Effectively Wild: A FanGraphs Baseball Podcast - Effectively Wild Episode 2010: Dead Bird Bounce

Episode Date: May 24, 2023

Ben Lindbergh and Meg Rowley banter about Yordan Alvarez kissing Martín Maldonado, Will Brennan’s birdslaughter (12:33), the Guardians’ slow start (23:12), Madison Bumgarner’s reported reluctance to alter his pitching approach (32:49), Mike Trout passing Ken Griffey Jr. in career Baseball-Reference WAR (45:56), whether the A’s will end up historically bad or rebound to being merely […]

Effectively wild, it's the zombie runner, Bobby Shands, Bobby Shands, Bobby Shands. Effectively wild, it's the zombie runner, Bobby Shands, Bobby Shands, Bobby Shands. Effectively wild. Joey Manessis, walk-off three-run digger. Stop it. Walk-off three-run shot. Oh my it. Walk-off three-run shot. Oh my god. Meg, he's the best player in baseball.

Effectively Wild. Hello and welcome to episode 2010 of Effectively Wild, a baseball podcast from Fangraphs presented by our Patreon supporters. I am Ben Lindberg of The Ringer, joined by Meg Raleigh of Fangraphs. Hello, Meg. Hello. Experimented with 2010 instead of 2010. Yeah. So a little snappier, you know, our episode numbers are climbing.

Takes a while to say 2010. So we'll see if that sticks. I'm just, you know, trying to trim some time because we're very concerned about that. I was going to say. So we have a couple of exciting stories to talk about here, at least momentous stories, one of which is certainly exciting. Following up on previous podcast topics, you have expressed a desire in the past to see players kiss only if they want to. Only if they want to, Ben. Very important stipulation.

Yeah. Only if they want to. Yeah. But if they should be seized with that desire, then you want them to feel free to express it. To give a little, to do a little kiss. Yeah. Do some little bits of kiss. And we haven't really seen much of that, you know, what with macho standards and toxic masculinity and all the rest of it.

You know, the backlash that could come from such a thing. We might talk about that later in the episode. So we haven't seen that. We've seen players come close. We've seen tender gazes. Yeah. We've seen hugs. We've seen long embraces. But kisses,

I don't know. That's been kind of the final frontier as far as I can recall. And that final frontier has now been broached by the Houston Astros and by Jordan Alvarez, who has taken to kissing Martin Maldonado after Jordan Alvarez hits a home run. And he's hit a lot of home runs recently. So he hit two just in his most recent games as we speak on Tuesday. But this was not the first time it happened. I found a clip of this happening after Jordan Homer several days ago. So I assume it started recently.

I don't know exactly when or why, but after Jordan Alvarez has hit home runs recently, he has returned to the dugout where he has kissed Martin Maldonado, Astro's catcher, on the neck. Just an affectionate peck. Tender little kiss. What were your thoughts? Tender little kiss. What were your thoughts? I just, it's delightful, Ben.

You know, I just think that like, look, there are so many ways to express affection for one's fellows, you know. And we were missing baseball guys wanting to express their affection for each other or excitement in the moment with a tender little kiss, you know? Again, we should say once more, only if they want to, you know? Yeah, but clearly they do. Clearly they do, right? Like, clearly these tender little kisses fall under the broad umbrella of everyone saying yes and having a good time, which is our standard for these sorts of things, right? And so I am exuberant now. Is part of my delight the results of me getting mentions about baseball stuff that don't involve pooping?

I mean, yeah. Like that is, for me personally, a part of it. Is part of my exuberance a home run related this and that that does not involve any props? Like, not even one prop? Yeah. Some of it is that. But the bulk of my excitement is that we are in a moment when there can be tender little kisses, you know? And I'm grateful to Yordan for that.

I've only ever heard really great stuff about Yordan. Like, you know, you talk to Astros people and they love Yordan. And not just because he hits titanic home runs. panic home runs it is funny that there would be such a uh like a you know um tender tender moment it stands in sharp contrast to the just violence yeah of the home runs because they're not they're not cheap little guys you know they're They're not. He's not one who does, like, a tiny little bloop. You know, he does season-ending, soul-destroying, contemplate-your-life kind of home runs. Like, that's his thing. And then, tender little kiss.

Yeah, it's just really sweet. You know, so nice. It's just such a nice thing that there is room. You know, you want there to be room for the spectrum of human behavior, for different modes of affection and joy. And I'm glad we have this one. You know, it's nice. It's nice. I hadn't considered that contrast because, yeah, when Jordan is hitting, he's among the most intimidating hitters in baseball. Not only is he among the best hitters in baseball, but he also just looks like he's going to wallop you up there. I know he's listed at 6'5".

That must be a misprint. He's at least seven foot three when he's standing at the plate. He grows. He swells in size. He gains several inches somehow. And so for him to then return to the dugout after walloping a pitch as he looks like

he's prepared to do, and then just plant a little peck on Martin Maldonado's neck. And on his neck, too. Not a peck on the cheek. I mean, a little peck on Martin Maldonado's neck and on his neck too. Not a peck on the cheek. Oh, yeah. I mean, a neck peck. That's like a neck can be an erogenous zone.

I'm not saying that it is in this instance. It can be quite intimate, you know. Yeah, right. It's an intimate part of the body to give a peck to, you know. Yeah, yeah. to give a peck to. Yeah, yeah. So if this were just like pecks on the cheek, like if it were a very European sort of greeting,

like for all I know, when MLB starts playing games in Paris, players will just be pecking each other on the cheek every time they come in the dugout instead of high-fiving. The only possible precedent I'm aware of is a previous Puerto Rican catcher, Ivan Rodriguez, I think was known from time to time to give his teammates a peck after a great play, kind of encouragingly. A listener sent us a picture of Uget Urbina doing that to Pudge back before Urbina's attempted murdering days. On the cheek, though, but the neck, like they just it seems like they skipped a step or two for this pioneering smooch

it's like they could have gone with something that was much more tentative and no they just went right for the neck this is like I don't think it's gonna leave a hickey or anything but still it's a very again very tender Ben very tender little

yeah well I'm glad one of your dreams No, it's a very, again, very tender Ben. Very tender little. Yeah. Well, I'm glad one of your dreams for baseball came true. This is one of those, you never know what you're going to see in any given game. You go to the ballpark, you see something new every day. Now we saw Jordan Alvarez kissing Martin Maldonado. Tender, tender little. I just, I also love that, like, you think to yourself as a pitcher, like, I throw lefty. It'll be fine. No, it will not be fine.

You're just going to get walloped and then witness a tender kiss. Is there a greater differential in offensive talent between Jordan Alvarez and Martin Maldonado? Oh, that's a very good question. Among two teammates. I'm just wondering, like, if we go by rest of season projections here. Jordan is, like, number one in projected WRC plus over the rest of the season, according to the Fangraph's depth charts. He's a 166 WRC projection, which is highest in the majors. Martin Maldonado is down at number 558 of 581 players who appear on this page

with a 68, so close to 69 projected WRC+. Yeah, that seems far. And, you know, Ben, like a low-key part of this delight is also, I failed to mention, you know who he hit his grand slam against. Oh, yes, that's right. Remind me. It was Hob Oh, yes. That's right. Remind me. It was Hobie Milner. That's right.

Hobie Milner, the man who's everywhere. He's baseball zealot. Yeah. And in a way that I wonder if, and this is why I was saying, you think you're safe as a lefty, but you're not safe, Hobie. There's no refuge for you in you know, in your handedness. There's only Grand Slams. I don't want to step on your point about the gap between Maldonado and Yordan, but I needed to briefly step on it so that we could contemplate the Hobie of it all.

No, that's okay. Because I feel like Hobie is, I wonder if Hobie is like aware of the moments that he is at the center of for the purposes of this podcast. Is his spidey sense tinkling? Weird stuff is happening to me and I don't know why. And I feel like a force is present in my life that I am powerless to stop. And it is the very strange aesthetic preferences of two baseball nerds somewhere. I actually thought you were referring to Corbin Burns, who gave up one of the two homers that Jordan hit.

Because I was going to bring up that Burns has not really looked like himself this season, which is kind of concerning. But yeah, I guess Hobie Milner was the one we snubbed initially. Because we talked about Hobie Harris and Hobie Milner, who spells Hobie a different way, but a valid way. But a Hobie way. Probably the more uncommon way. Not that any Hobie spelling is particularly common these days.

But we did make up. We did a make up Milner mention and noted that Hobie Harris is not the only Hobie in baseball these days. So, yeah, we're very pro Hobie. And nice to know that disparities in offensive performance, no obstacle to platonic love. I assume it's platonic love, but still finds a physical manifestation. So, long may they smooch. Yeah. You know, because you imagine if anyone is going to give Martino a little kiss, it's going to be one of the pitchers, right?

Because he is so— Providing run support. Well, but famously, you know, he is well-regarded by that staff, which is part of why he persists in having a regular role despite the offensive performance. But, yeah, I think it's quite nice that actually one of the smoochers would be a fellow hitter, you know, and just a little kiss. Yeah, right. Jordan is the one who's providing run support, which probably also endears him to Astros pitchers. I'm sure it endears him to everyone on the Astros.

I'm sure that they are all, and some of them might be sitting there going like, how do I ask for a little kiss? Yeah, we've talked so much about post-home run rituals this year and home run celebrations in the dugout. And this is just between two members of the team as far as I know. It's not a coordinated, orchestrated, choreographed kind of celebration. No. But it could spread, right? This could become the Aster's thing. Although, it's sort of more special if it's just the two of them, really.

So I encourage any Astro who wants to take part to do so. Anyway, this was an important moment. And another important moment, although a sadder one, I suppose, is that Michael Bauman's prediction did belatedly finally kind of come true. It belatedly finally kind of come true. Yeah. So his prediction in our preseason bold predictions pod that an animal would die on the field during a game. I think he specified that an animal would kill another animal. And I suppose that a human is an animal also. And that happened.

A human is an animal also. And that happened. So we talked about a close call, which was fatal to a bird, but did not quite satisfy the conditions of Michael's prediction the other day. Because while warming up, Zach Gallin killed a bird just to throw in the outfield with a curveball, but it was not during a game. No. And killed makes it sound as if he had intent. Yeah, no. It's not premeditated. It's not a fit of anger.

