'm no longer just like, you know, sweating between pitches thinking how much time is left. Like, it's just kind of it's standard. I'm used to it now. But it's a better new norm, I think, than the old norm. All right. Question from Nick, another Patreon supporter. So we've been talking a lot about the rampant coordinated home run celebrations.

And Emma Batchelary just wrote about this in Sports Illustrated, too. She didn't pinpoint the origin, the first team ever to do it. We have gone back to 2012, at least, with the Oakland A's home run tunnel as a possible origin. And Emma did link to a piece about home run celebrations in Japan that have been prevalent there for a while. So as we noted, it's not necessarily that the major leagues have innovated here. This has been at other levels of baseball and softball, but it's been fully embraced in MLB now. We did get one email suggesting that we could push it back one year to the Brewers Beast Mode celebrations in 2011. But that was a celebration that accompanied basically anything that happened when the Brewers did something good.

It wasn't just home runs. I'm quoting from an old Grant Brisby SB Nation piece. old Grant Brisby espionage piece. After every brewer's hit, bunt, balk, walk, or catcher's interference call, all of the brewers convulse into some sort of beastly pantomime. It's the sort of thing that you can only enjoy if you're a brewer's fan or a sociologist researching tribal mating rituals. Then he went on to how this was spreading already and that the Diamondbacks had developed their own beast mode with the snake, which was Miguel Montero's hand gesture, a copped right hand that makes a striking motion.

And now everyone was doing the snake on the Diamondbacks. And so Grant was then providing suggestions for all of the other playoff teams for what they could do with their rituals. So he was already, I guess, anticipating that every team would be doing something like this. But maybe we can distinguish between the choreographed home run celebration in the dugout and the thing that every team does, like when someone doubles and gets on second base and makes a gesture back toward the dugout. Those might be separate things, although they have kind of evolved and taken over, I guess, in parallel. But we got a question about this and about maybe the next evolution of this from Nick, who says, since I am a theatrical designer, I want to find the line using my skills.

What if a team hired me to design a celebration with fog machines, lasers and pyrotechnics? Could there be costume changes, scenery? So Emma, in her piece, she documented that it's often the pitchers who come up with these things, seemingly. And part of that is probably just that pitchers have a lot of downtime. You know, they're not starting that day. They know they're off or they're in the bullpen for hours at a time. And for that and other reasons, they seem to be the ones who are leading the way here. So maybe if this is getting increasingly elaborate

and expected that a team will have something like this, maybe it is time to bring in the professionals, right? How do you up the ante without hiring someone like Nick who does this as a job? I mean, this is not just a sideline. This is not just idle thinking about something while you're on the bench. He's a pro. It's his job to design celebrations like this and choreographed events. So I think a team should take it to the next level here and differentiate itself and have not just props, but yeah, costume changes, you know, like craft people like behind the scenes,

assembling sets and wheeling things in and out, you know, with the like black outfits that the theater people wear so that you can't see them when they're changing the background in the dark. I think that's the inevitable next phase. There's something like really psychologically dark about pitchers being the ones to come up with home run celebrations. Like, what would be maximally damaging to me personally if I had just given up a home run? Let's do that.

Right. Yeah. Yeah. Emma wrote, just because they aren't hitting any home runs themselves doesn't mean they aren't invested in how to enjoy them. This is partly an interest in contributing to the game however possible, even while not on the field. That manifests in how welcome the dugout celebrations have become, too. A pitcher isn't going to be offended by a perceived slight if he was the one to orchestrate

his own team celebration. And it's partly that pitchers simply have the time. So yeah, I guess if the pitcher designed his team's home run celebration, then he can't be all that upset when the other team hits a home run off of him and has their own celebration. So there's that. But really, is that not the next stage of this? Mac, how do you feel about the home run celebrations that have taken root almost everywhere? I like the idea of a deciding factor in the future on a potential end of the bullpen arm being, did they minor in theater in college, right? Like, I like where this is, right? Like, I like where this is, right? Because I mean, one of the things I love about baseball, and I don't think this is actually getting out of it from being diminished by the pitch clock at all, is season is so long, and I think the unwritten rules people may get their hackles up over this sort of thing,

but I like the idea of maximizing the enjoyment of these opportunities, whether it's celebrating the home runs in a particular way or even if we're getting more interesting with the bat flips or anything. Or Wander Franco's ball flip in the middle of throwing to first. He tossed the ball up and spun it a little in the air after gloving the ball at short, and then he made the throw to first, and he got his guy by a couple steps. But I don't know that I had seen that before. I enjoyed it. It was very nonchalant. Of course, if he were to screw up and the runner actually beat out the play while the fielder was just casually kind of, you know, showing off by tossing the ball up in the air, then that probably would lead to some backlash.

But then again, the end of it yeah right i guess from your own fans though like if the opposing team managed to beat out a ball because you did a little ball flip in the middle of the play then could they really be mad at you if that happened because uh it would work to their advantage like a lot of the times that sam's theory about unwritten rules was that it's often a way for teams to discourage their opponents from doing things that are actually advantageous. Maybe not so much with bat flips. That's just kind of, you know, that might rub you the wrong way after you give up a home run or you think someone is showing you up, even if they're

not really doing that. But in this case, it would be something that really could only hurt you as a fielder if you were to incorporate that routinely. So I wouldn't be that upset about it. Although I guess I could see why someone might, if they were thrown out, you know, it could look like you were trying to send the message that, oh, this guy's so slow and this play is so easy that I have time to toss the ball up and let it come down before I make the play. So I could see why someone would be upset about it. If they're likely to be upset about that sort of thing already. If they're inclined to that disposition.

Doesn't it feel like the Giants would be the first team to have like a member of their staff dedicated to the idea of like improving and enhancing the theatricality of your celebrations? because their coaching staff is so big to begin with. It's like, this is our designated set dresser. This is our choreographer. This is our makeup person. This is a wardrobe and costume over here. Yeah. All right.

Here is a question from Matt Trueblood who says, I was listening to the discussion of Moonball in Mexico City on episode 2001, and I have a theoretical counterbalance for baseball at high elevation to keep it feeling a little more like baseball. What if we narrowed fair territory? I'm not talking about something super radical. It gets ugly and untenable at anything south of, say, 72 degrees. But I can sort of picture the field compressed to 80 degrees. You could leave larger playable foul territory than that at an average park at lower elevations,

so the defense could try to steal a few extra outs and the game doesn't get bogged down terribly by extra dead balls. You just make it easier for defenses to cover the field and tougher for runners to go from first to third, though perhaps easier to steal bases. It's a suggestion with many implications. With this skinnier field, you could push the fences out a bit more in the outfield without enduring the same magnitude of BABIP effect as the one Coors Field has due to its deep dimensions.

If baseball were 10 degrees different, how different would it be? So I have a historical example to bring to bear here because I'm not aware of any suggestions to narrow the foul lines, but the opposite was suggested, widening the foul lines and expanding the field in that way just by a few degrees. So I take you back to February 1970. And of course, 1968 was the year of the pitcher. They made some changes. Offense bounced back a bit in 1969, but it was still sort of low and they were still thinking of things they could do to try to increase offense. So here is a piece from the New York Daily News, February 8th, 1970. Baseball's next attempt at beefing up puny

batting averages will be an experiment at angling the foul lines to provide more outfield area where hits can drop safely. Commissioner Bowie Kuhn yesterday outlined this innovation to be tried this summer in the Gulf Coast Rookie League. Under the plan, the foul lines starting at first and third base will be flared at a three-degree angle toward the outfield fences. How would this affect fair territory? In the newer parks, with their 320-foot foul lines, it would be widened by 12 feet at each foul pole. Overall, it would be increased by 2,771 square feet or by 2.8 percent. With these dimensions, hits that once barely curved foul would fall safely, and as outfielders shifted to protect the foul lines, this would open up the alleys of left center and right center.

