Effectively Wild: A FanGraphs Baseball Podcast - Effectively Wild Episode 2034: Strand Rate

Episode Date: July 19, 2023

Ben Lindbergh and Meg Rowley banter about Christian Encarnacion-Strand and whether record compound names deserve an asterisk, the appeal of a Legends Home Run Derby, the origins of (and long-ago backlash to) the trade deadline, the greatness of NPB phenom Roki Sasaki, and the new balance of power among pitch types, then (1:03:41) answer listener […]

Baseball is a simulation, it's all just one big math equation You're all about these stats we've compiled, cause you're listening to Effectively Wild With Ben Lindberg and Meg Rowley, come for the ball, banter's free Ball banter's free. Baseball is a simulation. It's all just one big conversation. Effectively Wild. Hello and welcome to episode 2034 of Effectively Wild, a baseball podcast from Fangraphs presented by our Patreon supporters. I'm Ben Lindberg of The Ringer, joined by Meg Raleigh of Fangraphs.

Hello, Meg. Hello. Meg, I think we've got to get something straight about Christian Encarnacion-Strant, who is the latest Reds rookie and prospect to debut. Congrats to him. Reds, even more exciting than they were before. But a lot of articles came out about his record-setting name, right? His record-setting surname and his record-setting complete name.

Either way, it is the longest name in Major League history, right? So 27 characters, if you include the hyphen, as Major League Baseball did, then that surpasses Simeon Woods Richardson, who debuted with a 22 character name and obviously surpasses him. Whether or not you include the first name, it's also true for surnames. In that case, I guess it's 17 characters to Woods Richardson's 15. But I think we do need different categories for compound last names, right? Because it's just a different thing. I mean, yes, it's a very long name.

And technically, I mean, that's his name. He gets credit. I guess we could dispute the hyphen. But fine. Okay. But he's playing in a different league here. Right. I mean, this is I hate to be the asterisk person or to rain on everyone's parade. But like we got to have some qualifiers here. We have to have some standards here because. Right. Yeah. Like, it's not that we are denying that one is a name and one isn't. Although, you'll be unsurprised to learn that I'm, like, with you. I don't think hyphen should count.

You know, like, I just have a skeptical. I'm like, you know. Yeah. And Carnassian Strands, he has a hyphen. Woods Richardson does not have a hyphen. So that artificially inflates his lead. I guess that's not the separator because he's got multiple characters over Woods Richardson. So he wins either way, but still.

And I suppose it does take up real estate on the jersey. So if we're thinking about it in terms of what is the longest name that we are putting on a jersey, Like you do have to account for the hyphen and maybe it takes up a little more real estate than a simple gap between the lettering would, right? The other bummer about this, though, is that Encarnacion Strand has gone with just Encarnacion on the back of the jersey, which I don't blame him for. If my last name were Encarnacion Strand, I might go with one of those names too, just because it would be a spectacle, right? Everywhere he went, people would be gawking at the Encarnacion Strand, which would be fun for us. I mean, half the fun, more than half the fun of the long name is seeing it squeezed onto the jersey, right? And the Reds, maybe last year,

quite some time ago, mocked up what that would look like. And so I've seen that circulating. And if you had the full Encarnacion strand, it's like a rainbow. I mean, it's longer than a rainbow. It extends down below the actual jersey number. But sadly, we've been deprived of that. And it's just another Encarnacion, which is not nearly as fun. I don't blame him, but that sapped some of the fun of it for me. I have two thoughts about this. The first is that I wonder if there are rules about it that we are ignorant to. I guess my second is that like, as a person who watches college baseball, I know that you only do when forced, but you know, one of my big beefs with college baseball uniforms, and I have a lot of thoughts on college baseball uniforms. You're sitting there thinking,

Meg has a lot of thoughts on, on big league uniforms. And let me tell you, ain't nothing, the cupboard is bare relative to my, my takes on college uniforms, but they, they will often use just like teeny tiny, Ben, teeny tiny little, little print. You know, they use it sometimes I'm like, why is so small? Why is it so tiny? It could be bigger and easier to read. And I wonder if in service of fitting the entirety of one's last name on a Jersey jersey if they wouldn't just allow for smaller lettering. Because the thing of it is, you know, there aren't so many long names that if they were to just make it smaller, so it's a little harder to read. You'd fill it in, right? Your brain does that. Like,

this is part of why sometimes I miss a typo or two in a piece because your brain is so smart. You know, your brain is able to say, I can discern what this means, even if, you know, some of the letters are out of order or, you know, you had pitches twice in a Michael Bauman piece and it was supposed to be a pitcher and then you had to fix it after the fact, just like to pick a recent example. So we'd be able to tell what it is because not only are there not a lot of very long names generally, but on any given team, not a lot of very long names. So I feel like they could make it work if they wanted to. But it's such a fascinating little bit of business that these guys get up to because set aside the very long names, which obviously present their own challenges to the seamstresses. What's the, seamstresses isn't gender neutral, is it? What's the gender neutral jersey application technician? That sounds terrible. Taylor. Taylor. Taylor is gender neutral.

There you go. I think a slightly different project in terms of what you're doing, maybe. Sound off in the comments. But anyway, have I talked my way into losing my train of thought? Like who could even speculate about such a thing? Oh, I've found it again. Picked it back up. I am fascinated not only by the decisions of the very long named, but of all of the juniors and seconds and thirds, because here's a common bit of copy correction that I make. When you're referring to say Ronald Acuna Jr., you don't have to call him Acuna Jr. on second, third, fourth reference, right? You can just say Acuna. The time that you include the junior or senior or second or third or whatever is if you are, say you were writing a piece comparing the career of Vladimir Guerrero with his son,

Vladimir Guerrero Jr., then you might include the junior to differentiate in text for the reader, which Guerrero, which Vladimir you're referring to, right? But you don't have to do it if it's only the one, right? You can just say Griffey. You don't have to say Griffey Jr. The same, I would imagine, applies to jerseys. And yeah, some juniors, they want the junior on the jersey. Even though they could just be Witt or Acuna or Robert. You know, you don't need the junior necessarily. But you're obviously, you're wanting to invoke your family and your lineage with the decision.

So it's just, you know, they're active choices being made. And I feel like they give us a little hint to a person, you know, underneath the jersey, which is nice because, you know, we don't know them. So it's nice when we get a little sense. So it's nice when we get a little sense. Michael Schur on the podcast recently made a motion that we should rechristen Ronald Acuna Jr. Acuna Jr., which I wholeheartedly support. I don't know how he'd feel about that, but I really like Acuna Jr. We want to invoke the way that a particular person would say his name in that, you know, Acuna Jr. I don't even know.

I don't even know that. I mean, mostly I think people should, we should do what they want, you know. Yeah. If they have a preference, we should endeavor to both in terms of spelling, name presentation, and pronunciation. Probably shouldn't force Christian and Carnassian Strand to display the whole last name proudly for our entertainment. But it would be fun if he did because we have seen, you know, we've seen Strange Gordon and Crow Armstrong. I mean, there have been some players with the compound last names that are quite long that have gone with the full thing proudly displayed. And that's been fun for all of us. I think that we should open our minds to viewing a top and bottom part of the number situation, right?

So we could have incronation and then strand beneath the number so that like his number is like the yolk of an egg, you know, and the names are cradling it tenderly. You know, we could just think it'd be be less stuffy in service of having a guy's name as he wants it only. You know, we could, I just think it'd be, be less stuffy in service of having a guy's name as he wants it on there. But if his preference is just that it's one versus the other, then, then that's fine too. This is why I know some, I have some friends who, as they've had children and they've hyphenated their children's names, have insisted on their last name being the first name in the hyphenation because they know that the second name is going to get lopped off in some circumstances. And my girlfriends have been like, I did the work in producing this baby. And so,

I get it, but also my name gets to go first. And that seems like as sound a logic as any, when you're picking an arbitrary order for things. That does seem fair. Anyway, I'm picking up a mantle here that was, well, I guess it hasn't really been dropped because he continues to carry it. But Paul Lucas at UniWatch has also made this point. When Woods Richardson came up, he noted Woods Richardson has 15 letters. That's one more than Jared Saltalamaki has 14 letters, which up until now has been the undisputed longest surname in MLB history.

But Woods Richardson is clearly in a different category because his surname is really two names, while Salty achieved his prodigious letter count with a single name. Obviously, we're going to be seeing more and more lengthy names on the back as players with compound surnames reach the pro ranks. I have nothing against compound surnames, but I think their letter count should be assessed differently than the non-compound variety. And he repeated that call and plea when Christian Encarnacion Strand was called up. So I'm throwing my support behind him here. We need to make some kind of differentiation because MLB.com had a list of the longest full names in Ridge League history. And you had Christian Encarnacion Strand, 27 characters, including the hyphen at the top, and then Samin Woods-Richardson, and then Luis

Alexander Basabe. And then Christian Bethencourt is the first two-name guy. This is, again, full names, not single names. And then you have some De Los Santoses and Salt La Macchia and William Van Landingham, which is Van Landingham, but it's without a space between the Van and the Landingham. So I guess it's one. And Theodore Breitenstein. So there some ties there for 20 characters when it comes to just two names being the longest full name. So yeah, I think we just need to differentiate and we can put him at the top of one leaderboard and we can still have Salta Lamacchia at the top of his own leaderboard or I guess Christian Bethencourt for that matter, tied with some other players if we're going with the full name. So that's all.