Yeah, and I realize that, you know, there are ways of killing without intent. But killing makes it sound like he was like, you know, screw that bird. Right. Which it doesn't seem like that. But it did. Yeah. It had the same effect. It was bird slaughter, basically.

Yeah, it was bird slaughter. Poor bird. And we had another instance of bird slaughter that occurred during a game. Yeah. Because Will Brennan of the Cleveland Guardians, he grounded a ball to third and it bounced off a bird. It bounced off a bird. It was just sitting there in the baseline, basically, or maybe a little in and was minding its own bird business. Bird business.

And then was struck by a ball and hopefully, like the bird that was struck by Zach Allen's curveball, knew nothing about this. Right, yeah. Everything went dark and we hope the bird didn't suffer. It was sort of unceremoniously shoveled off the field, which I guess that's how you have to handle it. And Will Brennan, he did appear to react in a rueful way in his face. In a gleeful way? Yeah, I couldn't tell.

I think it was a like, ugh, kind of way. I don't know that it was, I don't know if it was gleeful. No. I don't know if it was gleeful. No. I will say that I briefly was prepared to engage in a conspiracy theory about this, Ben. Because when you first watch the video, you know, you see the ball make its way to the outfield. And then they cut back to the infield and there's the bird.

You know, it's a dead bird on the ground, right? Yeah. And you can see people start to react. so then i was like very briefly i was like the bird was already dead you know it was a dead bird um somehow had been missed uh by the grounds crew dead bird already dead meaning who knows how it died meaning bauman gets no points right but then but then the camera pans back further to show brennan at first base and you're like oh he killed that bird you know yes yes no denying it that is the face of a man who has recently engaged in bird slaughter and um it's a dead bird you know and everyone involved is like making a face like oh it's a you know what it is it's a dead

bird that's what that's what their face says. He did tweet an apology after the game. He said, I truly am sorry at PETA and bird enthusiasts. He added PETA. He did not actually apologize to the bird or to the bird's loved ones or anything. The bird doesn't have the capacity to make his mentions weird for a couple of days. But some of those other entities you've named perhaps do. Yeah, that bird may have had a family for all we know.

And Will Brennan did not directly apologize to the bird, but did apologize to PETA and Bird Enthusiasts and said an unfortunate sacrifice. I mean, the person, you know, the person who really looks delighted by this whole thing, as I'm watching the video back again, is Gabriel Arias, who's just like got this face like, you know, he's got a face. But yeah, I like I was trying to get out ahead of the potential ramifications of his bird slaughter. Yeah. It's a funny thing because it's like on the one hand, you would think that birds on the bird app would be able to like read the tweets, but also they're birds. You know, they can't read Ben famously. They can't read.

If they're crows, they can recognize people and be very smart and collect little shiny stuff. So I don't, I'm not here to impugn birds. Birds are great. I am the daughter of two wingspan enthusiasts. Uh-huh. Well, Brennan apologized to them. Yeah, I need the wingspan people to keep doing expansions of different kinds of birds because such a reliable gift to the moms, you know, it's like, well,

here are new birds. I saw a really cool crane in my neighborhood a little while ago and I took a picture of it and sent it to my mom. Cause she likes birds. Her response, nine point bird, you know? So she's really into wingspan. Wingspan's great. Everyone should, you know, if you like birds and also games like that one's one to check out, but yeah, they keep doing expansions and you get all kinds of new birds. And it's great because, man, Ben, they let people name birds the craziest stuff. Birds have such names. So, anyway, which is worth no points. But this bird is no more. It has ceased to be. It's expired and gone to meet its maker. This is a late bird. And he made a mention, Brennan, of an unfortunate sacrifice. And I wondered whether that was an allusion to Jobu and to

Major League because the Guardians, when they were not yet named the Guardians, have invoked that before. I remember in 2016 when Jan Goms was struggling offensively, which is sort of a constant state of being if you're Jan Goms. But at that time, it was a particularly pronounced struggle. And he, quote unquote, sacrificed a chicken, not like a live sacrifice, like it was a bird that had already been killed. Not like a life sacrifice, like it was a bird that had already been killed. But he sliced into the chicken inspired by Joe Boo to try to change his fortunes. And so I wonder if the Guardians are doing something similar. I mean, things have not been going great for the Guardians. So I hope that baseball players being as superstitious as they are, that they do not adopt bird death as a means of snapping their slump because they did win that game in which the bird was killed. But, you know, I feel bad for the birds. I honestly do.

And I can't get on my high horse or my high bird here because I eat chicken, you know, so I contribute to bird death. But I do feel bad just seeing the bird die. It's like we got to clear the airspace surrounding baseball games or something. We're endangering birds. It's like, you know, you try to clear birds from around airports so that they don't get sucked into engines and bring the plane down more so for the preservation of the people on the plane. Yeah, I was going to say, I don't think they're really worried about the birds as much. But also the birds. You feel bad about the bird strikes. So when we have bird strikes on baseball fields, I guess it would be tough to ward off all birds. And this is a pretty low—

Because there's so much food, you know? Yeah, that too. And it's open air for the most part. And it's a pretty low probability event, I assume, although I'm wondering now, like, am I just extra conscious of the mortality of animals on baseball fields because of Bauman's prediction? The fact that we've had to litigate whether it counts a couple times now in the span of a week or so. And Chris Hannell did declare the person who suggested that we do that draft has ruled in favor of this counting for Bauman. And I think I agree.

I agree. But I wonder whether this is more common than I believed it to be and whether this was not actually that bold a prediction because this is sort of happening more often than I believed. And now I'm just noticing it because there's something at stake. Anyway, I feel bad for the birds we've lost. And I hope that the remaining birds stay safe out there. Yeah, I will say, and look, I don't want to speak ill of the dead, Ben. I don't think that the bird that Will Brennan killed was a nine-point bird. No, probably not.

It looked like a pigeon. I don't know that pigeons are even in wingspan. But I think at least it was not like a precious or endangered kind of bird. We don't want to, again, make light of any bird deaths. But this one does not have like broader ecological implications. And I don't know that the birds that would are near ballparks, probably not, but there's all this free food there, you know, like they're not out of, it's logical. It's a logical place for birds to hang out. How illogical are birds?

They have such tiny brains. You know, so many of them I think are probably, I mean, bird brain is an expression for a reason, you know. Yes, and tiny bird bones, as you have invoked many times on this podcast. They got all those little fragile bones, you know. And tiny bird bones, as you have invoked many times on this podcast. Tiny, they got all those little fragile bones, you know? Clearly, clearly we've seen two stark illustrations of the anatomy of birds and the lack of protection that it confers. So one would hope that other birds would take a note from this and just stay out of the infield at least. Although I guess the birds that Gallen inadvertently killed was in the outfield.

Yeah, just hanging out in the outfield. Yeah, so nowhere is totally safe. It is perhaps unsurprising that, like, smart birds, like, a crow, this wouldn't happen to a crow, Ben, you know? It just wouldn't. Probably not. Probably not. Some solace, I suppose, that this was not an endangered species. Yeah, not a special kind of bird. Although, I re-watched the 30 Rock finale recently. And in that finale, Kenneth asks in this very impassioned way, where are all the baby pigeons? Which made me stop and think because having lived in New York my whole life, I don't know that I've ever sighted a baby pigeon. And actually having done some research, I guess all the baby pigeons are just in the nest somewhere until they're no longer babies. So, you never really come across them.

So, this was not a baby pigeon, if it was a pigeon. And hopefully, it didn't have any dependents, dependent pigeons. I hope it was a loner. A loner pigeon. Yeah. Aw, well, loner pigeons deserve to not get killed by baseballs too. Oh, yeah, definitely. It's just, you know, less of an emotional fallout for the others, right? Fewer people to mourn this particular pigeon. Yeah, yeah.

I did think, though, you know, we've talked about, I think, almost every team that is start or a fast start, any team that has dramatically improved or impaired its playoff hopes thus far this season that's increased or diminished its playoff odds by 25 percentage points or more, I think we've given just about all of them airtime, right? We've certainly talked about the Rays and we've talked about the Padres and we've talked about the Rangers and the Twins and the White Sox and the Cardinals and the Mets and the Diamondbacks. We've touched on them all, the Orioles, right? And some of those teams have improved their fortunes since we talked about them and some of them not so much. We have not really talked about the Guardians who are also part of that group. And they are, as we speak, down by about 27 percentage points to

roughly a 27% chance to make the playoffs even after that win. And I don't know why we haven't talked about them other than, I guess, the fact that, A, they're not very far out of it because the Central is just so bad. The Guardians, even though they're 21 and 26, they're three and a half games back of the Twins at the top of that division and two and a half back of the second place Detroit Tigers. How about that? How about that, indeed. It's not that they've dug themselves a great hole, even though they've started slow.

And then I guess beyond that, we didn't have very high hopes for the Guardians to begin with right neither of us predicted them to make the playoffs and I don't know that we thought they were going to be bad like they were a late cut from my predicted playoff field it was sort of like Tristan McKenzie got hurt as I was making my predictions and I was like all right the timing of that for them was unfortunate. Let's go with the Twins. And then any central team, you're probably not going to pick to win a wild card, right? So, it's not that I thought they were going to be terrible, but I just didn't think they were going to be great.

And so, I'm not that surprised that they haven't been great. And also, they started last season in roughly the same way. Like, they were, I think, a game or two better than they are now through the same point last season. But they were just a bit below 500, which is more or less where they are. So we saw them right the ship and come back and catch the Twins. So that's certainly not out of the question that they could do it again this year. So that's sort of why I haven't made a point of bringing them up. And I don't know whether the same goes for you,

but it has been a deflating start to their season, certainly, because they were, if not one of the most talented teams last year, they were one of the most fun teams to follow, right? They were one of the best stories, one of the most engaging clubs, I would say, and they have not really been that this year. Yeah. I mean, they were definitely, you know, they were really young. And I think that when a really young team performs well, it's just inherently exciting because you can start to extrapolate, like, is this going to be the beginning of an exciting sort of run of

contention for this club? Not that, you know, they haven't been good in the past, but you're like, oh, look at all these fun young guys. And they had, last year they had, you know, extended Jose Ramirez. So, we weren't finally able to put the, will they trade Jose Ramirez, like, you know, concern to bed. And we didn't have to think about that as much but they had a very Guardians type of offseason right they didn't do very much to reinforce the big league club

right they signed I think their only major league deals new free agent signings they extended a couple of guys right but you know they brought in Zanino who oh my god Ben have you you know, they brought in Zanino, who, oh, my God, Ben, have you? Oh, boy. One of your faves.