These angled foul lines will be tried in 60 games of the Gulf Coast Rookie League at a Diamond in Bradenton, Florida during July and August. The effect on batting averages will be studied by baseball's rules committee to determine whether the change should be applied to the majors. Kuhn said he was intrigued by the idea when he read it in a letter from a professor to Sports Illustrated magazine. The commissioner added the experiment has the unanimous approval of the rules committee headed by Charles Seeger. Kuhn agreed with those who feel batting averages still are too low, etc., etc., and they're not any lower than they are currently in the majors. What Kuhn especially likes about the new proposal is that it opens possibilities for increased hitting without changing anything fundamental to the game or doing anything to the baseball. I guess people could disagree on whether this is doing anything fundamental to the game.

I guess you could say that it is. The commissioner conceded that the new idea would run into trouble at some of the older ballparks like Yankee Stadium, where the stands are close to the foul lines. At Fenway Park in Wrigley Field, he pointed out angled foul lines would run smack into walls that would shorten home run distances beyond desirable minimums. Still, he said, the proposal had enough merit to proceed with the experiment. I would not be unhappy with more hitting, he said. And so they said that there was going to be a special representative to keep data and that they would record how many times a batted ball landed safely in the area that was added to the regulation field. So I don't know exactly what the effect was. I do know that they did not adopt

this measure and that at the end of 1970, they decided that they were not going to do this. So I guess they were not all that impressed or happy with the results. I can tell you that the league-wide batting average did go up a bit. In 1969, in the Gulf Coast League, it was 232. And in 1970, it went up all the way to 243. Although from the sound of it, I guess they were only doing this in one park maybe. So the one in Bradenton, which as best I can tell is where the GCL Pirates played, their batting average went up from 224 to 234. batting average went up from 224 to 234. But this is, you know, something that was considered and frankly could still be considered because the batting averages are, you know, not much different, maybe even lower than they were in 1969. So you could bring this idea back. But Matt is proposing the opposite of this in order to counteract the effects of elevation. I do like the idea.

I don't know enough to know if this would have the desired effects, like if you were putting it in a place in Mexico City or whatnot. But I do like the idea of having the built environment be the thing that you try to use to counteract the offensive effects of extreme elevation rather than continuing to monkey with the ball? And some of that might just be my exhaustion with our inability to seemingly do that with any kind of specificity, or at least the kind of specificity that we'd like to be able to have it be more predictable year to year. But it does seem like a fundamentally sounder approach because once you figure out what it should be, you know, and again, I don't know if this is what it should be, but like if you figure

out confidently like, oh yeah, well, this will do it and here are the trade-offs and yes, you know, maybe we end up with more stolen bases, but we like stolen bases, so maybe that's fine. And the rest of the run environment is such that we are comfortable with it. You get that all sorted and then you're good to go, right? Because it's not gonna get shorter or at least not perceptibly, right? Like the elevation isn't gonna decline dramatically such that you going to have to keep monkeying with it.

So, I like it as an approach. I don't know. Plus, like, if you, I don't know, maybe you can monkey with it in such a way that, like, you can put a ballpark in a smaller footprint maybe a little bit. Well, I mean, my thinking was kind of expounding on that idea. What if you pitched the outfield? So it's going up. So the dimensions are the same. Outfield ball.

Yeah. And so, you know, obviously there would be adjustments to make when it comes to how you field. But if the outfield is not, you know, you can only start pushing that out, you know, the field so far out. I'm just trying to think, like, if the outfield was higher, balls that would have gone out trajectory-wise may be landing now in the warning track. And so you just position people further out. And so it's mostly a running downhill sort of thing, which I'm outside my element here. So I'm just speculating on how that might work. But I agree. I think, you know, if you're going to try to do it, do it within the confines of the

design. So I don't know that that's I'm I'm trying to draw that mentally in my head where it's like, OK, it's slanted up. So if you go with the I, this is where I wish I was a little bit better with my analytics skills and trying to design what ifs with baseballs that would have gone out here. And, you know, those home run trackers and things of that nature are like, how would that look? Yeah. I guess you're talking about like the old towels Hill in Houston, but for the entire outfield, basically. Exactly.

It's like raising, instead of like putting a really high wall up there, the wall's still at that green monster height. You're just got all that green, just a gentle incline up to that point. Yeah, right. point. Yeah, right. As long as it was not steep, as long as it was a small angle of a center descent, because otherwise you're going to run into some injury issues potentially there. And if you have outfielders like sprinting down a hill, that seems like it could be dangerous. But also if they're going way uphill, especially at altitude, they're going to run out of breath, right? And you'd imagine that there might be a big home field advantage there because the team that plays there most of the time, half the time, would be more accustomed to going up or downhill

than the team that's just visiting. So, I mean, that might not be the worst thing, I guess, unless there's like a Mexico City hangover effect like we see with the Coors Field hangover effect when it comes to hitting. But you'd also have one with fielding potentially because like anywhere else you go the field is not slanted right the earth would feel too level and you just wouldn't know what to do with yourself so i don't know i i do think it's it's not an inelegant solution i think even though buoy kyun said that this wasn't changing anything fundamental to the game, there was a lot of backlash and people were sort of upset about this idea. Looking at the articles at the time, there was a lot of coverage in February 1970 of this idea.

Not much coverage later in the season of how it worked, but people were upset at first. But there was a columnist in the L.A. Times who objected to the objections. He quoted one journalist says altering the shape of the baseball field borders on sacrilege and other speaks of the sanctity of the playing field as a 90 degree quadrant, which is, you know, Epstein was that you're not really changing the distance between bases or from the center of the base to the next, which people might get upset about. You're just changing the size of the bases themselves. And that was a way to do it without a big backlash. But the L.A. Times columnist wrote, to hear some people talk, you would think the original design had been engraved on a stowed tablet and delivered to man by an angel of God. When they set aside emotion and nostalgia and get around to discussing practical objections to flared out foul lines, the traditionalists raise such questions as what effect the widened field would have on comparisons of new records

and old. How, they ask, could such comparisons be made when batters today were being credited with singles for hitting what used to be foul balls? And how about home run records, et cetera? But then this guy goes on to say that it's already inconsistent. Because the size of ballparks has changed and the size of foul territory has changed and the ball has changed and everything has changed and things are constantly changing. And this would actually be a smaller change than making no change and having baseball be at a higher elevation than ever, right? Because if you just played with the same field, but much higher up in the air, then you'd have all kinds of records being set as we saw this

past weekend. So this would be tampering with a baseball rule, but it would be doing so in a desire to keep things from getting out of whack. So how different would baseball be if it were 10 degrees different? I think probably not that much, really. I think it would be noticeable, but I don't love it. And we already have different dimensions. Right. This is what I was going to say. Yeah. So. Yeah. It's funny where we choose to be fussy and where we think that like some amount of jazz is like what we want. Right. It's just a funny. We have these moments where we're like, no, we have to hold on to that so tight.

And it's like, I don't know. You ever been to a game at the Coliseum and then been to a game literally anywhere else? You think that that field looks the same? Of course not. Like, the foul territory is like, you know, a mile wide out there. Yeah, right. Okay, question from Jacob. This week, the Braves were able to defeat the Mets in five innings due to rain and then rain in subsequent days jumbled the Mets rotation order. This got me thinking, how many wins would it be worth if a team became expert at cloud seeding and thus were able to control when and how much it rained during games?