I don't want to take away from the fun of Christian and Canassian strands. I'm just saying we need some differentiation here. This will be anarchy if we just have the compound names taking over the longest names leaderboard. Yeah. Again, different weight classes. So it's fine. You know, you just want like to like on some of these things. Yep. So here's a proposal that Jason Stark advanced.

Has nothing to do with long names, but wanted to take your temperature on this too. He proposes a legends home run derby that would take place during all-star week. And this was prompted by Ken Griffey Jr. doing some good natured trash talking, right? Saying essentially I could do that. You know, he was interviewed on MLB network and he said he could do it. He was talking to Albert Pujols. Pujols asked him, so are we going to see you in the home run derby tonight? Griffey said, if you do it, I'll do it. Pujols said, let's do it. He was kind of kidding, but maybe not really.

Right. And there was a story that went around when Griffey was the hitting coach for Team USA during the WBC. And there were stories about how he was just raining bombs in batting practice, right? And Mookie Betts told him, I bet you couldn't go deep in 10 swings. And Griffey said, you would lose that bet. And they brought him his bat. And there's video of him taking BP back in May. And he was hitting bombs.

And he kind of looked like his old self, that sweet swing, so recognizable still. And Griffey came up also on MLB Network when someone said that Pete Alonso was going for his third derby, which would tie Griffey for the most ever. And Griffey said, if I got a year to prepare for next year when it's just me and Pete. It's like Rocky and Apollo ring the bell in an empty cage. Ding, ding. Let's go. And some other players have said that they would take part if Griffey goes in. Jim Tomei said that if Griffey's going to do it, he would jump in there, too.

Pujols said he would do it, too. David Ortiz said if they're in, then he's in, right? So Stark is advocating for this being an event, a Legends Home Run Derby. And we would maybe make some concessions to age and go back to the old derby rules

or even the TV Home Run Derby rules and have like teams or innings or at least just like a number of outs instead of the rapid fire, as many swings as you can take right now, which is tough even for the younger guys. So, you know, we would have it structured a little bit differently in recognition of their age and eminence. But it would be these old guys going back out there and swinging for the fences. It would be these old guys going back out there and swinging for the fences. And Stark's into this.

And Levi Weaver echoed him at the Athletic Newsletter and said, yes, please give me this. Give me Barry Bonds. Give me A-Rod. Give me Palmeiro. Give me McGuire versus Sosa again. If the All-Star Game is in Texas, give me Adrian Beltre out there and A-Rod too, right? So people are kind of fantasy casting the Legends Home Run Derby. Are you into this?

Would you want to see this? Are you as excited by this as some people are? Okay. So I have two thoughts about this. My first thought is that, like, yeah, of course I would be, Ben. Of course. Of course. And I think that the format could be massaged in a way that would alleviate my secondary concern. My second point, as long as everyone agrees that it's not serious, I think, I think it would be great fun.

And I think you're right that, you know, depending on the all-star venue, we have the potential to manufacture some, some great old matchups, rivalries, and it would feel, it would feel lively and fun. Now, do I know for a fact that it would appeal equally to Zoomers

as it does to us? I mean, no, I don't know that. I don't know. You know, will it mean something to younger fans to see Griffey take his hacks? I don't know. Will it mean something to them to see Barry Bonds take his hacks? Ben, I don't know.

You know what? I don't know. But it would be fun for me. And it's fine for there to be art that's geared toward me sometimes. You know, like, it's fine. Now, do I have some concerns? Yeah. I do.

Because here's the thing about it. I have no doubt that there are players from that era of the game who can still launch it. I know that there are. Are our expectations of that derby such that we would feel death coming for us when they can't replicate the numbers that, you know, forget, forget Pete and Julio that like the first round of the Derby Vlad put up. I mean, yeah. Like, do I want to be made to feel like a column of dust while watching All-Star for festivities? I don't know depends on the day and my level of self-loathing so i think that we would want to think very carefully about the

format um and that we would all at every turn ask are we setting both these hitters and ourselves up for success and if the answer to that is no, then we need a different format, right? Because again, like you look at a lot of these guys, you know, this is one of my takeaways from all-star stuff and just from, you know, big industry, Bacchanals all together where you're like, wow, you still really look like a baseball player.

And not all of them, but a lot of them, you're like, wow, that's impressive. And impressive and you know some of them are like maturing into like dad strength right so even if they're not what they were can they still hit like a batting practice home run i mean yeah yeah ben of course they can can they hit as many as like Julio did? I submit no. I submit no, they cannot. And that's fine. Like that's not a failure. The fact that they are still able to do it at all is like wildly impressive. But we have, you know, we have come to regard the Home Run Derby as doing a particular kind of thing.

And I think with those expectations operating in the background, we might sit there and go, I am as old as Muthuzula. And that's not fun in the middle of July. You know, that's not what we're there for. So we'd want to construct a particular format. Maybe we could have like, I like the idea of teams. Maybe it's like stars of today with stars of yesterday. And so you could kind of like juice the totals a little bit. Sure.

You know, we compare guys together. Like I think that there is a version of it that could be just a real laugh riot. So fun. Everyone's having a great time. And there is a version of it that inspires people to like go to therapy for the first time in their lives. And you want to avoid that second thing um and again i don't want to i don't want to make it sound like i don't think that that there are guys including griffey who are capable of just like going bop bop bop and everyone go wow i think

that's that's a real thing but you would want to um maybe like there could be a very quiet off the record kept away from from everyone sort of like audition. And then we know like, hey, these are guys who are still kind of in batting practice, home run form. And again, because it's all pretend and doesn't matter, I think it's fine to juice it a little bit. You know, that's okay. You could do like a, they would not go for this, but you could do like a heroes and villains

bracket. Like there's all kinds of stuff you could do that would be super fun, right? Like put Bonds and A-Rod on one side. The steroid guys versus the quote unquote clean players. Clean guys, yeah. Like, are we able to laugh about it now? Is it too soon? Probably not, but maybe, I don't know.

You know, so I think that there's a version of it that soon? Probably not, but maybe, I don't know. You know, so I think that there's a version of it that could be really cool, but also, yeah, there's like a version of it where I sit there quietly staring into the middle distance for a while. So, you know, you want to make sure that you're, you are, like I said, setting everyone up for success, both the participants and the viewers. And it would be, you know, not that we have to like artificially inject nostalgia into a game that is just like tripping over itself to hug nostalgia. Can you trip over and hug? Who knows? But like, I do think that one way to counter my concern that younger viewers would be like, well, we know who these guys are, but this doesn't feel for us the way it does for, you know, millennial and boomer

baseball fans who are, you know, have active living memories of watching these guys play. It would be a cool opportunity to like, you know, sort of talk about recent past and um and help to situate these guys and their accomplishments for a new generation of fans who don't have like i said living memory of watching them play so i think that there's a lot about it that's cool and then there's like existentialism as an underbelly that you would have to decide how much you want to engage with you know you don't want to sit there and be like, yeah, I'm thinking of Jean-Paul Sartre while I'm watching The Runder. Be like, that's not a name you want associated with Midsommar activity.

Yeah, no, don't want to be reminded of the slog to rigor mortis. It's supposed to be the distraction from that. But yes, that is my concern, that it sounds better in theory than it would appear in practice. And when Stark is making the case, he's talking about fire up your baseball memory bank and dream on this cast of iconic characters and it gives you goosebumps. And that's all true. But yes, when they're actually out there, I don't know whether the reality would clash with your memories in a way that would be

troubling or disappointing or sad. You're right, though. I think these guys wouldn't want to embarrass themselves, right? So hopefully they have some sense of have they kept themselves in shape? Do they still have the power? Can they go yard, right? And it's not hard for them to figure that out before the main event, right? I mean, they can go to a cage.

They can take some BP. Someone can throw to them and they I mean, they can go to a cage, they can take some BP, someone can throw to them and they can see whether they can still hit the ball out before they're actually out there on the main stage. And obviously, if they had some time to prepare, then that would help. Like you look at Ken Griffey Jr. and the swing, that's the thing. When baseball players perform baseball actions and activities, often you can see the echo of their younger selves there. Like the swing still sort of looks like the swing. And Ken Griffey Jr., it's tough when one of your nicknames is the kid and you're no longer a kid. You're 53 years old, right?

And he's not as lithe as he used to be, let's say. He's not as lithe as he used to be, let's say, but could he? That could change, I guess, if he dedicates himself to training for this derby and wants to reclaim his crown. But also, yeah, he could just take some swings. He doesn't even have to do the home run trot, right? So all he has to do is retain that power. But if you get guys getting hurt and pulling muscles, if you have just warning track power, and sometimes young players in their prime will have power outages in the derby, it happens, right? But if it happens to one of these legends, then it would just be

sort of sad and we would be thinking about what they used to look like and play like and now they don't anymore. And also if you had some player who was like a Izzy Mandelbaum from Seinfeld type and just doesn't recognize their limitations, right? And athletes, professional athletes, a lot of times there's some self-delusion that's going on there and they have to pump themselves up and be super confident. And some people don't accept their aging gracefully and they rage against the dying of the light and they hold on to what they used to be capable of doing. And so if there are some players who don't realize that they have slipped physically and if they haven't been tested, right? I mean, if you go from retirement to never playing, then unless you're really humbled before you retire, then you haven't actually experienced failure. You could continue to convince yourself that you could go out there and do it because you haven't been shown otherwise.

So if there were some players who had a sort of false sense of how well-preserved and capable they are, then that might be bad. But I could see it being fun and casual and laid back. I'd certainly be more willing to watch it than a celebrity softball game, let's say, which is an institution. And I typically give that a pass. I would definitely tune in just for nostalgia's sake to see what this looked like. Ben, people love the celebrity softball game. Yeah, I guess so. They love it. You know, I'm not of those people, you know, those are not, that's not my experience of it.