Maybe the reason we haven't talked about the Guardians is because I truly cannot stand to look at Mike Zanino's situations. He did homer in the bird game, I believe. Did he really? Well, good for him. I think he did. Yeah. We're pulling for you, Mike. He sacrificed the bird to Jobu. I don't know.

He's striking. He's striking at 44.7% of the time. That's so much of the time. You know, like, it's just like a shocking, it's so much of the time. Yeah. Almost half, in fact. Anyway. Yeah. The other big addition was Josh Bell. Was Josh Bell. Yeah. The other big addition was Josh Bell. Yeah. The bigger addition in terms of money and also stature. And that was one where it was like, is Josh Bell good?

I'm not sure. And the answer so far has been like, not so much. So, you know, they tend to have quiet and sort of unassuming off seasons. They do that on purpose. quiet and sort of unassuming off seasons they do that on purpose sometimes the thing you're the most excited about with cleveland is like hey they extended a guy instead of you know trading him away and they they did that this off season right they extended andres jimenez so they were clearly saying like hey we believe in this breakout we think that it's real and jimenez's season has been sort of underwhelming so far. So like, you know, I think that they just didn't feel like a team that was like, even within the

context of a week central going, hey, we're going to really do new stuff to try to win. It felt like, hey, we're going to count on these young guys sustaining good performance and staying really healthy. And stay healthy. Yeah, that was one of the secrets. It wasn't a secret, but one of the keys to their success last year. Last year. They were really healthy. They were really healthy and really healthy, especially in contrast to the rest of their division,

which was just like decimated by injuries. And of course, them being really young and them being really healthy, likely related ideas, right? Yep. So it seemed like that was what they were counting on. We're going to stay healthy. We're going to continue to be young. And then they just have been kind of mediocre, but not in a way that's like feels particularly dramatic, even because to your point, they're still like very much in it, at least in terms of the division, even though they're below 500. still like very much in it at least in terms of the division even they're below 500 so i don't know it's just been kind of plus like i will admit that part of me is like every time you talk about the guardians like they get mad about it or at least our social media people do and i don't like to reward attention seeking behavior sometimes so maybe i'll just like wait wait it out i'm just

gonna wait it out you know if i don to. The offense has just completely cratered. It's so bad. It's really like the offense last year was not good. No. It got a lot of ink because it was different. Yeah. Right. They didn't strike out a lot.

They stole bases. It was kind of throwback. And as the sabermetric wet blankets out there would point out, like that didn't mean that they were a good offense or that was like the way to succeed. Like they had cracked the code and it was going to be the new way to win is being throwback slap hitting speedsters. Right. It was kind of like that was the personnel that they had. That was like who they developed or just which players they happen to have. And that was the game that suited their skills the best. And they maximized the production that they could get out of that kind of offense. And it was still a middling offense, which was good enough with good pitching and a good defense. But this year, oh man, like they're bringing up the rear in, well, every kind of power category, certainly. And overall, WRC Plus, 77 dead last in the majors, dead last in isolated power, dead last in home runs. They've hit 29 home runs all

season now and still not not strike it out. You know, only the Nationals have struck out less frequently and just barely. So that's still their game to some extent, but that is not enough. Like, contact alone does not a productive offense make.

And they steal bases. They're fourth in stolen bases. Yeah, but you just, you have to homer sometimes. Yeah, sometimes. You have to have some extra base hits. Yep. That's kind of the catch. So, between that and between some of the injuries and absences, and look, McKenzie will be back soon.

Yes. Right? So, that will be a big reinforcement. Yeah. Yes. available who might have been able to help but they've they've done what they could but it's just you know when a team takes a step forward like that team last year did can be tough to sustain that and they're not that far off the pace that they were on last year so they could very well ignite again like they did last year but boy that offense has been rough like it goes from fun to not fun quite fast i think with the same sort of offensive template.

If you're not hitting for any power and just not producing runs, it's not cute and fun and unusual anymore. It is unusual, but not in a good way. So maybe we will confer some of our effectively wild vitality restoring powers on them if the bird death doesn't. So one other follow up. We talked about Madison Bumgarner when he got DFA'd and then released by the Diamondbacks. That was weeks ago. That was late April. And no team has picked him up thus far. I sort of figured he might be in line

for a little Dallas Keuchel Tour of the League reclamation project, kind of other teams thinking that they could revive him and giving him a shot. And that hasn't happened yet. For all I know, he may have had offers that he wasn't interested in,

but haven't heard a ton of rumors about widespread interest in Madison Baumgartner. he may have had offers that he wasn't interested in, but haven't heard a ton of rumors about widespread interest in Madison Baumgartner. And maybe that has something to do with the kind of personality and clubhouse baggage Madison Baumgartner brings in addition to the subpar pitching of late. But there is a really interesting story about that by Zach Buchanan of The Athletic, interesting story about that by Zach Buchanan of The Athletic. And he kind of covered what went wrong and how things went south, not just in Bumgarner's performance, which I think is fairly obvious if you just look at the stuff, but also the fractured relationship between Bumgarner and the Diamondbacks. And Bumgarner declined to comment or didn't respond to a request for comment.

So we didn't explicitly get his side of the story in this piece. But you hear a lot from Diamondback's coaches and anonymous sources and people talking about the splintered relationship there. And from most accounts, at least, it sounds like Bumgarner kind of fell into the classic pitfall of an aging pitcher who loses some stuff and is unwilling or unable to change his conception of who he is as a pitcher and to make the adjustment, which a lot of pitchers have done with great success. You know, if they lose a tick or two or three off their fastball and they say, OK, I can't get by pitching the way that I did. I've got to develop a new pitch or I've got to pitch in different locations or I've got to come up with some other new tricks to get hitters out because I can't just blow the ball by them anymore.

And it certainly sounds like Madison Wilmgarner just has not been able to make that mental adjustment. There are some other voices in the story that say that maybe some fault lies with the Diamondbacks coaches or front office and that some of their disparagement of Bumgarner may have gotten back to him and soured that relationship, or maybe they just didn't do as good a job as they could have of inducing those changes in him. But it sounds like for a period of years, he was not talking to Dan Heron, former pitcher and podcast guest, who's the Diamondbacks pitching strategist and does their scouting reports. And Bumgarner made kind of an oblique comment that was clearly about the quality of those scouting reports.

And then they met and confronted each other over that and just ceased to communicate thereafter. And so everyone else on the Divebacks was getting these scouting reports and Bumgarner just wasn't. And they tried various things to get him to do things differently and nothing worked. And maybe it couldn't have been salvaged anyway.

But it does kind of tell you perhaps why no team has signed him yet if this was kind of the wrap on him. There are also some quotes in there, some sentences about how he was liked by other players. He was missed in the clubhouse. But also, it does kind of take two to tango when it comes to making adjustments and player development. So if he has not flipped that switch in his head that says, I'm not the fire-breathing Bumgarner of my peak, the postseason hero Bumgarner. I'm late-career Bumgarner who has to get by in different ways. If he has that and cannot make that adjustment, then I guess that would dissuade other teams from taking a chance. Yeah, I can't imagine that this is, and I don't say this to knock Zach's piece,

which is very good and people should read it, but I can't imagine that people who work in front offices weren't aware of this sort of um maybe i don't want to call it like a mental block because that maybe pathologizes it in a way that i don't mean to but i'm sure that other teams are aware that this is the sort of attitude he's bringing in the exact notes in the piece like there were concerns about that signing prior to him yeah being inflexible right like i remember when it happened we were all like really that much in those many years right for him because there's just so much there was so much wear on the arm and the velocity was already dipping. And it felt like it was obvious that, you know, absent some real reconfiguration of his arsenal and change in approach that he was going to struggle to maintain something like this, the performance

he had shown in San Francisco. So yeah, it makes sense. It isn't surprising to me that he would still be well-liked by some of his teammates, right? Like, it's clear that his stubbornness, even though it did not aid his performance, seems like it was in service of trying to be, like, the guy he was. It's not like he was indifferent to what was going on and like didn't care he just didn't for whatever reason have the ability to either action their advice or or get out of his own way but you know guys who want to win i'm sure endure themselves to to teammates even if they're gruff shall we say yeah also i guess you could say that if he wanted to win, he would have made some changes so that he would pitch better. But this sort of stubbornness, on the one hand, it's not surprising because it's Madison Bumgarner. What we know of Madison Bumgarner, this all sort of rings true or unsurprising. He's old school. He's a throwback. He's a red ass. You can see that on the field at times in often sort of

unseemly ways. And you just don't encounter this attitude that much or hear about this that much anymore. This would have been pretty common a decade or two ago. But now, now that so many players came up in an era that was so information rich and have also seen their teammates and their opponents benefit from it, even if they haven't personally, there's just a lot less reluctance to input from front offices. And front offices and coaching staffs have gotten better at conveying that information, too. too. And so rarely do you see a team and a player at loggerheads like this and just sort of a stubbornness or a failure to communicate. So that's maybe just a reflection of who Madison Pumgarner is, who he's kind of always been, which maybe served him well when he had the stuff to compete and not so much now. But it's one of those things where I could see why if they were coming to him when he was still at the top of his game and saying, hey, Madison, tweak this and change that, why

he'd be reluctant to do so and maybe even offended to be asked to do so. But it's one of those cases where it's like the hitters will tell you, right, as they say, whether you need to do something different. And the hitters have told him pretty emphatically, I would say. He's not been fooling anyone of late. So you would think that at that point, instead of just being obsessed with trying to get your velocity back, which is something that we've heard, say, Noah Sindergaard say at times, you know, it sounds like he's been kind of reluctant maybe to embrace his post tommy john and yeah getting a little older less of a flame throwing thor and more of a i can get by with

other ways of getting guys out bum garner just cannot seem to make that change so maybe he's happy to as i think i said before just literally probably ride off into the sunset and call it a career here rather than compromise the way he wants to pitch. Or maybe he'll read this article or maybe he'll just hear crickets from teams not expressing interest in him or expressing tepid interest and get the message. And, hey, if I want to keep pitching i'm gonna have to compromise and and meet teams halfway here make more of an effort but at least with the diamond backs that didn't happen seemingly yeah and i i think the part of this that is the most um probably um damning for bum garner is like you would think if anyone was going to be able to go to a guy like bum garner and like make

headway it would be strong right because he's like yeah right meld and you know his xp notes this like that he is this i think for uh players productive blend of old school and new school um and he has a a track record of success that I think would probably resonate with people and might put someone who is skeptical of scouting reports and analytics and what have you sort of at ease, like, hey, I've done this

and it has worked to great effect. And yet, even in that pairing, they could not find their way to something productive. So, yeah. But, you know, I am increasingly of this mind where it's like, if you are able to just like collect your money and you're like not convinced that you're going to rally back to something that resembles what you did before, maybe, I don't know, maybe you're content to be done, but he is a competitive guy. So I don't know. I don't know what that really looks like, but it's going to be hard to convince someone or rather convince another team like, yeah, go for it. This is going to be great and productive when there has not been this.