You could shorten the game when your team was ahead and cancel games to dodge certain pitchers or give your team more time to heal. And I should ask this question also, how many times could you use this ability in a season before other teams would get suspicious? For reference, cloud seeding is defined by Wikipedia as a type of weather modification that aims to change the amount or type of precipitation that falls from clouds by dispersing substances into the air that serve as cloud condensation or ice nuclei, which alter the microphysical processes within the cloud. condensation or ice nuclei, which alter the microphysical processes within the cloud. And Jacob also says, I recall on episode 1236, you had on Michael McClellan, an atmospheric scientist to discuss working in baseball, but I don't recall you asking him whether the weather could be used to win games.

So please let me know your thoughts on this. And yeah, I believe Michael is still working for the Rays as a senior R&D analyst. So perhaps the Rays have figured this out. That's why they're winning so many games, although they play in a dome. So it would be tough for them a lot of the time. But if you could do this, I don't know what the state of the art is when it comes to cloud seeding. I don't know what the reliability and precision of this is. So I couldn't say whether you could start seeding the clouds in such a way that once you take the lead after the fifth inning, okay, start seeding,

and then it starts pouring and the game is over. I'm not sure if we've reached that level of weather dictating. I am skeptical. If you could do that, it probably would be pretty helpful, right? If you could pick and choose your spots to have rainouts or early endings to games and your staff just needs some rest and you used your entire pitching staff the day before, let's take today off, right? And you could decide exactly when to do that. That would probably be very beneficial if you could do it reliably. Yeah, but they wouldn't let you do it. They don't know that you're doing it in this scenario, right? Don't you think that they would figure out that something was up?

Secretly seeding. I mean, it would be suspicious if you were getting enough rain out. Now, I don't know. I guess over the course of a season yeah you'd have to exercise some restraint when it came to this because there may not be that many times really where you want a rain out like where you want a game not to be played at all because you don't want to lose off days later in the season and have to travel more to make up games so you probably wouldn't want to cancel that many maybe there'd be some where you could finagle yourself a better pitching matchup you know like if you have a thin rotation like if it's spawn insane and pray for rain here it's it's not praying it's just

seeding the cloud so that you get rain when you want it so you have a thin rotation you could work it such that you wouldn't ever need your fifth starter because you just have extra days off and you could bring your number one back again, right? But if you did that often enough to matter, it would be noticed and it would cost you attendance, right? And concessions, like it would hurt you financially, I guess, at least when you're doing it in your home park. And if it were disproportionately affecting and benefiting that team, that would probably be picked up on. This is so far-fetched that I don't know whether anyone would jump right to, they must be cloud seeding or what, but it would not go unnoticed.

And spare a thought for the grounds crew. Oh, yeah, gosh. go unnoticed and spare a thought for the grounds crew oh yeah because i i can only imagine that much extra work of getting that tarp out every time that's just oh that's too much uh but it definitely feels like a you'd have to have a bond villain of some sort as uh running this to really take the most advantage of it yeah the the sentence sentence after the sentence from Wikipedia that Jacob quoted is, its effectiveness is debated. Some studies have suggested that it is difficult to show clearly that cloud seeding has a very large effect. But if we were to pretend that it did have a large and reliable effect.

I do love the idea of this making its way into the rulebook, like along with the place where they talk about, you know, how retractable roofs can and can't be used. And then 50 years from now, people looking back and being like, why the hell do we need that? And then this rule, like, did we really need that? And it's like, well, you clearly didn't watch baseball in 2023. Yep. You know, that kind of thing. They were tampering with the weather. So, yeah, that would potentially be worth a lot of wins,

but it couldn't be worth that many because if you did it too often, you would be exposed, I think. And also there would be some significant costs and drawbacks to this as well. Yeah. significant costs and drawbacks to this as well. Yeah. It would have to be planned like so, so very carefully in terms of doing it in such a way that you don't add a hugely onerous travel burden on the back end to make up those contests. And I think that the amount of planning that would take would expose you pretty quickly. Also, just like, you know, on some level, we should have a sniff test, like, is this a reasonable thing to do in service of

baseball, like in baseball? And this fails that sniff test. Yeah. All right. Here's one from Matthew. Do you think relief pitchers all harbor secret desires to be starters. It used to be that going to the bullpen was a demotion. I think I did a stat blast at some point about whether it's still true that almost all relievers are failed starters. And I think I found that it is still largely true that most relievers in the majors were starters at some point, whether in the majors or in the minors. There definitely are more dedicated relievers in the majors were starters at some point, whether in the majors or in the minors.

There definitely are more dedicated relievers just from the start. Guys who were, say, closers in college and they just get drafted to be closers and then they come through the system quickly and they never actually start a game. But usually even now, eventual relievers did start sometimes initially. So many of them got a taste. And of course, if they didn't in pro baseball, then they were probably starters in high school or little league or wherever, right? So they know what it is to be starters. Do you think that they still secretly long to be?

Money-wise, the answer is probably yes, right? If for no other reason, then your career is likely to be much more lucrative over its course, if you're starting versus relieving, like, even if you're just like a, you know, league average guy, you're probably going to make more Tigers as a starter and then, you know, had injury and underperformance and has found his way to the Cubs in a relief capacity. Although, is he hurt right now? No, he's not hurt. He's just, you know, not as good as he might be. And I remember in that interview, he said something along the lines of enjoying the ability to sort of have an effect on the game far more often than you do as a starter where you're just waiting, you know, for your turn every five days. And, you know, who knows? Like, maybe these are the stories we tell ourselves to, like, content ourselves with our lives, right? I don't know.

To like content ourselves with our lives, right? I don't know. But I could see like that piece of it, sort of the potential for getting in on the action on a more regular basis, even if for a shorter duration, generally each time being somewhat satisfying. And maybe you're like one of those people who's like, I want to work some, but not as much on a given day. And so then maybe the bullpen is fun. You get to hang out with a bunch of often stone-cold weirdos and take your innings and then be a helper. Maybe you view yourself as having a career composed of service. And so then maybe it's satisfying. But no, I think you make more money as a starter. So that probably you rue the day, rules the whatever, maybe you enjoy it. Who knows? Yeah. And I mean, my line of thinking is sort of in line there is similar, right? It's all sort of about personality and sort of ambition, right? I could put in all that extra work to make extra money and everything

else. But then at the same time, it's also like, it's kind of nice to travel the country, hang out with my friends in the bullpen, you know, work a couple times a week and just sort of hang out the rest of the time. And, you know, I'm still, if I'm a pretty decent middle reliever, I'm not making, You know, I'm still, if I'm a pretty decent middle reliever, I'm not making, I'm not making Max Scherzer money, but I'm also, I'm not starving. So, I mean, my personal mindset, I feel like, yeah, man, I think actually relieving would be a heck of a cool job, but, or, you know, into the bench utility guy, same kind of thing, right? Where it's like, yeah, I'm useful.

I have a role and I don't have to do as much. I'm thinking of like backup. I'm thinking of it to a degree like backup quarterbacks, right? One of the best gigs in sports, right? You get paid pretty well and you hold a clipboard a lot of the time. It's not easy work, but at the same time, it's like that's pretty cool too. Yeah, I think putting aside the money, which of course would be maybe foremost in a lot of players' minds, but I think I'd prefer the starter schedule. And I know that mentally it might be tough if you have a bad outing and then you need to wait several days to get out there again.