My experience of the celebrity softball game is that it's the thing that we have to make time for. And that's why the futures game is only seven innings long. But people, people love the celebrity softball game. They have a, they have a time, they have a grand time. Um, so I don't know, maybe, you know, again, there there's art that doesn't have to be for us, I think is one of our takeaways. And, uh, yeah. Um, but, but yes, I think, you know, there's room for lightness and fun, but also you want to dial it in. You want it to be a little scripted so that you're not, you know, no guys were professional athletes. Like surely they have a sense of themselves. But I think that there's a lot in between the day you retire and the day of this theoretical derby that can kind of unmoor you from the daily rigors of the game. And you

might end up surprising yourself to the downside knowing that would not be. rigors of the game and you might end up surprising yourself to the downside knowing that would not be. Right. Yeah. And there isn't really a senior tour in baseball, right? A senior circuit. I mean, that's what you call the National League. But in terms of older players playing, there are some retired players who will play for the Savannah Bananas or there's the MLB Home Run Derby X event where some ex players are participated. And there was a senior professional baseball association that lasted for a year or so. It was like 1989, 1990. Right. And it just didn't last and it didn't get great attendance again because maybe it sounds better in principle than it does in practice.

But I guess baseball isn't necessarily quite as conducive to that as, say, golf, right, where you have the senior tour, the champions tour. You can usually use a golf cart, right? So you can't necessarily do that in baseball. And time takes a toll. And if you have young players at their peak and the highest possible level of baseball, then are you going to get excited for seeing players who were past their peaks playing? I mean, I support it if they still enjoy suiting up and going out there, then that's great. But are you going to choose to watch that beyond the initial nostalgia and novelty value? Maybe not. And as someone with pretty old mannish musical

tastes, I should be inclined to support this because most of my life I've been going to concerts given by performers whose peaks commercially and sometimes artistically came 10 to 20 years before I was born. And sometimes those concerts are great and the performers look a little older, but they sound more or less the same or even better in some ways. Maybe they've improved as musicians. Maybe they sing with more emotion or with a weathered quality that adds something evocative to the song. Other times, maybe they're struggling to hit the high notes or they're playing the song a step down from the original key and it just sort of makes you wish that you'd seen them several decades earlier. I think it's probably easier to give a great concert as an older musician than it is to give

a great home run derby performance as an older hitter. Although it certainly takes some athleticism and endurance for 80 year olds to play three hour shows, which I've seen sometimes. And we're not talking about 80 year olds in the home run derby. We're talking about 50-somethings. But still, I don't know if this would become an institution or whether it would be a one-off, but I'm certainly willing to tune in to see it once and then we'll reevaluate after that. Well, and don't the Yankees do like Legends or... Yeah, old-timers games, right? Yeah. What's that like?

Have you ever watched those? I have gone. I used to watch those when I was a kid. And some players take it more seriously than others. Yeah. But, you know, there's like you can look up the video of 75-year-old Luke Appling, old aches and pains, hitting a home run in an old-timers game at RFK Stadium in 1982. And I think, you know, the fence was shortened, right? But still kind of impressive that he was able to do that.

And yeah, there's a rich legacy of old-timers games. I always enjoyed it because it wasn't a full game and it was kind of casual. And I got to see the players from my youth or from before my youth out there just kind of joking and, you know, mock getting mad at each other and that sort of thing. But it was sort of a sideshow, but fun, I thought. I thought it was more fun than sad on the whole. Well, you know, I think a lot of it would depend on sort of the attitude that the participants bring to it, right? Yes. And that's maybe where I worry a bit because the players who present themselves as sort of the most obvious candidates

for something like this, right? The guys who were known to be, you know, really great home run hitters in their day recently. I don't know how amenable to kidding they necessarily are. I think that if they were, maybe some of their career decisions planned differently than they did. So, you know, having people be able to either be guaranteed to be good or in a spot where they're like, oh, me, I'm so old. You know, you need one or the other. And I don't know that everyone who makes sense to participate is sort of occupying that spot. Yes. Yeah. You need the right attitude to make this fun for everyone. Yeah. Yeah.

So here's another little history lesson while we're on the subject. The trade deadline is coming up as everyone is so well aware. Yeah. Get ready. You might need to do some editing of trade pieces sometime soon. So clearer schedule. But I wanted to talk a little bit about the history of the trade deadline because Craig Wright wrote about this for his excellent baseball history subscription newsletter, Pages from Baseball's Past, which I've recommended many times. You can find it at

baseballspast.com. And he wrote about how a century ago, attitudes toward the trade deadline were very different than they are today. So initially, there was no trade deadline. The first time there was a trade deadline was 1917. The National League implemented one. And this was August 20th initially when the NL first instituted it. Then the American League adopted a trading deadline a few years later, 1920. But the AL thought the NL's date, August 20th, was too late in the season. And they thought that that kind of trade that late in the season was bad for the

game. So they went with July 1st. And they thought, OK, at that point, fewer teams will be sure of where they stand and we'd have fewer trades that sort of led to competitive imbalance potentially. Then 1921, they went with a unified trade deadline. The two leagues, they sort of split the difference between their existing deadlines and they decided on August 1st. OK, so that was 1921. In 1922, though, there was a big controversy about this date and a trade because the St. Louis Browns were challenging the Yankees for the pennant. This would have been the first pennant in Brown's history. And the Yankees were not the perennial powerhouse then that they subsequently became, or I guess they were in the early stages of being that powerhouse. But the Yankees realized, OK, the Browns are actually kind of good.

They're not going away. Through July 23rd, the Browns were leading the Yankees by a game and a half. And fans were already sort of upset that the Yankees had built themselves up by acquiring players from other teams and cash deals often, you know, especially the Red Sox. Babe Ruth, you may have heard of him, but they did it again. So on July 23rd, the Yankees, they had a weakness at third base because Frank home run Baker was in his final season and he was hurt and didn't have a great replacement. So they went after Joe Dugan of the Red Sox, who was then 25 years old, a good defender who hit for average and OK power. And the Yankees acquired Dugan along with the Red Sox regular right fielder Elmer Smith, for three insignificant players, a player to be named later, and a boatload of cash, Craig writes, estimated at the time as between $50,000 and $100,000, which was a lot in those days.

So people were upset. Obviously, Browns fans were upset, but neutral observers were also upset. There was a fan in Chicago who wrote, American League baseball fans are disgusted with the Yanks and Red Sox. A definite move to prevent any more trades like this is imperative if the future of the game is to be safeguarded. Another fan compared it to the Black Sox scandal and said, I think the case is only a trifle less despicable than was the selling out of the World Series in 1919 and that seller and purchaser are to be equally condemned. I hope that St. Louis wins the pennant, but St. Louis did not win the pennant. And the Yankees did a lot better in the games that Dugan started. Dugan wasn't that great, at least according to our modern advanced stats,

but the Yankees did play a lot better and they had Dugan and everyone was mad because the Yankees overtook the Browns. They finished one game behind the Yankees. So you could certainly say that maybe that Dugan trade swung the balance of power there. And it came out later that in the winter of 1920, Clark Griffith, who owned the senators, he made a motion that the American League keep the July 1st trade deadline. And then the Yankees at the time had said, no, we don't like that and had gotten him to withdraw that resolution, which led to the August 1st deadline, which then set the stage for this Dugan trade. And AL President Ban Johnson also condemned the deal. The day after the trade, he said, deals of this sort in mid-season are regrettable and must be discouraged and legislated against.

And he predicted that that winter, they would go back to the earlier deadline of July 1st, but they didn't stop there at the winter meetings that December. They both agreed, the AL and NL, to roll back the trade deadline to June 15th. And this was hailed as a change that would practically eliminate the destructive practice of buying a pennant during the season. No club can be figured out of the race as early as June 15th. So under those conditions, no club is likely to sell one of its stars. So that became the tread deadline date for most of baseball history. We're all used to July 31st or the very beginning of August. But basically,

from the winter of 1922 up until we were born, it was June 15th. And it wasn't moved to the modern deadline until 1986. So the deadline that we're used to now, that came in in 1986. So for 63 seasons, it was June 15th in both leagues. And I do wonder whether we will see any outcry if, say, Shohei Otani gets traded. Let's say Shohei Otani gets traded at the very beginning of August to a team that, well, it could be the Yankees, I can't trade, who are a couple of games out of a playoff spot, or it could be some other favorite or some other team that's fighting for a playoff spot. And if the modern day Babe Ruth Shohei Otani gets dealt with two months to go in the regular season, will people potentially be upset about that, that that team was able to import the most valuable player in baseball two thirds of the way through the regular season. I could see some people being sort of upset about that. But it's funny how this caused such a stink a century ago, so much so that

they actually rolled back the deadline to an earlier date that persisted for several decades. And I guess you still sometimes hear some people bandy about the idea that the trade deadline should be earlier, right? But we're so used to this now. But in theory, like I am kind of sympathetic to that idea that it should be earlier, that it's almost like you're bringing in a ringer or a mercenary or something. It's like they weren't part of your team the whole season. And then you just go out and can acquire a real difference maker who just shows up fairly late in the game. There is something about that that bugs me a little bit. So I get it.