Well, maybe Mason Saunders will take up the lasso again and go back to the rodeo. Remember his secret alias for the rodeo? Yeah. Mason Saunders. You know, one way to not have to worry about which side of the rubber you're standing on? Yeah. Is to go ride some bulls. Right, yeah.

If he's not pitching anymore, then no contracts banning him from engaging in risky rodeo activities. So I forget, though, that he's only 33 years old. Like, I'm thinking of him as old man Madison here. He's 33. Like, Rich Hill is almost a decade older than Madison Bovegarner. And we've spoken to Rich Hill and he's quite open-minded when it comes to information and everything. So it's not just your age and when you came up, it's also just the way you're wired. And Madison Bumgarner certainly seems to be wired in a particular way, but maybe he'll be happier doing the things that Madison Bumgarner would do when he doesn't have to worry about baseball. Well i you know i have sympathy for the bind right because on some level the fact that it would almost take an outsized bit of confidence to survive the gauntlet of the minor leagues and then to persist in the majors and to be a guy who can go out there and do the stuff that we demand of professional baseball players. Like on some level,

you need a reserve of ego to be able to do this stuff. And I can see how that might dip into an unproductive sort of manifestation of that ego because you're like, well, but I had to, unproductive sort of manifestation of that ego because you're like, well, but I had to, I had to have like a, I got it. Like I'm the guy attitude for years in order to do this. And now you're telling me that the way I managed to compete the career that I mustered in part because of that, like, kind of perspective isn't productive anymore. I imagine that it would be tricky, you know, especially as you age, like we don't even like new music. So imagine having to like throw from a different part of the mount. Like it'd be. Yeah, it's true. I try to remain open to new experiences, at least musically. I don't want to get too set in my ways. A lot of good

new music out there, but also probably old genres, I guess, for me. New music, new bands, new artists, but sort of in genres that I probably liked for a long time. So is it really new? I don't know. Is that the equivalent of changing my pitch mix or is it basically the same? Who could say? Well, I mean, isn't every fastball special in its own way, you know? Well, not Madison Bob Garter's lately, but yes. On the subject of old school versus new school disputes, I don't know whether you have stopped by our Facebook group recently, but there was a thread. It was a repost. Basically, it was an image of something Baseball Reference publicized this past week, which was that Mike Trout passed Pedro Martinez and Ken Griffey Jr. on the all-time war leaderboard.

on the all-time war leaderboard. So Sam Miller used to track Mike Trout's ascent up the war leaderboard, and he would have pieces every time Trout passed someone every month. And I have not been following this as closely since Sam has not been following as closely or as publicly. And I did not see this until I saw this thread. And it has been moths to a flame. People just swarming the Effectively Wild Facebook group who were not already members or participants to take part in this thread, which now has hundreds and hundreds of comments. And some of them are what you'd expect. Some of them are just kind of backlash to war and war wasn't good for.

No one's made that joke before. Some of it is interesting discussion, I think, and revisiting players, perhaps from our youths, whose numbers we've not looked at in a while. But it's interesting because Trout, when he passed Pedro and Ken Griffith Jr., he climbed to 56th all time in war with 84. This is the baseball reference implementation of war. And I guess Mike Trout has had a few sub-replacement level days because I think he has now fallen back below Pedro and Griffey. But I'm sure he will rise above them again sometime soon. And maybe we can set Pedro aside because it's to some extent apples and oranges, pitchers and position players, although that's one of the things that war is good

for is comparing players who are not playing the same position, right? And being able to put them on sort of the same scale. But the Griffey-Trout comparison in particular has really provoked some people to come out with the pitchforks and talk about how Griffey is underrated and how war is nonsense, et cetera, et cetera. And obviously, I think we're convinced that there's utility to war. Yeah. It would be really funny if I was like, no, it's garbage, actually. That would be quite a – I've reconsidered the whole thing. Yeah.

I've actually thought a lot about it, and I think it's stupid. That would be quite a headline. You'd get quite an episode title out of that one. Yeah, and I've had a few reactions to seeing this. The first is just the usual, wow, Mike Trout is great, more so than dumping on Griffey. It's just, wow, isn't Trout wonderful, right? And I understand why people who are not super familiar with war might see this and say, what the heck? Mike Trout, Ken Griffey Jr.

Like, Ken Griffey Jr., if you want to define greatness in some other way than just pure on-field production and stats. If we're talking about just how iconic you are or how famous you are, then sure, I think Griffey exceeds Trout. It's just similar players in the sense that, you know, they're both great hitters and centerfielders and play on the West Coast largely, but also very different in other ways sure that you know there's kind of this uh conception that trout is made for war and war is made for trout in that maybe trout's production doesn't jump off the screen in quite the same way that griffey's did just because griffey you know like he had a a way of carrying himself and just like whether it was the backwards cap or whether it was the iconic stance and swing, right? Like he called attention to himself in a way that maybe Trout doesn't or it takes a careful and prolonged study to recognize the greatness of Trout more so than a single swing or a single play perhaps.

of Trout more so than a single swing or a single play, perhaps. But I think that while that's true and that Trout is kind of the perfect avatar for war and war is the perfect way to illustrate Trout's greatness, at least when he was younger and he was this great all-around player and he did everything so well that it was hard to capture his productivity with any one stat except for war, which is just everything he did tossed into the stew together. I also think, though, that maybe the fact that Trout is so associated with war almost does him a disservice in terms of the traditional stats because, like, you don't even really need war to make the case that Griffey and Trout are sort of similar. Yeah. I don't think you even need this new age stat that didn't really exist, at least in that form when Ken Griffey Jr. was playing to make a case that, hey, Mike Trout totally stacks up to Griffey, right?

And it's not like Trout has doubled Griffey's war or something. Like, he just passed him. And really, that could also be construed as a compliment to Griffey because, like, Griffey didn't have a second half of his career, basically. Right? Like, Griffey was almost done as a healthy, uber-productive player when he was Trout's age, basically. So, it's not even saying that trout has been way way way better than griffey it's basically saying that like they were sort of similar to the same age and then griffey did not continue to rack up the numbers after that age and hopefully

trout will as a fan of trout i hope he does stay healthy and stay productive and continue to compile war but it's not like he he's head and shoulders above him through the same point in his career necessarily right so I don't think it has to be denigrating Griffey as much it is just lauding Trout yeah I I mean like if for no other reason than he hasn't played the first 10 years of his career playing on what is essentially like painted concrete in the kingdom, like, despite Trout's injury issues, I am optimistic that the, at least the decline in his production as he progresses through his 30s is going to be gentler than it was for Griffey. One would hope. Yeah. He's had his own durability issues lately, of course, too. But, you know, I think that we should really appreciate just how bad playing surface that was in Seattle for the first 10 years of Griffey's career. But, you know, after that first year in Cincy, things declined pretty appreciably. He had a

couple of blips here and there, but, like, it wasn't anything like what he had done in the early part of his career. But I guess, Ben, the part of me that is just, like, more flummoxed by this debate than anything else is, like, he's a Hall of Famer. Who cares? Like, is anyone out here saying, like, well, Griffey actually wasn't very good. Who's saying that? No one's saying that. Like, people aren't saying that. more telling than the stats that you became accustomed to, or there's an element of being threatened by this. I don't understand it. Why is this trying to topple my understanding of great players? And also, I think it's just that Griffey is just like an outsized figure in the game and on the national landscape, because that was an earlier era, right? It was, I think, easier for a baseball player to be a national celebrity even then, you know, 20, 30 years ago than it is now.

And Trout is just like, look, he's quiet and he's not the greatest quote and he doesn't ever record any controversy and he just goes about his business and you know you could call him boring or you could say he's a good wholesome role model or whatever it is but he's he's he's a machine i mean i know he's not nicknamed the machine that was pool holes that was other players but but he is machine like in just how steadily great he is. And yeah, Griffey, after his age 31 season, his first season in Cincinnati, or I guess that was his second season in Cincinnati, he was like six war from then to the end of his career.

And he played until he was 40, right? And almost all of that production came in that one bounce back year of 2005 when he was so like he still had talent but he just couldn't stay on the field and then eventually the the talent eroded too yeah but they're just like so many more highlights i guess that you can conjure in your mind for griffey than for trout that i understand why some people might say really mike trout like if they haven't looked at these advanced numbers then Then again, Trout has won three MVP awards.

Griffey only won one. They both should have won more. And of course, Trout hasn't gotten to play in the playoffs except for that one very brief time. Not that Griffey got to play a lot in the playoffs either, but he did have that one excellent postseason in 95, right? So there was that, but he never won a World Series either. So there's some similarities there.