It could be nice if you're a reliever and you have a bad outing and then you can get right back out there if you're the sort of person who can move on from that and not dwell on it. Of course, you also get less time to savor a victory and a celebration, right? Like Sam just wrote about, apparently, Spencer Strider uses a term, or I guess it was applied to Spencer Strider, but Sam heard it in connection to Strider. But it's something Greg Maddox came up with to describe like the day after a start, especially after a successful start. And Maddox called it a dig me day. It's just, you know, dig you. It's just like a it's like treat yourself in parks and recreation. It's like you worked hard. You had a good outing. You know, you're not going to have to pitch again for some time. So it's just a dig me day. You get to treat yourself and kick back and relax and enjoy your good work. So I would like that. And I'd also I think I would prioritize the predictability of knowing when I will work. career, but within the unpredictability of being a member of the media and a writer and a podcaster, I've tried to make things a little more predictable in the sense of like, I enjoy it when I know which days I'm writing in a week. And I don't always, but if I know, okay, I got to write something for that day and I can sort of plan out my week accordingly, as opposed to I might be on call

to blog about this or that at any second. You know, like there have been times in my career when it was like, if a transaction happens now, I got to swing into action, you know, regardless of whatever else I might be doing at that moment. And that is not my favorite thing. So I guess I would probably like being able to come to the park knowing that barring some sort of emergency, I'm not actually going to pitch that day, even though I have to do some work and preparation and studying and

everything. It's just different. Also, not someone who thrives on adrenaline. So like, I'm not a thrill seeker. I'm not like chasing the high of like getting into a high leverage moment when I didn't know I was going to be pitching in that game. So I don't think I would need that as fuel either. So I would prefer to be a starter for those reasons. But I think, you know, being a career reliever is becoming more common, obviously. So I think there's certainly less of a stigma. It's seen as less of a demotion. Like most pitchers are relievers now, like overwhelmingly, I guess. So it's not like it used to be where being a reliever meant you were in the minority and also meant that

you knew you couldn't hack it. It's just like, it's a job now. It's a job description and teams value it. All right. Chris says, I am fortunate enough to have an amazing wife

who also loves baseball. However, she has expressed her disdain at the recent iterations of baseball zen on MLB TV. Her complaints, she believes that these zen moments are no longer zen. Last season, according to her, the zen moments felt more zen. She cites the foul lines getting painted on the infield as peak zen. This season, chaotic post-home run dugout celebrations are put in slow motion and called Zen. So we can't escape the home run celebrations even then. Additionally, there is a Zen moment where a Sasquatch seems to be walking around the screen with no reference to baseball at all.

Can you please commence a Zenvestigation into these claims? And Meg, I know that you have had thoughts on baseball Zen. Initially, we absolutely loved it. It was our favorite thing. We praised it highly. It does seem like it's gone through ebbs and flows when it comes to how Zen it is. I haven't tracked it that closely, but it's not just that it used to be more Zen last season and then it got less Zen now. Didn't it pretty quickly get less Zen?

And then I feel like maybe it's gotten more Zen in some respects. It's more variable in terms of how Zen it is. It definitely did get out of hand where it was not Zen anymore. And they were calling things zen that were not calming and soothing in ASMR. But I don't know if it's been a clear trend line toward less zen or whether it's been kind of more zen sometimes

and then less zen at other times. It's like trying to police sticky stuff and spin rates. You know, it goes up and down. There are a couple of things happening. First of all, we should just say, regardless of the sort of where along the Zen spectrum the Zen ads fall, I still find them preferable to the... Because it's just, even when it is highlighting a moment that is raucous and there is a little bit more noise, it is still quieter. It's still much quieter. So, I prefer that.

But I think that one thing that they have started to do, and I don't know that I'm bothered by it, but I would highlight it as a difference is like, you know, sometimes I look at a moment like the Sasquatch one and I'm like, is this Zen or is it weird? Is what you're highlighting sort of a moment of quiet contemplation? Or are you highlighting something funny and weird that happened at the ballpark? And you're like, well, this can be made slow. We can slow this down and then highlight the like weird sort of work audio of it so i i think i agree that there are still moments that feel more in keeping with sort of the spirit of the thing in the first season like there's you know there's that one where they're uh it's clearly like a spring training backfield warm-up and they're just tossing the ball back and forth.

Yeah. Like that one's really great. That one's really nice. And, and the, the, the Bigfoot one is, um, it's not disruptive and it is kind of funny, but it's like, why is that? You know, who, where is that even? It has to be at a minor league park. I think it's a minor league park, but some of the home run ones are bigger and louder. But there were a couple like that last year. I think that they're trying to cycle through them with greater regularity, it seems, so that we're not seeing the exact same ones over and over. And maybe that is part of the issue. But if you have the entire season's worth of stuff to engage with, you'd think that you could find more quiet moments.

Like the rain one was so nice. I haven't seen the rain one in a while. I don't know that any of them are like permanently out of circulation, but bring back the rain one, you know? Yeah. I love baseball Zen. The more Zen, the better. Yeah, but I'm of the mindset too too, that, like, you can't manufacture the Zen.

I think the more that they try to force the Zen upon us, the less Zen it becomes. It's sort of like being like water, right? You got to move and go with it. And even, like, the ones I saw last year, I have to admit, I follow baseball religiously. I watch very little baseball through the year. I tend a lot to spend that time reading books and doing other sort of nerdy things and making spreadsheets for fantasy baseball, listening to my podcast, making fantasy baseball spreadsheets. But even like the ones last year, right? Like instead of just letting me just like marinate in this like

nice, peaceful moment, they overlaid obviously not the same sound of the the tarp being dragged out right it's just just let the moment be itself without being uh you know over manufacturing it's all i ask i talked to some folks at the league last year about sort of the construction of of those ads. And this was true last year. I don't know if it is still true. So I don't want to speak out of turn, but I was given to understand from that conversation that none of the sound clips,

or at least very few of them last year, were actually sound pulled from that moment. It was superimposed on it later. Yeah, that disappointed me when you told me that yeah i mean i wasn't shocked but but yeah yeah so that you know somewhere in a in an audio library is is a sound that they felt was close enough to like the sound of a bat impacting a ball and you know this is generic rain sound and there were times last year where you could kind of tell where it's like, even for a clip that has been slowed down somewhat, it felt,

it felt out of sync in a way that was beyond, it was more than just some, you know, strangeness of trying to make a slowed down video speak to a slowed down audio clip. So I don't know if that's still true. They might be incorporating some of them this year look like they're incorporating actual audio from that moment being filmed in a way that it didn't feel like last year, but I don't know what their approach

is to applying the audio this year. Yeah. I like the idea of a Foley artist in a sound booth somewhere just like banging bats together or something and then they slow that down but it would be nice if it actually came from the moment that we're seeing it it wasn't artificial but you could kind of tell that it's it's not so yeah all right here's a question about another mlb product josh says i know there's not much discussion of the mlb app on the podcast but for my money it's the best sports app on the market. That said, MLB pretty dramatically overhauled the game day interface going into this season. It certainly has more data, for instance, more accessible exit velocity, distance, and launch angle on batted balls, as well as some win probability stuff.