I don't know whether there's a sufficient initiative behind the idea of making it earlier, but it does come up from time to time. And it's the same sort of concern that surfaced a century ago. I get it. It's funny because like other sports, it can feel well, like I guess the NFL is my primary counter to this. So like in the NFL, their trade deadline feels super early. I'm trying to think as a percentage of their total season, if it's actually like markedly earlier, I think it still is earlier, but it's not quite as dramatic as it is when you just think about how much

linear time has passed in their season. Cause it's a short season, but they only play, you know, so many weeks and they only play so many games in those pieces. Like it feels, so it feels very quick after the season has started. But as a percentage of their season, I think is, like I said, probably not as dramatic.

I don't know. It feels fine to me. I think that I still have the adjustment that I still struggle with sometimes is I'll be like, oh, we have another, you know, we have the waiver deadline at the end of the month. And it's not. Now we just have the one, you know, we have the, the waiver deadline at the end of this month. And it's not, now we just have the one, you know, right. We just have the one deadline, which is, you know, this doesn't matter to other people, but like, it's really nice because then you can like count on having Labor Day weekend

off and free of activity in a way that you couldn't before. Right. Cause it's like, I'm not going to get a trade. I could go away. I could go on vacation, Ben, and it would be fun because we're not doing trades. But I don't know. I think that it, for me, feels like it sits in the right spot where the teams that might be in it still, but aren't for sure going to make the postseason,

still have incentive to potentially do some activity, do some deals to try to push themselves over the line. But it's not so late that it feels mercenary to me. I think it sits in a really nice spot. I think it inspires some teams to be like, you know, we're still going and uh and but like you you feel confident that by the time october rolls around the guys that have moved at the deadline like their teammates probably know their kids names you know so it feels okay to me i don't know i i get i get what you mean but i think that it normally reads more exciting than mercenary to me um and you know then you get you get weird like remember when manny machado was a dodger yeah yeah that happened that happened he was just like a dodger

for a little while not for very long but for a while he's just like a dodger you know they're if you search for pictures of him as a dodger they they exist and they're not even, they're not even Photoshopped, you know? So I, I like that stuff too, where you're like, Hey, there he is. He wore number eight, you know, we don't remember name or numbers on uniforms very well, you and I, but he was, he was number eight for, for the Dodgers per this, this Google search. Didn't know. Yeah. And Craig thinks that they decided on June 15th initially because he thought the Yankees, it was the last date that the Yankees were in first place before the Dugan trade. And also the Dugan trade is interesting because the player to be named later was Lefty O'Doul, who went on to be a really good player and hitter, but years later for a different team.

But check out Lefty O'Toole's stats. Sometimes they were quite good. But yeah, I think it's kind of okay this season at least because now there are very few teams that are categorically out of it, right? It's just a handful of teams really that have no chance. And then there are a few teams that are long shots, but it's really at least like enough that some teams are not totally clear on whether they have a chance or not. And we're kind of speculating about whether there will be much

activity at the trade deadline given these conditions. So I think it feels okay to me right now. I would not object to it being a bit earlier because I don't love when a race gets sort of destabilized late in the season. But then again, it's baseball and any one trade. Shohei Otani being dealt would be the greatest example of the balance of power tipping just because he is the best player in baseball. It's not that often that the actual best player in baseball gets traded at the trade deadline. that often that the actual best player in baseball gets traded at the trade deadline.

And even the best player in baseball, as we have seen from the Angels for several seasons now, can only do so much, right? So even if you're going to go get Otani, let's say on July 31st or August 1st or something, what is he going to be projected to be worth for your team over the remaining two months of the regular season, maybe a few wins above replacement, something like that. So it could make the difference in a tight race, but there's a very good chance that it won't make the difference too. And once you get to the playoffs, who knows? So it's not, I think, as potentially destabilizing as it might be in the NBA, let's say, when there are fewer teams and one superstar can kind of have a disproportionate impact, though there have been plenty of

basketball traits that have kind of backfired or not worked out the way that they were intended to also. I can't believe that we're 44 minutes into this and you are just now bringing up Botani given what he did yesterday. It's like kind of shocking. I was like, I'm going to let him go and I'm not going to do anything because I just want to see how long it takes. And here we are, Ben. Here we are. Should we use this as a transition? Do you want to?

I don't have that much new to say. I mean, look, I listen to Angel's broadcasts all the time. Wait, hold on. Wait, stop. He hit a home run in a decisive moment and bat flipped, which I cannot recall. Okay, the bat flip was pretty great. Yeah. I can't really recall him doing that before.

He has bat flipped, but not quite so ostentatiously as that. He, like, it was emphatic. He really committed to the bat. Yeah. It was like, I'm bat flipping. Yeah. And not a criticism, to be clear. Like, I was just like, wow, okay.

You were feeling that one. You were feeling that one. You were feeling that one, which is funny because there was a brief moment where I was like, is that not going to get out on the ballpark? And then- Yeah, no, it was kind of close. It was kind of close.

And I was like, whoa. And then I was like, wow. We had some, I transitioned through several like, ah, sounds. Right. That did whet my appetite for playoff Otani because that was a game with some playoff implications, right? Sure. The Yankees and the Angels, they're direct rivals for the wild card.

And this was a game-tying homer late, and he kind of got into it. And so you wonder how demonstrative he would be on a bigger stage that we haven't really had the chance to see him take, except for the WBC, of course. But to see him do it in MLB action, that would be quite fun. But yeah, I mean, I listen to Angels broadcasts all the time when I'm watching Otani, and they're constantly saying, oh, what else is there to say? There's nothing new to say, but then they have to say something anyway, because you got to talk about Otani, especially if you're the Angels broadcast. So as much as I talk about Otani on this podcast, I endeavor to try to say something new-ish every time. So it's not just, boy, he's good every time. I try to have some point or angle because we could do the, boy, he sure is good. Did you see that game

he had? Yeah, that was a great game. He kind of has a great game every other game at this point. So I was going to go easy. I do have maybe an email that might invoke Otani in a moment. I was actually – I knew it. I knew it. I was going to bring up another Japanese player, though, a player who is still in Japan. I wanted to give you a Roki Sasaki update.

Oh, yes, please. Please do. Because really we should be paying more attention to Roki Sasaki. And he goes under the radar a little bit for American fans who are not watching him day in and day out. But again, he is still 21 years old. This is probably the best pitcher in Japan. He pitches for Chibolote, the Marines, and he will not turn 22 until November. Here are his stats this season.

He has made 12 starts. He has pitched 79 innings. He has a 1.48 ERA. He has struck out 121 batters in those 79 innings. He has walked 14. He has allowed one home run. Okay, so I looked up the advanced stats on Delta Graphs, the subscription-based Japanese stat site, and he is leading all Japanese pitchers in war, according to their calculation,

at 4.7, which is more impressive than it sounds because he's only pitched 79 innings. The league leader has pitched 113 and two thirds innings. There are a lot of pitchers with 80 something, 90 something innings. He is still leading NPP in pitcher war. And his FIP is 0.74. What? 0.74.

FIP is.74. What? .74. To put this in perspective, like Jacob deGrom in his best season on a rate basis 2021 when he pitched 92 innings. This is maybe the best comp you could come up with. Of course, he had a 1.08 ERA that year. He had a 1.24 FIP. So Sasaki's at.74.

1.24 FIP. So Sasaki's at 0.74. DeGrom had a 1.61 XFIP, which normalizes the home run per fly ball rate. Sasaki, his XFIP is 1.08, which is just ridiculous. So like, I mean, his ERA, again, is 1.48, but the peripherals are better than that. Like if anything, his ERA is higher than it should be. He's got a 63% ground ball rate and he has also struck out 41% of the hitters he's faced. It's just ridiculous. Minimum 70 innings pitch among

NPB pitchers. He has a 41% strikeout rate. The second place guy has a 31.2% strikeout rate. So he's basically 10 percentage points ahead of the next best guy. and his ground ball rate is second in npb so best strikeout rate by a mile second best ground ball rate like just totally ridiculous and if you look at the stuff so he's At 159.6 kilometers per hour, that is 99.2 miles per hour. So that would be tops in MLB if you go same innings minimum 70. Hunter Brown is at the top with 98.9. So just a hair behind Sasaki. And again, he is lapping the league over there. So the second place pitcher is at 154.2,

so a difference of almost five and a half kilometers per hour. So there are some other really incredible pitchers in NPP, and I don't mean to diminish what they're doing. And someone like Yoshinobu Yamamoto, who's been, you know, if Sasaki is one, Yamamoto is 1A and he's been doing it longer. He's a little bit older. And I mean, his numbers are absolutely ridiculous, too. And he's probably going to be posted this coming offseason. So get hyped for the Yamamoto sweepstakes. But Sasaki is just like in a different category. I mean, it's just it's unbelievable. Like the times when I've been able to watch him and people saw him in the WBC, the stuff is just unbelievable. And I'm happy that he's healthy and they've taken care with handling him. But

it's to the point now where I don't know if you did like a major league translation of his NPP stats, he might still show up as one of the very best pitchers in MLB. Like if I had to win one game now and I could choose any pitcher from anywhere in the world, aside from the fact that he'd have to adjust to the MLB ball and all of that. Like if we put the sort of the, you know, the language barrier and the cultural differences and the different conditions and all of that just on pure performance and talent. I don't know that there's a better pitcher in the world right now than Roki Sasaki. You've made a compelling case, Ben. You've offered a compelling case. Yeah. You've offered a compelling case. Yeah.

I don't really have much to add other than, you know, you don't want to like just transplant these guys stateside just so that we get to watch them more. But I think that what I take away whenever we have conversations about players playing in international leagues is that I wish that there were greater opportunity for us to watch them prior to any potential move to Major League Baseball. Because, you know, I don't want us to view NPV or the KBO as like feeder leagues for MLB. Like that does a disservice to the great play that takes place there. And I want to watch him, though. Yes. I want to watch him. I want to watch him, though.