I do think, though, that the fact that we focus so much on war and that war makes such a great case for Trout, we kind of default to that. And maybe that puts some people off who are not in the advanced stats tent. that puts some people off who are not in the advanced stats tent. But if you wanted to do some outreach and just say, hey, I'll use whatever stats you want me to use here, and I can make a pretty good case. If you just say, I don't know, if we said the first 6,000 or so plate appearances of their career, which Griffey, for instance, from 89 through 98,

that was 5,982 plate appearances. Trout, 2011 through 2022, that was 6,159 plate appearances, including his 135 in his debut year when he wasn't really Trout yet. Just look at the numbers over that span. Kind of coincidentally, they have the same number of home runs, 350 exactly, over those seasons. If you compare Trout through age 30 with Griffey through age 30, then Griffey has him by a significant number of plate appearances, so also a significant number of home runs. So also a significant number of home runs. But if you do this and kind of keep the playing time almost constant, 6,000-ish plate appearances for each guy, exactly the same number of homers. Griffey's career slash line through 98 was 300, 379, 568, which is great, but that's a 150 OPS plus. Now, if people are going to be put off by OPS and OPS plus, then you might have to stick to the slash stats. But even if you stick to the slash stats, that's 300, 379, 568 for Trout over that span, 303, 415, 587. And Trout's not playing in a great offensive park or anything

and I think even people who are maybe more old school would probably acknowledge that Griffey was playing in a higher offense era. They might give him extra credit because he's not known to have taken PDs and many of the players that he was competing

against were and so you could say that he might deserve some extra boost if you believe him to have been clean. And I suppose that's fair. But also, it's hard to calculate that kind of thing. We can calculate just, you know, the league offensive environment. And there was it was just a higher scoring era for much of that period. Not all of it, but much of it than it was for much of the period that we're talking about with Trout. So just purely hitting, he's a good deal better than Griffey. He walks a lot more, you know, he's a more patient, selective hitter and still does those other things really well that Griffey did. Now, Griffey has a defensive edge which is why it's it's closer than it would be otherwise right so trout has the better raw offensive stats and also was the better and i think more prolific base dealer yeah but griffey better fielder right so i mean he won whatever nine gold gloves or whatever it was so that maybe maybe makes him sound even better than he was. He may have continued to win those after he was past his peak as a center fielder.

But as a young center fielder, he was. Yeah, he was really good. Can confirm. Yeah. And Trout, he certainly had his years. He had his moments. I wouldn't say he was ever as good as Griffey at his peak, other than perhaps his rookie season. Trout was really good and the numbers reflect that,

but not as much of a defensive standout. And so it's like, it's kind of close if you just look at the years I mentioned. It's, you know, it's almost neck and neck, I guess. It's like 89 again through 98 for Griffey. He's at 65.8 baseball reference war. And if you do Trout 2011 through 2022, Trout's at 82.4, which is a fairly large gap. If you just do through age 30 or through the same age, then it's even closer. It's just like several wins worth maybe because Griffey had significantly more playing time. But look, Trout on a rate basis has been better than Griffey was to the same point. But they were both all-time greats through that point.

They were both all-time greats through that point. So I think you could make the case for Trout without even resorting to one number and saying war argument over, even though that's a fairly compelling level on a career level for me at least. But again, we're not talking about so many wins above replacement that the precision of the stat is such that like they're not in the same you know stratosphere like right they are yeah i i just yeah this is like two camps that have that have like decided to argue with the wind every every it doesn't this feels so unnecessary it feels so unnecessary to like be worked up about this because again no one is sitting here saying like you know what the thing is about griffey secretly he actually sucked no one who's saying that no one is saying that you're making up a guy to fight with you're making up a guy and i think that it's perfectly fine for for folks to when they are assessing sort of the

impact of griffey's career to look to to all of the things that aren't just the production on the field and ascribe some value to them. I think that that's perfectly reasonable to do because he was important to the sport in a way that is undeniable and I think particularly impressive given the market that he played in, right? So it's fine. You should definitely count that stuff. That stuff is so cool. Like it is a thing I think about fairly often. I have been a fan of a team that at the team level in terms of its impact in the history of the sport,

pretty minor, right? Like there's, you know, there's the number of wins in 2001, but like it never even been to a World Series, right? Let alone 1-1. And then I think about like two of the most important baseball players of our lifetime happened to play for that team. Right. That's wild, Ben. What a weird thing to be able to say, right? That both Griffey and Ichiro were Mariners for the part of their careers that anybody really cares about. And sometimes sort of the same, you know, Trout and Otani, how is this team not better than it is?

Oh, yeah, totally. Right. And so I think that we can just like marvel at all of that stuff. But maybe the biggest takeaway from this conversation is, to your point, like, I just think that if you're using war as the end of a conversation, you're using it wrong. Like, I think it is a good stat. And I think that it informing the way that we understand who is good and who isn't like worthwhile fine but we should use that as an entry point to a conversation about the kinds of players that we get to watch and the different ways that we have to appreciate them rather than having it be like well so screw you we're done now you know like that's that's not productive that isn't tender ben it's not tender you know we're here to try to make baseball just a little more tender you know man would have been fun if each row had come to mlp just a few years earlier and and he had played with pete griffey

that that would have been really cool that would have you know, I don't want to say that they for sure would have done the thing, but I feel like their odds would have been better. Controversial take. Wow. Meg's out here just like really going out on very thin limbs. Yeah. Speaking of odds, that's one more thing I wanted to ask you because the A's have continued to lose at a historic and near unprecedented pace. And so everyone is writing, has been writing really all year just how bad are the A's and will they be one of the worst teams of all time. And as they have continued to be terrible, those articles have proliferated.

And the stats, the projections, the sabermetricians are still sort of pumping the brakes on this will be the worst team ever. Because that's almost the role of sabermetricians. Just to be like, hey, the extremes will probably get a little less extreme as we go on with the larger sample. And so various figures have projected, various sabermetric luminaries have projected or predicted that the A's will certainly not be good, but will return to the realm of— Like an understandable kind of bad, you know, like a comprehensible, a familiar sort of terrible. Yeah, right. I was going to say the realm of respectability, but that would be too far. That's not the project. But the realm of conceivable badness.

Yeah. And Tom Tango, he posted at his blog and he found, you know, he's developed this kind of rule of thumb, handy dandy way to establish the true talent level of sports teams. And for baseball, you just add 35 wins and 35 losses to a team's current record, and then you convert that to a win percentage, and that's it. And that kind of gives you a very simplistic way to project where they end up, which actually tends to be fairly accurate. So he looked for teams since 1950 and teams that started horribly and averaged 11.8 wins in 48 games. And if you do his handy dandy 35 and 35 trick, then you end up with a final one loss record of 54 and 101. And he found that the actual final win loss record of those teams was 54 and one and one 101. So it works. It has worked historically. So you have Tango saying,

yeah, you know, you'd think that they would probably get 50 or 50-something wins. Bill James was asked the same thing. Someone asking him, you know, is this even a major league team? And he said, it's a major league team. I predict they'll win 50 or more games.

And then Dan Saborski wrote about this for Fangraphs and projected the odds of the A's catching or surpassing, if you can call it that, the standard, at least for modern era badness of baseball teams, the 62 expansion Mets. And he found that the odds of that are quite low. And the Zips projected win total for the A's when he posted this was 53 and 109 at the end of the season. That was, I guess, before their most recent blowout loss. So all these, the consensus is sort of, okay, they're going to end up with 50 or 54 wins-ish on the season.

That's sort of what the smart money would say. That's what past precedent would say. Do you believe it, having seen this team be trounced all season long? look at that baseball reference run differential chart and the red spikes below the baseline and say, yeah, this team will be like those other terrible teams. And we'll look up at the end of the season and they'll somehow have 50 wins and they will have played over the full season like a replacement level team or better a replacement level team being approximately 48 wins in true talent. So are the A's better than replacement level? Can you buy that in a visceral way? No, no. It's hard, right? It's hard, especially because part of it for me is that there are all of the losses, you know, and it feels like an overwhelming number of them so early in the season. But part of what is the most disconcerting about this A's team are the wins that they've had,

actually, because Ben, so they have famously only won 10 games, right? Four of those have been walk-offs. Two of those walk-offs have come in extra innings. And one of their other wins is an extra innings win. Yeah. They're seven and eight in one-run games, which for them is incredible. And so even the wins feel tenuous. They feel fragile, you know? It's not like they are out here really doing it, you know? They're not doing it very well. They're doing it pretty poorly. And the other thing is, like, they have so few wins by, like, a number of runs, you know? Like, you just cited their win loss record in one run games.

Okay. So like, you know, seven of the, of the 10 Ben, that feels like, um, there should be more, you know, they haven't had like their, their biggest margin of victory, I think, has been four runs this year. It feels like we spend a lot of time talking about the losses, and we should, because 39, this early still, just a quarter of the way, feels like so many. It's just so many, you know? So I get it. But I think that we should talk about how dubious some of these wins are. And I feel it feels fundamentally like cruel for me to do that. It feels ungenerous because there have been so few and sort of scrutinize them and then say, eh, that one barely counted. It feels like being a real jerk. But also, oh boy, it's pretty bad. It's pretty bad over there. And as Dan acknowledged, one factor that zips and projection systems are not taking into

account is that the A's could get worse in the sense that they could subtract from this roster. Oh, they're probably not a lot worse because they are so bad that like, what, you know, what subtraction? they've already stripped mine the roster basically which is why they're in the situation right there's not a lot of room there are very few players who were not nailed down who would be desirable to other teams and and if this were any other franchise yeah i would say that a team would hold on to its players even though it would nominally be a seller at the

trade deadline a team that's divesting itself of talent that in order to avoid the ignominy of being one of the worst teams of all time that they might hang on to the few guys that they have left no they don't be no but it's the ace yeah i don't think that that's the – I mean, I think you're right that like anyone who is remotely good will probably find their way out of Oakland by the end of the season. Yeah, because if the A's were interested in saving face or putting a competitive product out there, then they would not be in this situation anyway. then they would not be in this situation anyway. Now, you know, do they want to avoid the sting of being the worst team ever since the Cleveland Spiders in 1899? Maybe. But I don't know whether that is going to motivate them more than saving a few million

more or just improving their odds of getting the heck out of town, which, by the way, I don't even know how that's looking for them these days. But really, I guess, yeah, beyond that, like, I guess you could say that probably almost every team that started out in a similarly terrible fashion also would have been likely to trade away players over the course of the season. Yeah. So maybe all of those teams would have been in that same boat. And also like when you're this bad and they're already doing it, just sort of cycling through players because when a player proves that he can't perform at this level, then you bring in someone new. Right. And that someone new isn't going to be a great option because it's like the player that you opted not to have instead of the first guy. Yeah. But you might stumble on someone good almost by accident. Or like it's going to get better, hopefully, probably, even though I guess you're moving down the depth chart. But yeah, if they actually continue to subtract from the roster, maybe not.