But it also seems a bit clunkier and might have too much information. What are your thoughts on the updates made to game day? Either of you have any thoughts on the updates made to game day either of you have any thoughts on this i'll just say like i check game day often but i rarely follow a game via game day it's usually just like a quick check-in if i was out or something and i i just want to see what the score is or take a quick look at the box score i will open up game, but I'm very rarely following along with it, probably because I'm usually home. And so when I'm home, I'm either just watching on MLB TV or I'm just on my computer and I'm not using the app. So I wouldn't say I've spent a ton of dedicated time with it other than just dipping in and out. i i have noticed the new look and some of the new information there i think it's fine yeah it does feel um like it's been kind of judged up a little

bit my main issue is actually with the on the the website um when you go to an old game you can't they have to they have all the like play-by-play and box for stuff it's so tiny it's like segmented off and so skinny and then they have this big section for highlights and i get that but i want the i want an expand option on the other stuff because sometimes i'm like looking at it and i feel like i'm i'm doing a gesture right now which neither of you can see and none of our listeners can so it's really great great radio, but it's like, it's so tiny and narrow. And then there's like, I got all this screen. I got all this screen real estate that's not being used by the thing I'm interested in

looking at. So that's my only gripe, but that's less of an issue on mobile because everything has to kind of fit into the narrow parameters of your, of your mobile screen anyway. So, yeah, I think I've noticed it's taken me a little more time maybe to find what I want to find. There's more there that I have to kind of click around to find the screen that has the information that I'm looking for. But maybe that is almost an inevitable byproduct of just having more information available. say how hard a ball was hit without having to go to the Baseball Savant game feed page and then look at it in a separate place. So I do like the information kind of being consolidated somewhat. Yeah, this has actually reminded me that I have to download the newest version of the MLB app. So I did not even realize there had been any changes. So thank you for this educational announcement.

You're welcome. All right. Here's a question from Sue, who says, I listened to a few prospects related podcasts and have heard hosts on both Lockdown MLB Prospects and Baseball America's Future Projection remark that a particular left-handed pitching prospect touches or sits at a velocity that's high for a left-hander. The implication seems to be that the average velocity for all right-handed pitchers would be higher than the average velocity for all left-handed pitchers. Is this true? If so, what could possibly account for this? Yes, that is absolutely true and consistently true. And if we look at baseball savant right now, the average velocity for a four-seam fastball for a lefty is 92.8, and for a righty, it is 94.2. So a significant difference, almost a mile and a half per hour. And I believe that the difference

is almost entirely attributable to the lack of familiarity that hitters have with left-handed pitchers. I wrote something about this years ago at Baseball Perspectives, and then there is a good, more in-depth article that was published at Fangraphs a few years ago about this also called the Southpaw Advantage. So I will link to that. But the idea is it's basically that you face fewer lefties, not just in the majors where they're somewhat overrepresented relative to the population, but especially as you're coming up through Little League and high school and college. And so you see fewer lefties and you're just less familiar with them and you're more out

of sorts when you face them. You just haven't seen as many pitches coming from that angle delivered by that hand. when you face them. You just haven't seen as many pitches coming from that angle delivered by that hand. And thus, there is some element of surprise relative to when you're facing right-handers. And therefore, lefties can get by with lesser stuff compared to righties just because hitters are not facing them so often. So maybe you wouldn't think that the effect would be so dramatic, but I find that convincing. I think that is largely what it is. You don't think that they're paying a penalty to the devil? I don't. I don't think so. That's my best evangelist impression. I don't think it's very good. Yeah. I mean, that would explain why this is measurable and persistent over time.

Again, we'll link to the article that lays it all out. But I think it's fairly simple. I think that's basically what it boils down to. But there's a lefty advantage in a lot of sports, right? a lefty disadvantage sometimes in real life because you are forced to conform to the side that most people want their desks to be on or whatever, right? Or you're, you know, sometimes made to write with another hand or whatever it is and peer pressured. But once you get to actual high-level athletic competition, there are many cases where it

is beneficial to be more uncommon. There are many cases where it is beneficial to be more uncommon. Or if you have a nightmare sports dad, they might force you to start doing stuff lefty because they know about the advantage. So you got to watch out for those nightmare sports dads. Also evangelists, sometimes they're bad too. Yeah. So the authors of this piece of fan graph said we're not evolutionary biologists. However, this body of research clearly supports the notion that hitters will have more trouble recognizing and responding effectively to pitches from a left-handed pitcher. For hitters, this effect may register as greater discomfort when facing a southpaw or a misperception

that their pitches have greater movement. Indeed, the persistent myth of the crafty lefty who disrupts hitters with nasty pitch movement, though not substantiated by scientific measurements, likely has its roots in this lack of familiarity. It may seem surprising that major league hitters would feel unfamiliar with Southpaw's delivery or pitch trajectories when they face them almost 30 percent of the time. But remember, this incidence is much lower when a player is first learning to hit. In youth baseball, the proportion must be much closer to the population average of 10% as lefties are only selected for at more advanced levels of competition. If you still doubt that Southpaws appears novelties to opposing hitters, consider that Baseball Reference lists no fewer than three dozen pitchers named lefty in MLB history and many more who carried the nickname informally while the sport is still waiting for someone named righty to take the mound. So, yeah, that convinces me. It's hard to overcome that advantage all right here's one from jake who says i'm

listening to episode 1999 and your discussion about injuries got me wondering do you think players are truly getting injured more than ever before or are clubs and players just more aware of injuries than ever before medicine has come a tremendous way in terms of recovery. See Bryce Harper and his potentially mutated elbow. It would also stand to reason, I think, that medical diagnoses are better than ever before. Maybe even 10 years ago, a guy with a sore arm just calls it a sore arm. Now we can tell more factually that it's a sprain or a tear or whatever the heck thoracic outlet syndrome is.

My wife is a physical therapist, and anytime I mention a little ache or pain, I assume it's just a result of being 30, whereas she can point out it's an impingement or a slight strain or tear. I know MRI machines aren't exactly brand new, but medical technology and understanding is so advanced and clubs are generally so conservative with injuries that maybe now we're seeing the effects played out on the injured list. Of course, players have agency and know their body, so I'm not saying their injuries are lesser than years past. Players are throwing harder than ever, which seems horrendous for your body. They might just be getting hurt more. I certainly don't have a solution for this, and I'm not even sure we need one. But as a Twins fan and longtime Byron Buxton admirer, I think about injuries a lot. So more injuries or better diagnosis of injuries?

More people need to take up swimming. You're preaching to the choir here. And stretch. Well, yeah, we can agree to disagree about some aspects of stretching. But, yeah, often the answer is a bit of both, right? It's probably a bit of both. I mean, I do think that there are more velocity related injuries and max effort throwing related injuries, even though pitchers are throwing fewer innings and pitches individually,

they're throwing as hard as they can all the time. So I think that does some damage. And yeah, I do think probably there's maybe less reluctance to come forward with injuries and players are better informed about the effects and they're more likely to disclose things that they're dealing with, hopefully, because they know that it might only hurt them more if they were to hide injuries. And teams are probably more proactive about putting players on the IL. probably more proactive about putting players on the IL. And you have had, you know, IL stints that are shorter in length so that you can do that if someone has a less severe injury. So that's probably part of it, being proactive about injury prevention and exacerbation by just putting someone on the IL instead of having them play through something.

And yeah, also like you're able to pinpoint what the problem is sometimes, where in the past it was just like, it's sore and there's nothing we can do about it, really. There's no treatment other than just not pitching for a while. And if I don't want to just stop pitching and potentially lose my job, then I just got to go out there and pitch through it, right? Probably like, you know, also higher salaries and benefits and everything that maybe make you a little less apprehensive about disclosing an injury because if you were to miss time or get caught or cut or something, you might have some money banked there. So I think there's probably a lot of that that's contributing to it.

Yeah. I wonder if we are seeing more frequent, but less severe on average, because teams are like, oh, let's, you've, you've told us that you're banged up and that something feels wrong and we are going to get ahead of it so that it doesn't snowball and become worse. And we aren't encouraging you to play through. So I wonder if that's the tradeoff, at least on average. Although you're right that because guys are throwing harder, there are more. Well, I don't know if there are more, but it feels like they're more like, ah, I blew out. Any thoughts, Mac? It's always so hard to think of things when I'm just so used to listening.