Yes. I want to watch him. And we probably won't get to watch him in MLB for quite some time because he is so young that if he waits until he's 25, it'll be 2027 before he can come over here. If he requests to come over sooner and takes less money, takes the Otani route, then I guess it's possible that he could come sooner, but probably not. So that seems to be the most likely time. And I just want people to pay attention to what he's doing before then, because again, this is the second highest level league in the world in terms of caliber of play. And he is just clowning on his competition here. So we should, I think, factor him into the conversation about best pitchers in baseball, even though he is not in Major League Baseball. It's just pretty unbelievable what he's doing. And one more

thing I want to mention, there have been some studies recently about the changing effectiveness of different pitch types in Major League Baseball. There's always kind of a cat and mouse game going on, right, where some pitches are underutilized and they're very effective. And then everyone realizes they're very effective and they start throwing them more and then they get less effective. So this has happened with sliders. There was a period of years there where all the pitch type run values, the ones that take into account not just what happens on the outcome pitch, but just every pitch that you throw and the state change from one pitch to the next, whether it's a ball or a strike or it's put in play. All of these measures suggested that sliders were by far the most you'd think that they would sort of sense that intuitively. Like I'm always intrigued when there's some league wide, I guess we could call it inefficiency or some advantage that is not being fully harnessed.

And it's like you'd think that they would know that. And there are a zillion examples of this going back to, oh, it's actually good to throw high fastballs instead of always throwing low in the zone, or you don't always have to throw fastballs in fastball counts and you could pitch what used to be considered backward, right? And you can throw your best pitch more often. And we've seen that happen league-wide. We're now just far fewer set patterns and expectations for what's going to be thrown on a certain count. And pitchers will typically throw their best pitch as often as they can. But there was a period there where the numbers were all saying they should be throwing more sliders because sliders are really

hard to hit. They slide, you know, they move, they move horizontally, they move vertically, like it's just a tough pitch to hit. And pitchers are still going to fastball centric. And that has changed. And we've seen the slider rate tick up slowly, but surely year after year. And we've now gotten to the point where sliders are significantly less effective than they were a few years ago, let's say. So there was an athletic article about this recently. Tom Tango wrote about it at his blog. And we've seen the relative values of these pitch types change. And it's really interesting to me that you can see that happen at a league-wide level

because when hitters see sliders more often, then they adjust to them, right? And also you have some pitchers who maybe don't have the best sliders who then sort of enter the sample. They start throwing their sliders more and that waters down the effectiveness of sliders as a whole. All that said, sliders are still the most effective pitch type. It's just that their lead has diminished. Yeah. So sliders are not clearly far and away the most effective pitch on a per pitch basis

anymore, but they are still the most effective, even though relative to the other pitch types, they have suffered the greatest decline in their effectiveness. But that does kind of amaze me that like years can go by and pitchers can just be sort of sitting on an advantage like that. Like you have this weapon in your pocket. You could just throw more sliders. Like all the numbers say you should be throwing more sliders. And there was some consternation about that in sabermetric circles because it was like, are we doing something wrong?

Like you'd think that they would have found the optimal pitch mix already. Like, there's a game theory thing going on here. Like, maybe our models are not considering something important here. But then the league's pitch usage changed to favor more sliders. And it seemed to be a case of, no, they were just sort of sleeping on the slider. So then you wonder, well, what's the pitch that they're sleeping on now? Or if the slider is less effective now, then what will be rising as the slider is falling? What's the next frontier? Because it is kind of a constant push and pull and back and forth. I think we have this perception, and it's not wrong, but we have this perception that pitching is so far ahead of hitting and that it's going to be hard for us to really course correct on, say, strikeouts, right? Because it's a more complicated question than the pitch timer or stolen bases or what have you, right? Like we have this idea that, or the shift or whatever, right? Like we have this frontier, this sort of impenetrable issue to write the scales. And so it's nice that there are these micro moments

where it's like, well, no, there can be some movement to the hitter's advantage, even if it's not like a dramatic one. Right. So I like, I like that that exists. Cause otherwise it can feel kind of hopeless, but it can feel kind of hopeless. And of course the conclusion,

as you said, is like, no sliders are still really hard to hit. There's a little less hard to hit because some of them are not good ones. And you know, we maybe hitters take that because that's what else are they going to do? Yeah.

In fact, they should probably be throwing more sliders than they are still, even though the effectiveness of sliders on a per pitch basis has declined significantly. They are still the most effective pitch. And so there's probably a little more room for slider usage to increase. And then you look at what the other pitch types are and what should be thrown more or less. So

for instance, sinkers, right? So we've seen sinker usage tail off. And for a while there, the numbers suggested that sinkers were maybe the least effective pitch, that they should be thrown less often. And that happened. So we've seen fewer sinkers, but now sinkers effectiveness has ticked back up again, whether it's because of the scarcity, because there's more of an element of surprise if not as many sinkers are being thrown, or because the pitchers with more marginal sinkers stopped throwing them and now only the guys with good sinkers are throwing them. And teams and pitchers figured out that sinkers have big platoon splits and they're more effective against same-handed hitters. So they started throwing them more to them, whereas everyone's in love with sweepers now. So they're throwing too many sweepers to opposite-handed hitters, as Shohei Otani was for a while.

opposite-handed hitters, as Shohei Otani was for a while. But sinkers have actually increased in effectiveness to the point that they're almost as effective as sliders. So a few years ago, everyone was saying, oh, sabermetric orthodoxy now is that sinkers are past their prime, right? And they're obsolete and outmoded. And the analytically oriented and progressive teams, they're going to ditch the sinker. And now things have swung back in the other direction. It doesn't take that long for these things to change and the league adapts. And so now it looks like changeups are perhaps the pitch that is ripe for another diminishment. Like maybe there are too many changeups being thrown.

So ditching the changeup might be the next thing that we see. But all of these things change fairly quickly. They're all in perfect harmony and balance and no pitch is clearly more effective on a league-wide level than other pitches because it's all just drawn up so efficiently and we're not quite there yet. So you do see this rise and fall that you can see playing out on a pretty rapid timescale. So it's kind of interesting to see like the baseball best practices will shift quite rapidly. And you kind of have to keep updating your priors. And it's like a continuing education, you know, like one year, the pitch that's in vogue is a certain pitch type. And everyone's like, oh, we got to this is the new hotness. And then it's not. And something else comes to the fore.

So these things are always changing in kind of an organic, interesting way. But you can chart this competitive balance of baseball just by looking at pitch type percentages for one thing. What's going on with Otani's sweeper usage? He has cut back. He has dialed back significantly. Are you worried he listens to the podcast? I'd be honored if he listened to the podcast. I mean, I guess I'd be a little worried in some ways, but mostly flattered.

Sometimes we have moments where we talk about our perception of the pod and I'm like, I'm gaining insight into the person level differences between you and me, Ben. I think that's one of them. That's one of those moments where I would be like, I would prefer he not listen to the pod. If it were me and I were you and I said so many words about him, I'd feel nervous, Ben. You don't. You're just a less, you're a less anxious guy, you know?

And I think that's, I'm envious of that about you. Well, everything I say about him comes from a place of love and admiration and respect, and I'm sure he would understand that. But slider usage, just looking at the pitch info stats available at Fangraphs Leaguewide, slider usage has doubled, essentially, since we were able to start tracking these things. Has doubled, essentially, since we were able to start tracking these things. 2008, the first year of league-wide pitch effects. Sliders were 12.3% of pitches. And this year, a new all-time high, yet again, of 23.5%. But again, probably still some room to bring that up a little bit.

All right. I have a couple emails here. We did get some Otani-related emails. I mean, look emails here. We did get some Otani related emails. I mean, look, everyone in baseball is talking about Otani these days, whether because of his on-field performance or because of his potential trade status. So it's not just us, but we got a couple, I guess, that kind of are paired. I mentioned this one in an outro the other day, but JJ, Patreon supporter, said, How bad would the return for an Otani trade have to be for Manfred to cancel it? Chris Paul and David Stern style to exercise a veto.

And then we also got an email from Alan who said, Am I nuts in thinking that if the Angels put Otani on the market, the return for him is going to be very, very high. I feel like a lot of baseball fans are missing the forest for the trees. If Babe Ruth had been available as a two-month rental, what would the return be? Wouldn't you want your team to do whatever it takes so that you could say that your team was privileged enough to host the great Otani?

There are also the immediate financial benefits of having the eyes of the global baseball world on your team, and of course, the very real on-field benefits. Two months, sure. Of course, it could be three if you make the playoffs, but probably the best two months in the history of your franchise. Empty the farm, I say. So Alan's saying, are we underestimating what it would take to get Otani? And then JJ's saying, what would it take for the return to be so meager that Rob Manfred, who would probably love for Shohei Otani to be playing for a better team that gets more attention, for him to step in and void it and say, no, this would have to be, I think it would have to be pretty egregious for him to intervene. And that's like, you know, that's an obvious answer. Sorry. in as many Octobers, by which I mean as many post-seasons as possible, not when the regular season extends into October next year. Can't come soon enough.