But yeah, like it's not like they've been unlucky. If anything, as you said, like the distribution of wins, the wins are kind of fluky. Fluky field. And I guess the other case you could make for why the A's are unlike those other terrible teams that finished with 50-something wins is

that they've been blown out in almost every game. Oh yeah, they're getting rocked. They've been outscored by 177 runs through 49 games. Yeah, they're just getting rocked. That's on pace. Maybe it's ridiculous to do it on pace for this,

but they're on pace to be outscored by 585 runs over the course of the season, which is like 200 more than the modern record, and it's not even modern, really. So they're just being so thoroughly outplayed yeah that you could sort of separate them from the other terrible teams that were losing a lot but at least kind of keeping it close and and say that this terrible team is not like those other terrible yeah man it's just so grim because i went to the leaderboard. I was like, okay, let's think about who's going to get traded. I guess the thing that they have to be, I mean, maybe this serves them right,

although you don't want anyone's career to be a tale. You don't want it to be a parable for a front office. That's a terrible thing to wish on a player. But it's like they have to be so furious in the owner's suite that like you know jesus aguilar has been bad and aledmas diaz has been bad and tony kemp has been bad you know it's like the guys who are marginally more expensive have been bad wow nick allen has a free one wrc plus jesus christ um but like okay you look at the top of their uh leaderboard and i said i said the minimum here like 30 plate appearances just to cast a big old wide net so you know but it's like well i guess they they probably have to hold on to ryan

nota right like that's complicated for Rule 5 reasons, maybe. They're not going to trade Ruiz because then they can't even remotely justify the Sean Murphy of it all. So I guess, like, if you're Brent Rooker, congratulations. You're going to find your way to another team. But, like, what team is going to look at 173 plate appearances of Brent Rooker? Now, of course, they're not going to trade for him right now. Probably they're going to trade for him at the deadline,

and then who knows what this looks like. But are you looking at Brent Rooker and being like, yeah, let's give up meaningful prospect capital for that guy? Probably not. Even if he keeps hitting the way that he is, you're just not going to do that, really. And, like, Carlos Perez? do that really and like carlos perez like okay jj bladet is like hitting well in 57 big league plate appearances but it's jj bladet so that seems like it'll probably course correct in a

not great way and then you have a bunch of guys who are like got a lot of like 95 wrc pluses you got a lot of wrc pluses in the low 80s you you know, and then it's like Nick Allen and Kevin Smith and Tony, Tony Kemp. That bums me out because I really like Tony Kemp. Me too. Yeah. It's, it's bad. It's really bad. It's so bad.

Like, it's just so bad. And then you're like, surely that's as bad as it can go. And then you look at the binging and you're like wow it's so bad yeah it's really distressing how many of the position players show up on this leaderboard generally i i believe in the larger sample and regression to the mean and dead cat bounces and dead bird bounces and past precedents being some guide to future performance in many cases. But gosh, yeah, you watch this team and it's hard not to take the under on what the stats and the projections would say.

And it's like, you know, I feel bad for our country, but this is tremendous content. It's not even tremendous content, though. No, it's definitely not tremendous for baseball, just the reason that they're bad. Yeah. I will say that it is content that compels me. It's not tremendous because I feel guilty for rubbernecking, basically, at the A's. And I feel bad for A's fans because of everything else that's going on with them off the field. Totally. Just as we were recording, I saw the latest story.

Oakland A's state leaders reach tentative public financing deal in Nevada. Legislative approval still needed. Right. There's always some other hurdle. You know the hurdle that is the legislature actually like doing the thing? Yeah, it's funny how that is a persistent hurdle in this project. But it's strangely compelling in the sense that if the A's were just run-of-the-mill lousy, if they were on pace to win 50 games, we probably wouldn't be talking about them right now. Like, as it is, I look up A's scores every day.

It's like it's one of the first things I check, you know, like when I'm looking at box scores, I check to see like, hey, did the A's win a game? And almost always the answer is no. And almost always the answer is they didn't even come close. So the fact that they are this bad, I don't want to say it's tremendous content, but it's some kind of compelling content. Like outliers and extremes are always eye-catching, even if you kind of feel bad about it and feel sympathy for A's fans for just everything that they're going through. It is, in a sense, like more interesting that they are this terrible than if they were just kind of generically terrible. I just I guess I wish that it were for a different reason.

It makes it a lot less interesting that they have actively tried to be bad. But even with their active trying to be bad, I think they've gotten more bad than they bargained for and more bad than I bargained for. I thought they'd be really bad. I didn't think they'd be this bad because I've never seen a team get knocked around like this. This is, it hasn't happened in my lifetime. Yeah. I think a couple of things. First, I think that one of our takeaways from this conversation should be that the Los Angeles Angels are a gateway drug to harder stuff. Because if you are seeking out the A's, Ben, if you are looking for the results. I'm not watching the A's. I'm not tuning in. I know, but this feels like a direct result of you having voluntarily consumed bad baseball. And it's an affliction I sympathize with because I did that with the Mariners for years.

So, you know. So that's one takeaway. I mean, I think that there is an argument, a perverse one, granted, but an argument to be made that in some ways the A's are the most successful franchise in baseball right now if we define success by having a clear plan for one season and executing it right maybe you're right that this is a low that they are shocked they've been able to unlock but this was very much the plan right you know this it's not like they stumbled sideways into one of the worst teams ever like they were like what if we built one of the worst teams ever and then like were like, what if we built one of the worst teams ever? And then like systematically alienated our fan base with it.

So I don't want it to be a model that other teams replicate, but in, yeah, and you don't got to hand it to them, but you also do have to acknowledge like things are going to plan in Oakland. Well, I mean, maybe not with the being able

to leave Oakland part, but you know, otherwise. And I think that it raises a really important question, which is like, is there a bottom through which a team can fall where the league finally says, okay, look, I know we want to get the stadium thing resolved and it is standing in the way of expansion, but you are embarrassing in a way that undermines the broader quality of the product. Like, can you imagine, Ben, being the owner of a team trying to win and looking at this? I'd be furious. I would be so mad because it's like they are successful, but they're also being successful in a way that is comparatively easy, you know, successful, quote unquote. I'm doing big air quotes. I'm making a stinky face while I do it. I'm not saying this is good.

We are committed to the idea that this is bad, but it is just, if you're one of the owners of a good team, do you call the commissioner and say, Rob, like at some point, what are we doing here? You know, what is the purpose of this except to extort municipalities? So maybe you're actually thrilled. I don't know. Right. Yeah. It's just money ball, the art of losing an unfair game. I guess we need a rebrand at this point. So there are a couple of controversies in progress that we're developing stories and now seemingly have reached some sort of resolution.

And if you're one of our listeners who prefers not having any social issues mixed with their sports, which seems to be a difficult surgery to do. I would say hello to you back in 2004. What's it like back there? To find a way to do that, then I suppose you can tune out now. Back in 2004. What's it like back there? suspension and an internal review that was prompted by his saying a slur on the air. And I'm sure people are aware of which slur it was or can intuit it based on the fact that it came when he was talking about the Negro Leagues. And there have been, I think, three main responses to this story in order of how charitable the interpretation is. So, most charitable

interpretation to least charitable interpretation of what Glenn Kuyper said on the air. One, it was unfortunate, but a totally innocent mistake, unintentional mistake, and therefore, he should be forgiven and get to keep his job. That's one strain of the response that I've seen quite common. Another is that it was unfortunate and a totally innocent and unintentional mistake that nonetheless is grounds for his firing because it could be harmful to hear that word for whatever reason, regardless of the intent, and thus saying that slur is unacceptable, whatever the mitigating, extenuating circumstances. And, hey, he's a professional communicator, and it's his job not to accidentally say slurs. So it's a one-strike-and-you're-out policy when it comes to that particular word on the air.

word on the air. Third common response I've seen, and this is the least charitable or I guess maybe the least charitable interpretation that still seems plausible perhaps, is that he didn't intend to say it that way, but the fact that it came out that way could be an indication that this is something that he does say off the air. And so he unconsciously showed his true colors and it just sort of slipped out and people have said, oh, it came out too seamlessly and smoothly and naturally for this to have been an accident. I guess there could be an even less charitable interpretation, which is that he meant to do this, which I don't know, like he thought he could get away with it somehow if he was praising the Negro Leagues Museum. That seems like a reach to me. So where are you, I guess, when it comes to one, two, and three here? Because it's kind of complicated because they all

require you to some extent to try to look inside his heart and figure out his motivations, which no one can do. Right. And each of these courses, whether he loses his job, which he ended up doing or keeps his job, you have to make some sort of assumption, I guess, maybe for the middle one, which is just like it doesn't matter what his intentions were. It came out that way. And so he's got to go. But even then, you're probably making that interpretation that he didn't mean to or that it wasn't a symptom of some underlying attitude. Right. So it's hard not to watch it and wonder, and I guess, you know, based on your familiarity with him or your life experiences or how it sounded to you, and it seems to sound different to a multitude of people,

you come to a different conclusion about what he was trying to say or why it came out that way. Oh, boy. So, how many qualifiers can I put in front of my answer? So, yeah, I don't know that it is particularly productive for me to try to, like, gaze into the heart of a man. I don't know. I think a couple of things. I think that it is possible, perhaps likely, that it was a catastrophic brain fart on his part i do think that like it is weird we well i want to add a qualifier to what i'm about to say congrats us we've never had that brain fart to be very clear but like we we misspeak on the pod in far more innocuous ways. And our listeners know if we let them, you know, because we have the benefit of editing and post-production. Thank you, Shane. And so people misspeak that happens. I can only express how I would react to that if it were a brain fart I was having, which would be to say, oh my God, I am so sorry. Like that word is so ugly and hateful. It should, you shouldn't have had to hear it today. I'm so

sorry you did. And that I'm the reason, like, I, I just like the, the, like the lack of quickness there is kind of weird to me, but I don't know, like maybe it was the kind of thing where he got off air and he's like, did I just say, It's really weird that Dallas Braden had like no reaction to it on air. Like the whole thing is just so strange. Yeah. And Braden said their voices in his ear and he's not listening that closely. That's believable, I think. So like I think that, you know, is it possible that this was just like a really, really unfortunate, catastrophic brain fart? Sure.