And I'm like, oh, yes, I'm here with you right now. They're not just going to move on to the next question. I have to say something. No, I got to get involved. I mean, I think it's a little, like you said, a little of everything, right? I mean, on the one hand, I think there's less this macho, like rub dirt on it. Let's, especially as it's become literally more professionalized with the amount of money involved, it makes way more sense to make something sure something heals up correctly than compound on something or just put it to the point where it just lingers all year and zap you of your ability. Mm-hmm.

Yeah. So in some senses, it's a good thing that guys go on the IL now instead of playing through an injury, but it's also, there are a lot of injuries and a lot of pitching injuries specifically. So there is actually a problem there, I believe. Well, and what this question makes me think too, and as public service announcement to anybody, make friends with a physical therapist or find a good physical therapist early. Or marry one in the question. Or marry one if you can, right? And it'll pay dividends as you get a little bit older. Yeah, I could imagine. All right. James says,

your mention of the new pitching machines that perfectly or quasi-perfectly replicate pitches got me thinking about two things. The first is the effect on the times through the order penalty. If a batter can spend the hours before the game in front of one of these machines, they will go into the game already having seen the pitches that day. I imagine this would mean there would be less of a benefit to seeing additional pitches in game if the batter has already seen enough pitches to get as familiar as they possibly can that day. Essentially, the pitchers would begin the game with the penalty already. Do you also think this will likely have an effect on the times

through the order penalty? If so, is the use of these machines widespread enough to see that yet, or might we have to wait some years? And if it does reduce the times through the order penalty, how might that affect pitcher usage or any other aspect of the game? Secondly, I'd be very excited if these pitching machines were available for fans to experience in the stadium, similar to how you can throw a ball in front of a radar gun. If this does happen, we might finally get a better answer as to how long it ever would take an average fan to get a hit off a given pitcher. I don't really have a question about this. I just think that would be fun would you even want to face one of these uh fancy new fangled pitching machines that like perfectly allows you to i don't think i would either no sounds terrifying no yeah contrary to this i don't normally think it makes sense to pay a lot of money to embarrass yourself so uh yeah i there was there's nothing I would want to do less than face a legitimate, say, Max Scherzer pitch. Right, yeah.

In front of people, no less. Could you ever get a hit, right? Or, you know, how good do you have to be to get a hit? Or if someone has a swollen head, if, well, they might have a swollen head if they face this pitching machine and they get beaten. But if they're too big for their britches, you know, if they're overconfident, if they think they could do it, then it might be fun to see them humbled and embarrassed by flailing just helplessly and impotently against these pitching machines. So that might be good. Personally, though, I think I'm good. I am self-assured enough to know that I cannot hit major league pitching and I accept that and am fine with that and actually prefer that because it means that the level of baseball that we're watching is very

impressive. So for me, it's enough of a challenge to go to a batting cage and hit off of a very simple pitching machine that throws hard. That is scary enough and challenging enough for me. But, you know, it might be nice, I guess, just as a demonstration of how helpless you would be and just how good those players are, because not everyone gets to sit in the scout seats or right behind home plate. And it might be tough to tell just how good those players are, because not everyone gets to sit in the scout seats or right behind home plate. And it might be tough to tell just how unhittable everything is from far away. So maybe like everyone should have to stand in one time against major league quality pitching just to be like, wow, hitting is hard. These players are really good. As to the first question,

I did address that in the piece I wrote a couple of years ago. I'll read you one paragraph. Barton Smith, a professor of mechanical and aerospace engineering at Utah State University and a pioneering pitch physics researcher, he was on the podcast, says, why is it that third time through the order, everybody starts to suck? I think a lot of it is because the hitters start to see the ball, they start to see the pattern better. And that's pretty unique to each pitcher, and I'm sure they have to recalibrate every day. to see the pattern better. And that's pretty unique to each pitcher. And I'm sure they have to recalibrate every day. And then I continued with a pitching machine that could accurately replicate pitch data on an individual level. He adds, hitters might be able to bypass part of the in-game learning curve, which would be especially beneficial in an era when teams are pulling pitchers earlier to minimize the familiarity effect.

Now you're going to go face a certain pitcher and you've got his book and you could totally match what they're going to do to you. and you could hit them like that in the first inning. If companies can offer that capability, a hitter could visit an indoor cage during a game and tune up against the same stuff a pitcher threw on his nastiest day right before facing him for real. That's what they're aiming at, which is really amazingly exciting capabilities. Smith concludes just to say, I want to repeat yesterday's game.

It's a player piano. So, yeah, in theory, I don't know that the use of these things is widespread enough that you could actually detect that. But in theory, there should be less of a times-through- and more of an effect of just being able to hit that guy from the get-go. So I will monitor that. I'll see whether that shows up in the league-wide data over the years. data over the years. I just, it depends on, I guess, how perfectly it does really replicate the experience of pitching them and whether that is truly transferable from practice to the game. Stick a pin in that as a future stat blast. Exactly. Okay. Last question. This is from Miff, Patreon supporter. Question inspired by just a bit of THC. Oh no, the evil wizard is back. What would MLB look like if every time a batter

got a hit or a pitcher got a strikeout in the major leagues, they shrunk by 0.02 inches. So a player with 1800 of either would end up shrinking by three feet over the course of their career. Would anyone play baseball? How would players manage the potential risk? What would the ensuing effects on our society be? And would teams attempt to strategize with this? Just so you know, with this curse, Mike Trout would currently be three foot seven and Shohei Otani would be five foot five. So, I mean, look, we know how men prize their height, right? There are more vertically challenged men out there who have

gone to great- With a description like that, why would they ever feel badly about themselves? Yes. Not a challenge, just less vertical. I don't know how to say it. Not quite as tall. Shorter. You can call them shorter. Shorter, sure. Who were upset enough with that state of affairs that they go through like horrific medieval torture sequences to like lengthen their legs by a couple inches or whatever. Right. Or like you hang upside down for hours at a time to try to stretch yourself out. People prize height, people of any sex, gender, right? I believe you have questioned Meg, like, is he handsome or is he just tall is the question that maybe people should ask themselves sometimes. that every time they did something good, they would shrink just a little bit. I mean, they'd be well compensated for the shrinkage, right? I mean, their bank accounts are growing as they are shrinking, but would they be willing to do that? And would they adjust their style of play dramatically to avoid additional shrinkage? They would certainly have to invest in more step stools at their residence. That is true.

And I guess the question is, is this evil wizard known to the population generally? Because we say they'd be well compensated, but if there's a predictable decline in like, dramatically over-select for very tall people because you'd have more wiggle room, right? You could be really good and lose some height and not have it impact you. There's some people who might think that they're too tall or taller than they want to be, right? They're banging their heads all the time. I've never met a man who has thought that. I've never met a single human man who is like, you know what I am? I'm too tall. You know, I'm also too good looking and too generous of a lover. Like that's never happened. There are probably like some seven foot tall plus people who are not basketball players who are like, it might be nice to have

a little more leg room and to be gawked at a little less when I walk around. I'd prefer to be six five instead of seven foot two. I'm still extremely tall, but I'm not like, wow, look at that person, right? So maybe that kind of person would be like, all right. What percentage of the world population that is over 7'0? I mean, I'm not saying they're all basketball players, but what percentage of them are basketball players? I bet a lot. I bet like relative to, you know, the general population, I bet that they are, it is an overrepresented profession amongst the over seven foot set. tall but are not committed to playing basketball. Right. So it's a small group. The talent level is definitely also going to shrink along with the heights. And not just because the players will be getting smaller, although I guess that is a consideration, right?