I think that he wants that. He wants that badly. If there's this speculation on my part, I don't want to attribute any other characteristics of this fictional character to the commissioner. Allow me to preface my statement with that. But, like, you know, if there is a time when he is sitting in the corner of his office hunched, Gollum-like, eyes fully dilated from a hypothetical darkness similar to the cave that Gollum found himself in for so many years, talking about the precious. It is Otani playing postseason baseball. And, he got a taste of what that can look like in terms of not only the existing baseball watching community engaging with him,

but also the broader sports community engaging with him in a high stakes moment in the WBC, right? And so I think he wants it very badly. And, you know, we are not always aligned with the commissioner. But in this instance, you do have to hand ending early enough that East Coast people can tune in for at least a good deal of the game. But if Otani does prioritize being on the West Coast, as a lot of Japanese players have just with the travel time and everything, then, of course, he can elect to go to a West Coast team this winter. But he is not in control of his destiny necessarily for the rest of this season. So if Rob Manfred says, gee, it sure would be good to get Shohei Otani playing on the coast where a disproportionate part of the population is playing, at least for a couple of months so they could see him day in and day out before he can choose to go back to the West Coast if he wants to, then that would probably work to MLB's advantage. But wherever it is, whichever coast, if it's just a good team and a team that will be playing

postseason baseball, then that would be big for the sport as a whole. Because, I mean, look how Otani has managed to transcend the limitations of baseball stardom these days, despite playing for the Angels. If he were to go somewhere where he'd be in the thick of a playoff race and be playing big postseason games, then I think he might reach a new level of star power potentially. It would be meaningful. And I do wonder, you know, I don't imagine that Otani's going to like end up a Mariner, certainly. But like, I do wonder what his, you know, and he's not going to tell us like, here's my short list, right? Here are the teams I hope come calling with the most compelling offer. Like, he's not going to tell us that before he signs. So, and you know, that's fine. Cause he should maintain his like, you know, just as advantageous a negotiating position as he can, not that it's particularly hard. Um, but, but I do wonder like if at this moment, let us assume that his list of teams is mostly weighted toward the West Coast, right? Like, let's say that he's like, you know, the Giants. They really haven't been able to land the big guy that they want. And who bigger than me, right?

Or he's like, I wouldn't even have to move if I played for the Dodgers, you know. Who wants to move? So maybe his list is, for the sake of argument, West Coast focused at the moment. I do wonder, like, if he were to get traded to, say, the Yankees or the Orioles or, you know, the Rays, seems unlikely, but like, I mean, everything seems unlikely, right? But like, let's say he were to be traded to one of those teams

and then he gets a postseason experience with a club. What is that ultimately going to be worth as he considers his options? Maybe not that specific club he's traded to. I think, you tell me if you think this is ridiculous. I feel like the Orioles, for instance, are more competitive for Otani in the trade market than they are in the free agent market, just based on what they would be able to offer the Angels in terms of a prospect return.

Yeah. And then we know what they have tended to do from a money perspective. So like, maybe let's say that the Orioles trade for Otani and they can't sign him in free agency, but he has that experience of playing on the East Coast, having the sort of fervor of that and a playoff race, does that alter his list, right? This is part of the calculus for a team trading for him. Do we get a meaningful sort of first crack at retaining him because we've traded for him and he gets to be here and have a postseason experience and maybe we just announce an extension at the end of our postseason. Who knows, right? Like, these are the questions that they're going to ask. But, yeah, I think that it would have to be pretty bad. It's an imperfect comparison, but, like, yesterday I was editing the installment of the trade value series that ran today.

the installment of the trade value series that ran today. And as our listeners probably know, Ozzy Alves was on that installment as he has been on a great many of these lists. And I just sat there and I thought, the commissioner's office really approved this deal. Like his agent should face, you know, charges in the Hague maybe. Like this deal, you know, it's two option years, Ben.

Two $7 million club options, not one, but two. Criminal, really, you know, negligent, almost certainly should have had his, you know, license equivalent is, I think it would have to be worse than that. And the thing about it is that like Moreno is not going to approve that deal. This is all hypothetical, but him getting traded is probably hypothetical. So let's indulge, right? But it would have to be, I can't even conceive of it. It would be like one, like what? It would be like, Ben, what would it even, you know, like what would it even what would I make sounds on my desk? Some exorbitant amount of money changing hands, just like purchasing the rights to Otani, just a bow and a bay, Bruce. Just like cash considerations kind of situation. It's a cash considerations kind of situation. Yes, and there is some precedent for deals in baseball being voided when they were mostly about some large sum of cash changing hands.

So I think that MLB, as much as it would like Otani to play somewhere else, would also want to avoid the appearance of just having some team buy a championship, right, which, again, it's tough to do in baseball, but trading for the best player in baseball and just buying them, just saying here's many millions of dollars for the rights to this player. That would be bad. That would cause a Joe Dugan to the Yankees style uproar, if not worse. So other teams would very much be up in arms, especially teams that are interested in bidding for Otani services this winter and who think, as you just said, that maybe it would be advantageous. You'd have the inside track on signing him if you were to employ him for a few months. So teams would be pissed about that. And yeah, if they just gave him away for some terrible prospect package, then I guess that could cause a similar hue and cry.

I don't know why the angels would do that, obviously. They would not do that. No, they would not. But yes. But the question from Alan about, hey, are we underrating what he's worth here? Now, I think we are planning an upcoming episode that may be related to Otani trade hypothetical. So we don't have to go into specifics right now. may be related to Otani trade hypothetical.

So we don't have to go into specifics right now, but we have talked about the fact that it seems like rentals maybe have not brought back as great a return as they had in the past, that you're very unlikely to see some blue chip prospect traded for a player who's only under team control for a couple months.

Otani would be the exception to that, right? And I think by the time people are hearing this episode, probably the latest installment of Ben Clements' trade value series will be up or be just about to be up. And Ben has told me that Otani is on it. He is in the trade value series and ranking. And that is unusual. I think Ben said he went back and there has never been a rental player appear in the – a rental player has never appeared in the Fangraph's trade value rankings for however many years that series has been running because it's hard to have a ton of trade value if you're only bringing your value to that team for a couple months. But Otani, with his on-field value, with his off-field value,

with his very affordable salary for a player of his caliber, he qualifies. He's not at the top of the trade value series. I mean, there are players who are making the league minimum and are under team control for several seasons to come. And even if they're not Otani, that still sways things. But the fact that he's on there at all is unusual and unprecedented, perhaps. And, yeah, it would take a fair amount to bring him back. limitations and the fact that you're not getting him guaranteed for that long because of who he is and what he does, it's going to take some serious prospect capital to acquire him. Yep. I mean, giving away trade value secrets, Ben, giving away trade value secrets. But yeah, you are correct. You're correct about everything you just said.

All right. Two more here. This one comes from Eric, who says, my question pertains to the Tampa Bay Rays, who consistently run a notoriously low payroll and never extend players to big contracts. Of course, there have been some exceptions. Wanda Franco, he's a player. They extended him. But the Rays seem to come off lightly from criticism by baseball journalists and podcasters, while owners such as Bob Nutting of the Pirates rightfully get criticized. Over the last five years, the Rays' payroll averaged in the bottom five. Still, the general image I get anecdotally is that the Rays are viewed as a smart team, quote unquote, not as cheap and gaming the revenue sharing system. My question is, do you agree that there's a double standard with the Rays? Why or why not? Personally, I don't think the arguments about the stadium being remote and Rays being small market hold water.

If owner Stu Sternberg doesn't think he can afford owning the Rays, he can sell them. He's ranked among the 20 wealthiest owners, according to Money Inc. So is there a double standard? Do the Rays get a pass when it comes to their spending?

My answer to Eric is that I don't think there's a double standard so much as there's just a great gulf in results between these two teams, right? Because over the past five seasons, yeah, maybe the Rays haven't spent a lot, but they have won a lot. They are tied for the third most wins in baseball, or they were a couple days ago when I sent this email. The Pirates, over the same span, second fewest wins. If you go all the way back to 2008 when the Rays first got good, they rank fourth and the Pirates rank 27th in wins over that span. and they were very close to being third and 28th. They may already be at that point because the Rays were one win behind the Cardinals and the Pirates were one ahead of the Orioles

and they're going in different directions this season. And so teams get criticized for not spending partly or largely because it's an indication that they're not trying to win. They're not trying to field competitive rosters. And you can't say that the Rays aren't trying to compete when they're not trying to field competitive rosters. And you can't say that the Rays aren't trying to compete when they're almost always in contention. So they could certainly spend more. And we've said so on this show many times, I think. But for teams, at least

the primary purpose of spending money is winning games. And if the Rays are winning games, then there's less to fault them for. Like you could definitely say, hey, if they were this good and also they spent some more money, maybe that would have put them over the hump. Maybe they would have won a title one of these years,

but they're always in the running for a title as it is. So maybe they get kind of like a halo effect from being innovative and trying tactically interesting and novel things, right? And that they have been this progressive team when it comes to baseball operations and strategies. Maybe that overshadows the fact that their ownership is pretty cheap. But also, they have won a lot of games.