Do I think that it's fine on some level for like there to be a line that once you cross as a person whose job it is to be articulate on air, like you're kind of done? Yeah. Is this that line? I mean, like, I think it's, it wouldn't strike me as a completely unreasonable one. The fact that this was coupled with an internal review and then that resulted in his firing. I don't know what the content of that review is. I wonder how much it informed the decision to part ways. It sounds like it played at least some role. And so I don't want to speak to what that investigation yielded because I don't know. But it sounds like whatever it yielded played some part in them deciding that he wasn't going to broadcast on their air anymore. Now, should we

sit and like always trust employers in the, in the way that they like do these things? I mean, probably not, but I also think that it sounds like there was a process here. And the result of that was that they decided like they're done with this guy. So I don't know, like, I don't have a, I don't have an attachment to that booth. And so, you know, I had not really thought about Glenn Kuyper until this happens, right? I have no relationship with him. I have no preexisting impression of his personality or who he is as a person. Right. So does does it did it feel like when you listen to it does it feel like it had say the venom that like the reds like brenneman thing did no i didn't think so it doesn't yeah but again like this man is a professional broadcaster that

word doesn't have a place in polite society and so i think if you're going to draw a line, like you said this word, it was, you know, it wasn't like it was a hot mic. Like it would still not be appropriate for him to say that word, to be clear. But like, you know, it wasn't like he had a hot mic. The broadcast had moved away. He misspoke and then was like, ah, crap. Like, what the hell was that? You know? With Brenneman, it felt like you were getting a window into who he was.

Yes. He said it when he did not know he was on the air. I feel much more comfortable with my ability to assess the heart of the man based on that moment compared to this. But like your job is to be articulate on air. And that's a pretty, you know, it's not like he did a swear that they got caught. Like that word is, you know, it's gnarly and so i i don't know i don't know what the future will hold for him i wouldn't be surprised if he ended up having greater success returning to a booth than say brenneman did but but also like we have this big unknown

which is that there was an investigation and we don't know what the content of that was. So, I don't know, man. It's, ugh. Yeah, the report, there was an AP report that said a person familiar with the investigation said the decision was based on a variety of factors, including information uncovered in the internal review. the internal review. And that's tough because it's an anonymous source and we don't know what the information was, but it is one indication that there was some other motivation there. There was another report by Matthew Keyes that said that, again, according to some anonymous source, that there were questionable emails that violated NBC Universal's employee code of conduct. Again, doesn't say what was questionable about the emails or whether it was related to this

incident or anything along those lines. So it's very vague, but that's the unknown or that's one of the unknowns that gives you pause and makes you more hesitant to be like, you know, this guy deserves a second chance because we don't know what came out in that investigation. I don't know what's in his heart. But I also, like I said, like there's a spectrum of like hot mic words and that one is at one end. It is, yeah. And it is very far away from the like ha-ha end of the spectrum.

So, I don't know. Yeah. The first time I heard it, I saw this clip circulating and I had to listen a few times to confirm that that was the time that we were talking about because you can listen to it in such a way that it sounds like he's just saying the word quickly and maybe there's some dialect going on there and he just rushed over the word because like again the context you know he's talking about having visited the negro leagues museum and he's talking about what a wonderful experience it was and everything it would be a strange time to drop that word either intentionally or to just have that slip out because of some underlying attitude when you just spent the day touring this museum. And now you're praising it on the air, which you didn't have to do.

Presumably, he took that upon himself to do. And Bob Kendrick of the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum, you know, spoke out sort of in support of him and said, you know, he would understand forgiveness and even wish forgiveness, right? And Dave Stewart spoke out in support of him too. So it seemed initially like he might weather this. And if he had, and if they had said, he's not going to do that again, and he's done whatever training you have to do not to do that,

I wouldn't have said, this is an outrage. This guy has got to go. So again, it's pending whatever happened, whatever was turned up and whether that really played a role here. And it was NBC Sports California's decision, not the A's, because I know some people were like, oh, it's just the A's wanting to cut money or something. And I don't know. You know, it's not the team directly that's doing this. I don't know whether the team had any input.

Mark Kotze sort of distanced the team from the decision and sort of said he felt for Kuyper kind of. So there was another clip that was going around. I don't know whether you saw, but it was a clip of Kuyper talking about the Negro Leagues in 2020 and sort of saying it the same way once or twice back then. And some people, I think, took that as confirmation of like, yeah, he like he meant to do this. Whereas I sort of saw that as that's just the way he says it. Like he just has a weird, unfortunate way of saying that word. And either he doesn't know or no one told him or what like, hey, you got to take some care when you're when you're saying that word. And again, is that because of my experience that I'm more inclined to interpret it that way and that the word has not been directed to me?

Maybe, you know, I don't know. So I don't know what I have learned, if anything, about Glenn Kuyper personally. But yeah, you can't say the word. So his initial apology was mealy-mouthed and kind of awkward. It was like later in that game. And he didn't exactly say what he was apologizing for and sort of was like, if that came out wrong or, you know, that kind of thing. It's like, no, it definitely did. That's why we're here.

Yeah. I guess I understand the difficulty in that, like, you don't want to say it again. No, definitely not. And also, you don't want to say it again. No, definitely not. And also, you don't want to say what I meant to say, and here's what I said. Right. And if it was truly unintentional and you maybe didn't even realize that it sounded like that at the time, then you don't want to apologize in such a way that it sounds like you're apologizing for saying it intentionally. Right. So, I guess I understand why you would be careful about how you phrase that.

And then, you know, he came out subsequently with a more full-throated apology and has but there are a lot of good broadcasters out there and right does he deserve the second chance when someone else hasn't gotten a first chance who never did this on a hot mic right so it's kind of like hey you're you're allowed to live in the world but that doesn't mean that you're necessarily entitled to one of these jobs so I do separate it from the Brenneman incident, even though a lot of people were kind of lumping it together and doing the Castellanos meme. But, you know, it's...

Yeah, the part of it that we can, I think, assess in terms of what's available to us publicly puts it in a different light than the Brenneman thing. But you're right, There's this big unknown and it's not really my place to be like, yeah, the assessment of forgiveness being appropriate or not is like good or bad. Like that's not, that word's never been directed at me in a hateful way. So I'm not really in the position to do that, but it does feel like there's information we don't have here. And again, like I think if your standard is you're a broadcaster, you can't say that word on air.

Doesn't it feel like something that would have been corrected by someone at some point? Even if you're nervous about correcting on-air talent, don't you just say, hey, we really need to clarify this situation like as soon as humanly possible. Yeah, right. That would be a good note from the producer. Yeah. So anyway, he put out a longer statement and it was, you know, largely fine, I think, although it had a couple of the hallmarks of these statements that I'm always like, yeah, I don't like that, that genre of trying to apologize. Like parsing apologies can be tiresome. But when you do the, like, I'm a respectful husband and father thing,

it's like, it doesn't matter, really. Yeah, that's not relevant to the question at hand. No, like, you know, it's meant to sort of engender sympathy, and maybe it does. Maybe it humanizes the person. It's like, oh, this person has a family, right? But it's also like a lot of racists have families right a lot of racists are husbands and fathers like yeah all that really means is one person in the world liked you right like they might doesn't and they might share some

of your your yeah right your terrible views yeah yeah and and then like the please no racism is in no way a part of me it never has been it never will be sometimes they do like the please no racism is in no way a part of me. It never has been and never will be. Sometimes they do like the there's not a racist bone in my body kind of thing, which is like, you know, knowing what we know about like implicit bias and all of that. It's like you don't have to go that far. I mean, I guess you want to establish that this is not your actual heartfelt belief. But he also said he would never utter a disparaging word about anybody, which, wow, that's quite a claim. I can buy that you're not someone who uses that word on purpose, but you don't have to convince me you're some sort of saint.

Yeah, I get that. And I'm sure that lawyers get involved with these at some point. And there's PR people in crisis management. I don't know who, if know, who, if anyone helped him craft his statement here, but you know, it does make me think that like, I think that these would go better if they were just sometimes off the cuff and genuine, like, oh crap. Like, what did I just do? I'm so sorry. Like that, that was a terrible, like brain fart slip of the tongue.

That word is ugly and awful. I'm so sorry. said it. Like, I think people would be more inclined to move on, you know, if you just like take your lumps, say you're sorry, and then, you know, people are going to make, are going to be satisfied they find it satisfactory, but it would at least feel more genuine, you know, and less, I get it. I get wanting to be careful and exacting because the whole reason you're apologizing is because you weren't careful and exacting. Right, yeah. But, you know, there's something about them that always does feel rehearsed even when they hit like the right notes. So, I don't know. It's a tricky, you know, it's a tricky thing. like the right notes. So I don't know. It's a tricky, you know, it's a tricky thing. I do have sympathy for, for having to like be on air for so long every day. And like the, you know, you're going to make mistakes and say goofy things, but this is different than that. Right. It's a, it's

not. So I get it too. Every time I've been on live TV, I've had the fleeting thought like, what if I just screwed up and said something like career killing right now somehow, you know, like just like completely unintentional accident or just like, I don't know, like I black out and some uncontrollable like self-sabotaging impulse takes over. It's like the third rail is within reach, you know? It's like you could end your career with just like one statement right now and never happened. But there is that feeling of like, gosh, they're just putting a mic in front of me right now. I mean, I guess we all have social media at our fingertips at all times. So if we wanted to just withdraw from polite society, I guess that option is always available to you at any time. But yeah, there have been times when I've misspoken on the podcast. I remember sort of a silly one not that long ago was I was saying jazz chism. And then I said like jazz chism. And I was like, did I just say jazz chism? Did I say

jazz chism? For the rest of the podcast, I was like, did I say jazz chism? Do was like did i just say jazz jism did i say jazz jism for the rest of the podcast i was like did i say jazz jism do i need to re-record that i don't remember whether i re-recorded and those were the moments where you messaged shane you're like hey i need you to listen back to this part like did i just say did that sound like uh yeah that may have been before shane's time i'm sure he'd let me know if I said that. Oh, yeah. Dylan got his fair share of like, hey, I need to listen back to this part and tell me if I said a weird thing. Yes. And the second thing that now has reached some resolution is that the Dodgers stepped in it with their Pride Night. They really did. They disinvited the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence from their 10th annual Pride Night, based largely or entirely, it seems, on protests from Catholic and conservative leaders. Including Marco Rubio.