I mean, if you're losing height every time you do something, you might also be able to apply less force, you know, the shorter levers, et cetera. So like the more you strike out hitters, the less you might be capable of striking out hitters. And the more hits you get, the less capable, you know, it's not a perfect correlation, obviously. In baseball, there are a lot of smaller players who are very good, but not a ton of short pitchers out there these days. So, but the talent level is going to fall just because if you are selecting for extremely tall people who would be interested in playing professional baseball, then you're cutting out a large portion of the population.

Right. Yeah. Or I think you're just going to see a lot shorter careers, right? You hit that 5'7", and you're just like, you know what? I don't want to go any further than this. It's been nice. I'm out of here at 30. Yeah. And look, I mean, professional baseball players, even though they are mostly large people to begin with, we know that they also exaggerate their heights, much like people do on online dating profiles. They're also doing it with their listed heights and weights and everything, right? So maybe in this situation, that would be even more rampant. You know, the three-foot-seven Mike Trout would be trying to pass himself off as three-foot-ten or something. This is a constant source of consternation in my own family when it

comes to trying to determine how tall celebrities are. We always, our rule of thumb is just subtract two inches. And I've conditioned myself to saying that's their listed height as to not get into the discussion of well obviously they're shorter and yes they are probably yeah it's been quite funny this year to see the minor leaguers get smaller because a lot of them are playing in leagues now with an automated ball strike call thing. They have a robo zone. And so they have to have an accurate listed height because that determines the size of their strike zone, the parameters of their strike zone. And so we're like, hey, you're like two inches shorter than last year.

Can we stat blast that? That would be an interesting stat blast. Who was exaggerating their height by the most? We should look into that. We should look into that. We should look into that. I was concerned that that was evidence that the wizard's already in action. Yeah, right. I mean, what is a RoboZone if not a cruel wizard, really?

You're right. Okay. Well, Mac, it's been a pleasure for us, hopefully for you. It's been a pleasure for us, hopefully for you. Is there anything you would care to plug or direct people toward, places they can find you or other endeavors? Can I plug another podcast? Not one I'm on, but one I enjoy quite a bit. Sure.

The It's Christmastown podcast with Jeb Lund and Dave Roth is fantastic. And I urge people to seek that out. It's a good time. Well, anything with David Roth gets my endorsement. I have not listened to that show, but is that the one with the Hallmark movies? Yes. Yes. And full disclosure,

I am also a Patreon supporter of that podcast as well. And so I am friends with those guys to a degree. Have they had you on the show, though? If you're listening, guys, I'm available whenever you are. Well, that's the special Effectively Wild Patreon perk. Well, thank you very much for your support and your patronage and also for joining us today. Thanks, guys. All right.

Just Ben now. Now we'll give you one more question and answer because I got an answer straight from the source. Sam writes in to ask, how was Aristides Aquino number five in defensive run saved? With the new shift rules, I've been trying to learn more about defensive metrics like OAA or DRS. So I was looking at the 2022 leaderboards. The top 10 is mostly full of who you'd expect. Gold glovers like Edmund, Arenado, Jimenez, etc.

But then coming in fifth, tied with Michael A. Taylor and ahead of Nolan Arenado is freaking Aristides Aquino. I know that every stat has its deceptions and shortcomings, but how is this possible? How does a part-time corner outfielder pull this off? Clearly, it has something to do with his eight defensive runs saved in the outfield arm category, but something seems off. He played nearly half as many innings in 2022 as the others on this list. I, like most people, was not watching a lot of Reds baseball last season, so I didn't have much of an eye test to cite, though I do

remember him throwing a ball 101 miles per hour via StatCast. Even if he nailed a higher percentage of guys going first to third or second to home, it just doesn't seem right that he should be ranked above an everyday defender like Arnauto, who plays a position with objectively more make-or-break moments. Can you help me make sense of this? He only had one out above average in 2022 per stat cast, but this might make sense, as OAA only has to do with reading and catching the ball rather than throwing it. I'd love your opinion on these stats, because it seems to be filled with more outliers. What sort of plays can really skew these numbers? Do the outfield throws in DRS take into account who the base runner is or how good their jump was? How much can luck factor in? I'm sure that if each year I looked at the top five in

war or WRC plus, et cetera, I wouldn't find anyone ranked fifth who's as surprising as Aristides Aquino. And yeah, there still is more variability in defensive stats, which have gotten more precise, but there are still fewer opportunities in any given season that can really differentiate a great fielder from a merely good one. So I asked Mark Simon of Sports Info Solutions, which publishes Defensive Run Saved, and he says Aquino had 12 assists last year without a cutoff man, plays where he subtracted a base runner and added an out. That would be a lot for 162 games. That got him eight of the runs saved.

As for where the other runs came from, looks like they came from his plays in right field, and he did have some nice ones. He linked to a few of them, including one against the Phillies that Mark said was his fifth best catch of the season in terms of run value, about two-thirds of a run, and then he doubled a guy off. So that one had a lot of value to it. In sum, he had 11 catches worth a half run or more. By comparison, Mookie Betts, who won the Fielding Bible Award, had nine for the whole season. One further thing, Aquino had 16 runs saved in 69 games in right field. Nice.

I think that would have been hard to replicate if he had played another 70 games or so. Runners wouldn't have challenged him on the bases. Plus, you have to be really good to save 20 runs from your range in a season. That means a lot of tough catches on balls over your head and in front of you. Not convinced he would have made them at the same rate. And if Aquino is still making those plays now, it's for the Chinichi Dragons in Japan, which I guess might suggest that major league teams didn't think he could keep up that defensive pace either, though it didn't help that after he burst on the scene with all those home runs in 2019, he then compiled a 70 WRC plus in 187

games from 2020 to 2022. We give you the pass blast now, which comes to us from David Lewis, an architectural historian and baseball researcher based in Boston, and also from the year 2003. David writes, MLB considers branching out to Puerto Rico. In 2002, after briefly considering eliminating the franchise altogether, Major League Baseball acquired the Montreal Expos. By 2003, the league seemingly had no idea what to do with the team and showed little interest in keeping it in Montreal. For the 2003 season, MLB announced a shift in the team's schedule. 22 of the Expos home games would be played not in Montreal's Olympic Stadium, but instead at Iram Bithorn Stadium in San Juan, Puerto Rico. The international games proved to be a success for the Expos as they were embraced by fans and averaged over 14,000 attendees per game,

as they were embraced by fans and averaged over 14,000 attendees per game, compared to about 12,000 in Montreal, leading to a season attendance total over 1 million for the first time since 1997. Major League Baseball officials, hoping to capitalize on this success, put forth a proposal before the 2003 season had even ended for the Expos to play another 22 games abroad in 2004. As reported by the Associated Press on September 20, 2003, MLB hoped to move games to either San Juan or Monterrey, Mexico. To do so, however, they needed player approval. In an informal vote held during a meeting with Players Association representatives,

the team rejected the league's proposal. Excessive travel was cited as a reason the team disapproved. There are players and club officials on this team that felt travel had an effect, Players Association rep Gene Orza said, explaining that the team wanted 81 games at home, 81 games on the road, just like everyone else. It was hard to deny the effects of travel on team performance. During one 18-game stretch encompassing a six-game visit to Puerto Rico, the team went 6-12, including two separate six-game losing streaks. Expo's third baseman Todd Zeal spoke for the team, saying, I think they still feel that they made a lot of sacrifices,