You do, in fact, have to hand it to them for doing that to some extent. Yeah. I think that we have been pretty clear on the pod that like they certainly are constraining their avenues of player acquisition by having, by constraining their budget. Right. and i think that we have talked about it that way as sort of a restraint that a constraint that they are imposing on themselves rather than something that is just like inherent to the raise right that like the ownership group sets a budget and they could choose to set a more generous one and give the organization latitude to sign guys or take on more money in trades as they're,

you know, contemplating trades or, you know, contemplate more extensions, maybe ones that aren't quite as rich as, as Franco's, but that, you know, keep guys in the organization rather than them going, you know, the Snell route for instance instance, right? So, like, I think that we've been pretty clear-eyed about that. But I do think that you're right to say that the real point of differentiation, and I think it is an important one, is that, like, I don't have any doubt that they view the project of baseball as largely pointed toward trying to win a World Series. And I don't feel like that is, say, Bob Nutting's understanding of what baseball is for, right? I think that he views baseball as an opportunity for him to extract wealth from

both the people who watch baseball and the other owners of baseball teams. Like, I think that that's what he views its purpose as. So I think that there's a really important distinction to be drawn there. I do think you're right that there have been times when, you know, this is like Sam's, you know, famous tweet, right? Like where there has been a presumption of not just making good moves, but making like savvy moves of having the upper hand in any acquisition that they have made. And we have counter examples, right? There are counter indicators to that, that not every trade that the Rays make is like a brilliant trade. Some of them don't work out. And some of them seem to come from a place of necessity that is more about money than it is about, you know,

what is the very best team that we can put on the field. But I think the overarching motivation of the organization is to put the very best team on the field that they can. And I think it helps that like, at least I think that it helps to explain the general vibe that analysts, public side analysts take to them that like, you know, their reputation for treating their front office employees well, of maintaining a robust scouting staff is pretty well established as opposed to some other teams where, you know, they have cut back on scouting. They don't necessarily treat their people particularly well. And I'm sure that there are exceptions to that perception on the part of people who have worked for them because, you know, we're not going to be the guys on the field. And so I do think that there has been, you know,

maybe we do want to call it a blind spot around, like, just how disruptive or unpleasant the players might find the experience of being constantly on this, like, rotation up and down from the minors and having a slew of largely nameless relievers who come in and out, that sort of thing. Like, I think that we might discount that more than we should because we know people and this isn't just Jeff, right. But like, I know people who work for that team and really like working for that team. So, you know, I'm sure that we could do maybe more to like clarify the situations where we're like, this isn't the best, but we think baseball teams should try to

win and the Rays do that even though they, you know, might put an ankle weight on unnecessarily in their pursuit of it. So. Yeah. Yeah. I have wondered in the past, like, do the constraints that ownership imposes on the raised front office, does that push the raised front office to find these hidden edges to try to make up for the financial disadvantage by uncovering other small advantages here and there on the field? I think potentially that's true. And I guess you could say that if they got a bigger budget, then maybe they would be less motivated to sort of scrimp and save

and try to find a run here and a win there. But then again, there are other teams that don't spend a lot and also don't sort of push the envelope the way that the Rays do. So I don't think it's a perfect correlation there. And there are teams that do spend a lot. Yes. The Dodgers just exist as a counter to every Rays argument, right? And they aren't the only big budget team that takes analytics seriously by any means.

big budget team that takes analytics seriously by any means. But like, you know, the Dodgers and Yankees are always going to be there to be like, well, you know, you can do both if you want to. And I do hope that not just you and I, but like collectively that the public side perception of the Rays, as much as we acknowledge that they seem to have like a concerted will to try to win, that spending when it comes to them is a matter of will and not capacity. And I hope that we do a better job just being clear eyed about that when it comes to baseball teams generally, just like I hope we are properly distinguishing like what is ownership constraint versus front office desire to spend, you know, like these are all complicated situations that have a lot of moving pieces, except for Bob Nutting, who is very straightforward.

Yes. Yeah. I missed one last Otani question here. This is from Joel. He says, Otani's free agency seems to be predicted to include the eight to 12 year deals starting at 600 million. But what would one year of his services be worth or who would it be worth the most to financially and on the field? Money wise, Angels fans who don't already have Otani jerseys and other

accoutrements wouldn't be in a rush to buy more. So I suspect not them. The Dodgers would sell merchandise galore, but they already have the highest attendance in the league. There are only so few more tickets they could sell. And merchandise revenue, that gets split up around the league anyway, right? But tickets, that matters to the team. Who would get the best financial return to bring him in for one season? Baseball-wise, I suspect the highest value comes in pushing a team from good to great, such as what could happen in Seattle, rather than great to World Series favorite, Texas, or bad to maybe respectable Cubs. But where do you think one year of his services would have

the most impact, and what would that number be? $80 million, $90 million, $100 million. It would have to be an owner who is pushing all his chips in for one big push, but unwilling to completely hamstring his team further down the road. Match with a number high enough for Otani to push back the bidding war for his longer-term services for another season. So, look, the question about where he could go or where he should go, that'll be the entire offseason, at least, until he signs somewhere. What if he signs, like, the second day of the offseason, Ben? What are we going to talk about? Yeah, I don't know whether that will be dragged out or not. But until the day he signs, that will be the number one topic in baseball.

Where will he sign? Who would have the most incentive to sign him? Where would he most want to sign, et cetera? But this limited question of what it would take to sign him for a single year, I am kind of interested in that. Like how high does the number go? Because we have seen a willingness of some players to take shorter term deals, particularly veteran players, older pitchers, take shorter term deals and maximize their earnings in the short term, bet on themselves in some cases. And so we've seen the average annual value pushed into the 40s, right?

But how high could it go if Shohei Otani, best player in baseball, in his prime, and also someone who brings a lot of off-the-field attention and revenue and attendance boost and everything else you could possibly want from a player, if he said, you know what, I'm going to bet on myself because I'm awesome and I'm an MVP candidate every year and I'm just going to go year to year, why not? I'll just rake in as much as I can and someone will line up to sign me for an enormous amount every year as long as I'm performing at this level. Maybe he wants to retain the this level. Maybe he wants to

retain the option to go where he wants to try to win. Maybe he's been burned by being with the Angels, being locked into this non-competitive team for several years. He doesn't want that to happen again. And so you look more than a couple of years out and you can never really predict who's going to be good at that point, except for maybe a few exceptions. So if he says, I want to go year to year, I'm only entertaining offers for 2024. How high do you think the price tag goes for him? Oh, boy, Ben. Oh, man.

Yeah. Do we need new math? Yeah. I mean, Max Scherzer's at 43 and a third million. 60? 60? Oh, higher. 70? Scherzer and Verlander are at 43 and a third now.

And they're very good, or they were very good before they signed, but they were also only pitchers. They do not hit. And also they were 40 or close to it. And there was some risk, which we have seen play out this season. So you have Otadi, two-way player, best player in baseball, young, and also brings a lot of – I mean, I feel like double. Let's see. Double those guys, what those guys are getting.

So you think like 80? Yeah. Because like. Yeah. Well, it depends too, like on, you know, the answer also depends a little bit on or a lot of bit on the team. Because like, let's say that you're a club that is primarily composed of like young, very young guys.

So like take the Baltimore Orioles, right? Where like a lot of your salaries of any substance are going to be arbitration salaries. And so they're going to be capped, right? Unless you go and sign a bunch of guys, like you, you're going to run a pretty low payroll. Like right now our estimated payroll for the Orioles is like $63 million, right? That's not their luxury tax payroll. I think that's closer to like 85. But like still, not a lot of money, Ben. It's not a lot of money. So if all you're doing is arbitration raises and then a bunch of pre-arb guys, and some of those pre-arb guys are like your most valuable contributors, right? Like next year, you know who's

still pre-arb? Adley Rutchman. You know who else still pre-ARP? Gunnar Henderson. Still pre-ARP. Incredible. Right. And they have other guys too, like Felix Batista and, you know, Cano, who probably won't be as good next year, but will still be pre-ARP. So he doesn't even have to be as good next year to be like, wow, super valuable. Right. So you're, you're them and you can, you could, if you wanted to, and he was like, I only want a one-year contract. Can't you just blow everyone out of the water if you're really committed? Yeah. Right. Like you say double, but like, what if they go a hundred million dollars for one year? No, they wouldn't do it. They wouldn't do it. And if they did, I think that we could feel confident that

that entire front office has been kidnapped and is trying to signal to us that they are under distress. Right. But like, can you imagine, can you imagine Michael Ives is like, we have signed him to a one year, a hundred million dollar contract. I'd be like, where are your children? I don't know if he has any, have they been taken hostage? Are you in trouble? Do you owe someone money? I mean, apart from Ohtani, in which case, yes. But like, yeah, I think it could be, I think it would be a lot. I think it would be a lot.

And I think that part of your understanding as a front office of that very big number is that like the next year, assuming he doesn't want to just go here to here forever, you're like really inside track on him because you have demonstrated, no, we really want you here. We will spend big money and he will be so excited and he won't have to move. You know, I realized that moving is like a less big deal for professional athletes because they are both a nerd to it in a way that I am not and like can afford a lot more help. But also, you have to hang art and then you have to be in a place as long as it took you to hang art on the back end of it to make hanging art worth it, you know? Yeah. Yeah. No, I think even if you did sort of a straight dollars per win kind of calculation, I don't know what the going rate

is for a win on the free agent market these days, something like 9 million, maybe ish. So if you say Otani going into next year would be predicted or projected for eight wins, nine wins, maybe you're talking 70 to 80 million right there. And that's just a generic calculation that doesn't take into account that you're concentrating those wins in a single roster spot, that Otani is going to boost your attendance and just the profile of your team immeasurably. So yeah, it would break the scale. And because it would break the scale, he probably would not get as much as in theory he should be worth, just because we're talking about like doubling the existing high and owners are resistant to that sort of thing. They don't want to raise the bar, right?

Because then other players, even if they're not Otani, they could say, oh, well, if one player is making 80 million, maybe I can make 50 or 60 or something. Maybe I should do this. And I guess, you know, teams, I don't know how they would feel about players actually maximizing their earning potential there. Right. So there would be, I don't want to say collusion, but there'd be some soft pressure probably like all the anonymous quotes about the Mets and the Padres.