Yes. Famously not a resident of the state of California. No, not even close. And then there was a backlash to the backlash, understandably so. And other organizations decided that they were not going to attend unless the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence were reinstated. And it just became just an enormous story across baseball, really, and people condemning the Dodgers, you know, a small but vocal group condemning the Dodgers for their initial invitation, and then a seemingly much larger group, including many of the

participants in Pride Night, condemning the Dodgers for having caved to that pressure. And ultimately, they went back on their disinvitation and issued a re-invitation. So now the sisters have accepted their apology and have agreed to appear. And all is back on track. And it seems to have been a learning experience for some involved in this. Hopefully, the sisters said that they took it that way, that the apology was sincere and they accepted the explanation. But it was several days of the Dodgers looking fairly spineless, and that wrong

seemingly has been rectified. Yeah, and hopefully it'll be the first step in them thinking more carefully about this stuff. I mean, the folks who were miffed about this organization being included, which has done work for decades and advocated on behalf of people with AIDS and HIV, I think if you were to ask them, and they would probably tell you because people are just saying stuff out loud in public now, they'd probably say there shouldn't be a Pride Night at all. So why are you placating them? You're never going to satisfy those folks until you cancel the event because they fundamentally don't think that that community should be able to live life in public as themselves. So don't try to satisfy them because you're never going to do it

until you're actively trying to exclude that part of your fan base. So screw them. Like, what are you doing? You're never going to be extreme enough, conservative enough, exclusionary enough for people who fundamentally don't want to include people. So don't try to satisfy them. Work with the organizations that are doing good work in your community and build your fan base around that stuff. who occasionally require you to say in public, no, you suck. These people get to be here. We've invited them for a reason, right? And if you are going to have a Pride night and you want people to believe

that that's about something more than just making money on the back of gay people, then you actually have to have a spine about it. And if all you're there to do is sell hats, well, then, you know, you're going to make that clear too. So you have to pick a lane. Sorry. Yeah. And this is a playbook. It's a play that's been run before in this kind of culture war, grievance, culture battle, right? And there were calls and letters, et cetera, battle, right? And there were calls and letters, et cetera, bombarding not just the Dodgers, but also MLB and Rob Manfred, right? Which seems to have been a part of this, that these people with these groups and the Catholic League and so forth were writing to Rob Manfred specifically

and registering their objections and that perhaps MLB put some pressure on the Dodgers or the Dodgers were feeling pressure. Unfortunately, it becomes kind of one side's pressure versus the other side's pressure, right? I guess it's not so much following your own moral compass. Hopefully that's part of it, but it's also just kind of like, well, we made this decision. Uh-oh, But it's also just kind of like, well, we made this decision. Uh-oh, all these people got mad at us. And okay, we'll give them what they want. Uh-oh, a lot of other people got mad at us, including other people who whatever it is. You know, hopefully it wasn't just that ultimately there were more of the latter than the former, that the Dodgers kind of realized that they were making a mistake and came to their senses here, more so than just appeasing one group over another. But who knows?

Anyway, I guess the sisters took it that way. But the whole thing just could have been avoided quite easily. Because as you said, the people who were just registering these objections were not people who had any interest or stake in this event. And if anything, given their track records, probably would have opposed it in principle. Yeah. So don't listen to those people. Why are we doing, what are we doing? Yeah. I think the other thing that kind of gets lost in these conversations, and I think we talked about this

a bit with the Rays kerfuffle last season, like you have a fan base that you want to build, you know, a welcoming environment for hopefully these issues just on their own, independent of how they manifest in the ballpark matter to you. But a lot of people work for the Dodgers and I'll bet some of them are gay. So like you, you're sending messages to a lot of constituencies. And I think that you should have a spine around that and say, no, like this is the kind of workplace and ballpark environment we want to build. And it's one that isn't going to cater to reactionaries. So sorry. And if you sell a couple fewer tickets, then okay, like that should, that should be a small price that you're willing to pay to sort of be on the right side of this stuff.

And I think particularly when we can see how the legislative winds are blowing across this country, like this is a moment where it's important to make that stand on behalf of communities that are directly in sort of the line of fire on this stuff. So stop helping Marco Rubio launch an unsuccessful presidential campaign. Like, Marco, this isn't your business. Get out of here. The Dodgers, one of their senior vice presidents, Eric Braverman, is gay and was one of the people who sort of spearheaded the Pride Night to begin with. And so this was, I think, somewhat personal to

him. I don't know how this decision ended up being made, but according to the LA Times, there were a lot of disconcerted Dodgers employees responding to this decision. Yeah, I'm sure that they got a lot of, and their statement hints at that, right? That there was internal feedback that I'm sure was quite candid and pretty harsh. All right. The pass blast today comes to us from David Lewis, an architectural historian and baseball researcher based in Boston. It also comes from 2010. David writes, gadgets steal the show at the winter meetings. In 2010, baseball's winter meetings were held in Orlando, Florida. According to a December 11th, 2010 New York Times article, while executives and owners made deals and voted on rules changes, teams of innovators showed off new technologically advanced baseball products at an annual trade show. One such product was

the Pocket Radar, a radar gun the size of an iPhone that reportedly caught the eye of a few team executives. Another hit was the Bypass Lane, a smartphone application that would allow fans to order food from their seats and pick it up when it was ready, avoiding long lines. Another product, Stadium VIP, offered a similar service with the addition of delivery straight to fans' seats. Anything related to the baseball or stadium experience could be found at the show, from pitching machines, ATMs, and souvenirs to fireworks vendors. ATMs, and souvenirs to fireworks vendors. One could even get an entire stadium at the show as architectural firm Populous was on site offering their design services for several million dollars. As summarized by New York Times reporter David Waldstein, for all the money spent on players during the winter meetings, it might have been possible to spend more at the trade show. That is an annual tradition. In my limited winter meetings experience, I have enjoyed browsing the trade show and admiring the many gadgets on display there.

And I guess one thing that you could order if you're the Mets is lasagna because apparently the Mets have a huge lasagna contingent. This seems very much up your alley. The new Mets, the young Mets, the Mets who have arrived and have led to a little renaissance of late for the Mets, they're big lasagna fans. So they're alive. I guess that's part of it. But there was a game postponed

due to rain, and Francisco Alvarez texted other Mets rookies Brent Beatty and Mark Vientos and invited them over for lasagna. Alvarez cooked them a family recipe, which he says is more Venezuelan than Italian. Cool. But noodles, ground beef, ham, cheese, and a white sauce.

So Mets, not beef boys, but someone in the Discord group suggested lasagna lads. I like that. Lasagna lads. It is funny because, you know, some of the original beef boys are probably also lasagna lads. Because you got Joey Gallen, you got Anthony Rizzo. Those are some lasagna lads, if ever I, a fellow Italian, could say so. All right. After we recorded, Mike Trout homered, which might not only vault him back above Ken Griffey Jr. on the baseball reference career war leaderboard, but also moved him into a tie for career home runs with another iconic center fielder, Joe DiMaggio.

Also, Will Brennan of the Guardians hit a home run. And as he rounded the bases, he made a flapping motion with his arms in honor, I suppose, of the dearly departed bird. Again, I hope the bird sacrifice doesn't catch on, because if you've hit like Will Brennan in The Guardians, you might be desperate. So is that going to be a signature move now? You know, you got to pay tribute to a fallen hero like that. So that's, I don't know, a little spur of the moment thing. The Guardians did lose again to the White Sox, scoring only two runs. The A's also scored two runs and they lost to the Mariners, although this was a one-run

loss, they didn't get blown out. But they are now 10-40, which is the worst 50-game start since the 1932 Red Sox also started 10-40. That Sox team ended up winning 43 games in a 154-game season. For what it's worth, though, the latest, latest report is that the A's have reached a tentative stadium funding deal with Nevada lawmakers. You can reach a more-than-tentative, a confirmed funding deal with Effectively Wild by supporting the podcast on Patreon. You just gotta go to patreon.com slash effectivelywild and sign up to pledge some monthly or yearly amount to help keep the podcast going. Help us stay almost ad free and get yourself access to some perks. The following

five listeners have already done so. Chris Hannes, Rob Deal, Scott Kogan, Devon Brannon, and Penelope Maddy. Thanks to all of you. Patreon perks include access to the Effectively Wild Discord group for patrons only, as well as monthly bonus episodes, playoff live streams, discounts on ad-free Fangraphs memberships and merch, and so much more, patreon.com slash effectivelywild. If you do support us on Patreon, you can message us through the Patreon site, and you can, of course, email us at podcast at fangraphs.com. You can rate, review, and subscribe to Effectively Wild on iTunes and Spotify and other podcast platforms. You can join our Facebook group at facebook.com slash group slash effectivelywild. You can follow Effectively Wild on iTunes and Spotify and other podcast platforms. You can join our Facebook group at facebook.com slash group slash Effectively Wild. You can follow Effectively Wild on Twitter

at EWPod, and you can find the Effectively Wild subreddit at r slash Effectively Wild. Thanks to Shane McKeon for his editing and production assistance. We'll be back with another episode soon. Talk to you then. It's effectively wild and it's wildly effective At putting baseball into perfect perspective Impressively smart and impeccably styled It's the wildly effective, effectively wild Spin, rain, or long shingle Bad, bad, bad, or warm You might hear something you've never heard before