and there were some hollow promises that came with those sacrifices. It just seemed like most of the guys were tired of the possibility of being manipulated when they just didn't feel good in their heart about doing it. Further issues raised during the meeting and vote included MLB's lack of a decision on if or where the team would be relocated, and their refusal to allow for September call-ups while the Expos were in a wildcard race. If there was a commitment to improving the team, that would have been the time to show it, Zeal remarked. League officials

responded with vague threats to player salaries, suggesting that their operating budget for the Expos was based on expected revenue and that they would have less money to pay players if they were expected to play 81 games in Montreal instead of splitting games between cities. Despite player objections, the league eventually won out and scheduled 22 more Expos home games in Puerto Rico in 2004. On September 29th, 2004, hours before their final home game of the season in Montreal, MLB announced that the Expos would move to Washington, D.C. at the start of the 2005 season. There were some Puerto Rican players on those Expos teams, Jose Vidro, Javier Vasquez, Will Cordero, and there was some effort made to lure the Expos to Puerto Rico permanently, but it was not to be. There have been other big league games played there, though, before and after the Expos were there. And even though there was some effort

made to replicate Olympic Stadium's dimensions in Irambitthorne Stadium. As best I can tell, the Expo's career record there was 20 and 23. That's a 465 winning percentage. Over those two years, they actually went 67 and 51 in Montreal. That's a 568 winning percentage. Okay, a few follow-ups and closing notes here. I meant to mention when Max said that he listens to the podcast while lifting that I'm always somewhat surprised when people say that they use Effectively Wild as workout accompaniment because other people tell us they use it as a sleep aid to calm down before falling asleep. It's not exactly a pulse-pounding pump-up podcast if there is such a thing. Then again, I hate the pump-up music that they pump into gyms, and I typically listen to podcasts while I'm working out, so I get it. If you're lifting

right now, one more rep. You can do it. Train to failure. Let us know if you need a spot. We talked on a recent episode about national broadcasts bringing in some local broadcasters. Jimmy, Patreon supporter, notes that last year Peacock had friend of the show Jason Benetti on play-by-play and the local color commentators for both teams. It was a little crowded, but as someone who enjoys the Astros booth, it was cool getting a little mix of both teams like a cone of vanilla chocolate swirl. Benetti certainly helps too. Patreon supporter Corey wrote in, in reference to our discussion last time of the low A's attendance, he said, I was one of the 2,500 or so fans. Cough,

cough. Really, it was probably around 1,500 at the A's Mariners game on Tuesday, May 2nd. Historically, we go to a lot of the Monday and Tuesday night games as the attendance is so low, even in good years, that it makes parking and traffic a breeze. Not to make excuses for A's fans not coming out to the game, but on this particular date, the Warriors were also playing a home game against the Lakers in the NBA playoffs second round, a rivalry that hadn't met in the playoffs since well a long time. So a lot of people were watching that game instead of dragging themselves out to the Coliseum on a cold and rainy Tuesday night. Just wanted to mention that. You do not have to defend A's fans to me, Corey.

No excuses necessary, given the way the team has treated its fans. I'm surprised that that many are still going to see them. It is true, of course, that the announced attendance, which in theory reflects tickets sold, is often higher than the actual attendance. I just wonder whether the announced attendance will go lower. Also, in reference to the stat blast on episode 1997 about the benefits of driving up pitch counts and Justin Turner telling the Red Sox that they should be patient and work the count to get the starter out of the game early. Well, the team appears to be following his advice.

Friend of the show Alex Spear tweeted, the Red Sox have knocked out an opposing starter before he completed the fourth inning 10 times this year, the most in MLB. No other team has done it more than six times. Definitely not a bad thing. No other team has done it more than six times. Definitely not a bad thing. Also, aforementioned listener Ben Zimmer, who writes about language for The Wall Street Journal, has published his piece on the use of velocity in baseball instead of speed and also the abbreviation to VELO. So I will link to that on the show page. He does cite the podcast and our observation that the use of VELO really seems to have caught on in the 70s, possibly as a result of Branch Rickey using the term in the 60s and even has been discovered in the 50s.

But he was able to trace the use all the way back to 1886 when the Sporting News that June noted that the style in which Hogan of the Leavenworth team fans out the sluggers of the Western League is greatly admired by lovers of the game. His ball is thrown with great velocity, a fact which Welch's swollen hands can attest to. And he notes that the Oxford English Dictionary says that velocity originally just meant speed, going back to 1555, while the more technical meaning in the differentiation of velocity from speed

dates only to 1847. Here's the earliest Branch Rickey use he could find from a scouting report on September 8th, 1951 of Rudy Williams, a pitcher, he will be 20 years of age this coming December, but he has just finished high school. This boy is about six foot two inches tall, weighs about 180 pounds, has as long a nose as you would see on any human. This boy can throw the ball hard enough. The angle of delivery varies at somewhere around the three quarter mark. He throws a live ball. It is not straight. His curve has good

velocity, not much break. It might be a good pitch, and most certainly at the present time, it should not be interfered with. He may not be smart enough in his books, but he is smart enough in baseball conversation. He has gimp. He wants to play. He wants to hit. He wants to shag. He wants to be busy. I like everything about him. Gimp at the time meant courage, bravery, and spirit. As long a nose as you would see on any human. Branch Rickey also gave us the 20 to 80 scale. Sounds like Williams had an 80 nose length. Lastly, some of you have contacted me to wonder whether my bold prediction before the season

of a minor league betting scandal has been vindicated by this Alabama college baseball betting scandal. Well, I don't think so because I said minor league, not college baseball. And I also said game fixing scandal, not just any betting scandal. But this is pretty intriguing. Some of the details have not come out yet, but Alabama's baseball coach, Brad Bohannon, not to be confused with former pitcher Brian Bohannon, was fired because of suspicious betting activity on an Alabama game against LSU. It appears that Alabama's starter was scratched and that Bohannon may

have passed that information on to someone who placed a bet at the sportsbook at Great American Ballpark on LSU to win. So against Alabama, I don't think even Pete Rose was confirmed to have placed bets against his own team. And this was flagged because typically there's very little betting activity, if any, on regular season college baseball games. What is not publicly known thus far is whether the person who placed the bet was doing so as a proxy for

Bohannon and he was instructed to do it, or whether Bohannon didn't know that this person was going to use that info to place a bet. As far as we know, no players are implicated, but when sports betting is this prevalent, you're going to get sports betting scandals. This probably won't be the last one in baseball. On a cheerier note, you can support Effectively Wild on Patreon by going to patreon.com slash effectively wild. The following five listeners have pledged some monthly or yearly amount to help us keep going, help us stay almost ad free and get themselves access to some perks. Cinder Sublet, Jane Oost, Michael Pals, Used Chicken, and Gus Turin. Thanks to all of you.

Patreon perks include access to the warm, welcoming, increasingly well-populated Effectively Wild Patreon Discord group. You also get access to monthly bonus episodes, playoff livestreams, discounts on merch, and ad-free Fangraphs memberships, and so, so much more. Go to patreon.com slash effectivelywild to check out all the options, including joining us on an episode sometime. If you are a Patreon supporter, you can message us through the Patreon site. If not, you can contact us via email at podcast at fancrafts.com. 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 join our Facebook group at facebook.com slash group slash Effectively Wild, and you can find our subreddit at r slash Effectively Wild. Thanks to Shane McKeon for

his editing and production assistance. That will do it for us this week. Thanks for listening. We hope you have a wonderful weekend, and we will be back to talk to you early next week. Thank you. This is effective wine