And they're breaking our unspoken covenant that is definitely not collusion. But we had kind of an understanding here. So if someone comes in and blows Otani away with a $80 or $90 or $100 million offer, then probably the other owners would say, tsk, tsk, right? Because that would be multiple times the entire payroll of some teams, and those teams would be taken out of the running or take themselves out of the running. But in theory, that's what it should cost you to get Otani on a one-year basis. So it would be kind of fun if he came out and said, yeah, I'm going year to year just to see how high the numbers would go. I don't know if he would maximize his earnings that way or not just because he would so be blowing away the scale that I don't know how much he could raise the ceiling. He could raise the ceiling of a long-term deal to 600

million or something, but that's not doubling the biggest ever long-term deal exactly, not quite. But could he double or more the highest AAV? Oh, man. He's such a singular case that it's hard to say what would happen. But that would be a lot of fun to follow. Kind of hope he doesn't now. All right. And last thing, this question actually does mention Otani, but it's not about Otani. You were like, I need new things to say. And then here we are talking about Otani.

People demand that we talk about the man. I didn't have anything new to say about him, but people are asking us questions about him. Seth says in one of the recent episodes, you expressed frustration. I guess it was mostly me expressing some frustration with the fact that the All-Star Game is usually finished up with the less impressive or popular players. Incidentally, I despise much of the discourse that surrounds the All-Star Game, especially when people get mad about whether someone is starting the game or not. In my view, starting an All-Star Game doesn't give you a special accolade on your baseball reference page, so it theoretically shouldn't matter whether you start the game or come off the bench as long as you make it. Actually, I think it kind of is a special distinction to start.

I think that's a little different. Maybe it's not so different to be a reserve who gets named to the team initially or to replace one of the reserves or starters. I don't think that makes that much difference. But starter versus non-starter, it kind of matters. But what would you think, Seth says, about the idea of the All-Star game starting with the less impressive All-Stars and slowly bringing the best of the best in. Pros, best players on the field at the end of the game. Cons, probably makes the All-Star game less marketable. And Shohei Otani could end up coming into a 12-1 blowout in the seventh inning. So this would ensure that if you had a game like the most recent All-Star game, it's a

one-run game, it's close to the end, then those pivotal moments would be the highest profile players. But then again, you'd also have some games where the game was out of hand by that point and everyone had tuned out, right? I mean, that's probably why this would never happen in that you're starting the game in prime time when the most potential people are tuning in and they're tuning in to see the best players. So you have to have the A lineup out there to start the game in theory, right? And I guess with pitchers, you're often bringing in some pretty good pitchers as the innings go on. Right, yeah.

Because everyone's pitching an inning or two at a time. So you do get some anonymous relievers, but also you get some pretty good guys. But I would like if the starters played more, just stayed in longer. But I don't think I would advocate for just flipping it. If they're only going to play part of the game, it probably still is better for them to play the beginning of the game. Yeah, I think that I I think that I would tend to agree with that. I mean, I appreciate the move to cleverness there, but I also think that we've talked about not having to take the game too seriously and us being able to sort of bend things a little bit

to heighten the viewing experience. And I think that that all still scans, but you want the very best guys. And I think that you, as, as much fun as it is for, you know, fans of teams that like have a guy because you have to have a guy you don't, I think you want to preserve the overall sort of quality of the contest at the end of the day. And, you know, those guys still get in there. So if you're really dedicated, like Michael Lorenzen pitched in that game and obviously we know what happened with the MVP. So I think you still get to see your dudes if you're like really committed, but I think that

you satisfy the look in audience more completely. If you're like, here are the very best guys and they're the first guys you're going to see. I think that that balance is probably being struck the right way as it stands. Yep. All right. So, let's end with the future blast, which is coming to you. We're recording on the anniversary of the Turn Ahead the Clock promotion that the Mariners did in 1998, although they were only turning ahead the clock to 2027, whereas we are turning ahead the clock to 2034. So this comes to us from that year and also from Rick Wilber, an award-winning writer,

editor, and college professor who has been described as the dean of science fiction baseball. And Rick writes, on the field, 2034 was marked by Ronald Acuna Jr.'s excellence at the very height of his career. By the way, he's got to be, what, 36 by this point? So he's aging well, I guess. Impressive that he's young enough now that he could still be performing at this level in 2034. But in 2034, he repeats as National League MVP for the renamed Atlanta Freedom and leads

the team to the World Series, where his six home runs and eight stolen bases led the Freedom to a six-game win over the Nashville Rays. Acuna Jr.'s Be There audience was over the five million mark, and his total income reflected that as he became the first baseball one-season billionaire. Billionaire. Gosh, we were just talking about Shohei Otani maybe becoming a hundred millionaire. Gosh, we were just talking about Shohei Otani maybe becoming a hundred millionaire. Here's Acuna cashing in on his be there following and driving all that revenue for himself. MLB's urge to reach a global audience culminated in a special exhibition post-World Series five-game playoff with the Freedom, which suffered an embarrassing five-game loss to the Yomiuri Giants, winners of the Asian Division Series over the Korean Kia Tigers and a four-game sweep of the Havana Industriales in the Caribbean Division.

The new European division will compete in 2035 with Finland the heavy favorite, led by slugger Micah Sarjanen. The global audience for these post-World Series games was fourth behind the Tour de France, the World Cup, and Cricket's World Cup in 2023. This was a major improvement for baseball, and it was obvious that the divisional World Playoffs

would be formalized in the years to come. On the tech side, artificial intelligence in the dugout was well-established in 2034 with the human managerial input becoming less important

over the course of the season as the AI-managed clubs outperformed the human-led teams. Gambling remained a problem with increased scrutiny on pitch-by-pitch gambling and the fear of hacking the AI managers in the dugout, the automated balls and strike systems, and the deepfake possibilities for replays. Wow. Oh my gosh.

Consider that. Just swap in some deepfakes for the actual replays we get an out instead of a safe this is this is getting dystopian in a hurry it's all happy hey acuna is aging so well and we've got this global game this is great and now we've got gambling and hacking the managers and the abs and deep fake replace wow you know who you can't hack? A meat manager. That's right. Yeah, they might make mistakes, but they will be their own mistakes.

They will be honest mistakes. All right. I will leave you with the latest Taylor Ward name mix up. This one was heard and submitted by Patreon supporter Sam. Sometimes Taylor Ward has been confused with Tyler Wade

and at other times with Turner Ward, the former outfielder and current Cardinals hitting coach. This is one of those. Take it away, John Sterling. This is from the Yankees radio broadcast on Monday. Turner Ward leads off, and the right-hand hitting outfielder takes a pitch a little high, 1-0. Yankees Angels scoreless bottom of the fourth pitch is outside. I'm going to count 2-0. Severino's having trouble with the pitch.com. You'll notice I let the clip keep playing because at the end of it, John Sterling also calls pitch.com pitch.com,

prompting an intake of breath by Susan Waldman. I believe that is not the first time he has done that. I don't know whether it's intentional, but I love it either way. Never retire, John. Also, we've talked about how the defensive positioning restrictions this season, which we were skeptical of to start, have worked in the sense that BABIP is up a bit. Balls in play are a little likelier to become hits, but they've backfired in the sense that they have actually is up a bit. Balls in play are a little likelier to become hits, but they've backfired in the sense that they have actually increased strikeouts indirectly by making it rewarding for pole-oriented hitters to play more and to fully commit to their pole approach. Well,

here's another way in which it may be amplifying strikeouts. This is a quote from top Cardinals exec John Moselak. He says, how we evaluate pitchers is something that we are taking a hard look at upstairs. More swing and miss versus ground ball type would definitely be baked into future thinking. Upstairs, we've had an internal discussion about it. We recognize how we are. We also were a team that was really good defensively. We understood how to shift. Having pitchers that allowed the ball to be put in play, especially on the ground, was something we benefited from.

We're not so stubborn or arrogant to say, no, we're just going to keep doing our system and hope for a better outcome. We understand that there has been a shift, probably no pun intended, and we'll try to adjust to it. The inability to shift is obviously not the only reason that the Cardinals have had a rough season. But if the idea behind banning the shift was, hey, let's make putting the ball in play a little more rewarding for hitters and they will employ a more contact-oriented approach. Well, if that were the case, then pitchers would have even greater incentive to keep them from putting the ball in play. They already had plenty of incentive to do that. But if there were some teams that said, hey, let's build our team around good defense and pitchers who pitch to contact, well, that would be less rewarding now. And so

another team fully boards the strikeout train. You can support Effectively Wild on Patreon by going to patreon.com slash effectively wild. The following five listeners have already signed up and pledged some monthly or yearly amount to help keep the podcast going. Help us stay ad free and get themselves access to some perks. Cody Miller, Kenny Jacoby, Steve Nipora, Andy, and Tim Morton. Thanks to all of you. Patreon perks include access to the Effectively Wild Discord group for patrons only, as well as access to monthly bonus episodes, playoff live streams, discounts on ad-free Fangrafts memberships and merch, and much, much more.

Patreon.com slash Effectively Wild. If you are a Patreon supporter, you can message us through the Patreon site. Anyone and everyone can contact us via email at podcast at fancrafts.com. You can rate, review, and subscribe to Effectively Wild on iTunes and Spotify and other podcast platforms. You can join our Facebook group at facebook.com slash group slash effectively wild. You can follow Effectively Wild on Twitter at EW pod, 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. Thanks to Shane McKeon for his editing and production assistance. We'll be back with another episode soon.

Talk to you a little later this week. Discussing baseball news identically And the colonies say they're rioting Staff laws pass, class and better for free Thank you.