Effectively Wild: A FanGraphs Baseball Podcast - Effectively Wild Episode 2092: Hall Pass

Episode Date: December 1, 2023

Ben Lindbergh and Meg Rowley banter about listeners’ end-of-year podcast stats, the reported “progress” in Padres-Yankees trade talks concerning Juan Soto, some recent Reds and Mets moves, a possible extension for Brewers prospect Jackson Chourio and the track record of extensions signed before a player’s MLB debut, and several end-of-season MLB awards (past and present) […]

Hello and welcome to episode 2092 of Effectively Wild, a baseball podcast from Fangraphs presented by our Patreon supporters. I am Ben Lindberg of The Ringer, joined by Meg R baseball podcast from Fangraphs presented by our Patreon supporters. I am Ben Lindberg of The Ringer, joined by Meg Raleigh of Fangraphs. Hello, Meg. Hello. So it's Spotify wrapped and Apple Music replay and Pocket Casts playback season. So it's the time of year when we get lots of tweets from people who have listened to us a lot, which is always nice, always flattering,

always sort of scary to see. Always terrifying. Oh yeah, like deeply terrifying was going to be my next, it was the next word out of my mouth. Yeah. Yes. To see how long people spent listening to us, but also I suppose how long we've spent talking because we have to do that before they can hear it. And that's what I was going to say. I feel like if we're in your top five, we're usually number one. Now, maybe people just aren't tweeting at me or at EWPod on Twitter as often if we're four or five or something. But it seems like we're usually at the very tippy top. And I feel like we've kind of gamed the system for these end-of-year recap situations.

By doing so many episodes? Yeah. Some of which go a while. We do three substantial episodes every week, week in and week out, without fail. And so I feel like that propels us to the top. And I've seen some that are effectively wild. And also The Ringerverse, the podcast that I'm on at the Ringer, which is similar in the number of episodes we do and the length. So sometimes I'm one and two or two and one, and that's extra special.

But, yeah, it's like it's a counting stat. So I feel like, you know, we've kind of mastered, we've cornered the market here. If you're in the Effectively Wild ecosystem and you're a regular, then almost inevitably we're going to end up at the top of your Spotify rep just because the time spent. If there were some adjusted, like if we were stat blasting this, I'd probably want to do some per episode or divide by the number of episodes or some metric that maybe accounted for that. But I guess this is a metric that just doesn't count for your total time spent. And that's where we excel. I want everyone to know that while I love doing the show, I love doing the show, and I appreciate everyone's support that I have said to you at times, hey, Ben, you know,

so we get Thanksgiving. We don't. Yep. Oh, yeah. yeah you absolutely said that we could do two shows we could do i mean ben gonna blow your mind we could do no shows right like we could but you don't want to do that and um you and i respect that and i didn't want to do no shows to be clear i was like we could we could do two shows and then we could be done whatever shows you don't want to do no shows, to be clear. I was like, we could do two shows. I respect whatever shows you don't want to do. Yeah. Yeah. It's a ridiculous system that I've set up here.

Yeah. And, like, do I feel guilty when you do a show and I don't do the show because I'm, like, going to be taken? I do. You should not. I do. No, please don't. I do, though. Yeah.

But then sometimes, you know, I should get over myself because you have an incredible interview, like your show Bay interview. And so, like, you know, it's fine. But I want people to know that we do think about these things. And then very often our conclusion is, eh, we'll just record the show. At least one of us. Just like doing it after all these years and like seeing that people spend so much time listening. It's very nice. So thanks to everyone who has sent those.

I know other people are like, why do I need to see this? Like this is suddenly in everyone's feed. I don't care what podcast you listen to or you don't feel the need to tell the world what podcast or music you listen to. I totally understand. But for those who have reached out to podcasters, it does warm our hearts a little. It does make our day. So thank you. I'm an Apple music person.

I'm not a Spotify person. Sorry, going against company policy here. But I do Apple music and not for any especially moral reason. It's just like the ecosystem my stuff is in. So that's where I've stayed. And Apple has like an equivalent thing that you can do. Although I guess this year Spotify is telling you like where you should live based on your music choices? Question mark.

So anyway, Apple hasn't done that yet. Can't decide if that's good or bad. But I have like a monster playlist of the scores from Stranger Things. Oh, yeah. It's like chill synth music. Basically, it's really good to edit to. Great working music. Yes, I've done the same.

Yeah, as we've discussed, I really struggle to edit to music that has lyrics. No, there are exceptions to that. I do better when the lyrics are in another language. So that works out fine. But if it's English, it's like i can't deal with the two sensory inputs at once and so i listen to this like giant playlist of stranger

things except you really grapple with like how much time you've spent editing to that because it's the only time i listen to it and i really only do it when i'm um editing lists like i listen to other stuff when i am not editing less. And Ben, I can't put it up because it's too, but it's just so many, it's like a lot of days of, of, um, of my life that I've spent editing lists. So that was like a thing I was thinking about yesterday. I was like, wow. It happens to parents too, when your kids commandeer your streaming services, which my daughter's not old enough for that yet. I guess if we did a Disney Plus version of that, then you're like, wow, Ben's watched a lot of Elemental this year, but my music is so far intact. But yeah, we're getting there. Anyway, wanted to

get your reaction to this report I saw, if you can call it a report by Andy Martino of SNY, This report I saw, if you can call it a report by Andy Martino of SNY, who wrote this. Talks between the Yankees and the San Diego Padres about a Juan Soto trade have progressed to the point of exchanging names on players, league sources say. What were they doing before? That's my question. Now, to progress to the point of exchanging names on players. What has to happen before you progress to that point? You have to pick up the phone and dial or send a text. But how much preliminary conversation is there that has to happen before? So here's what I'm willing to give up or here's what I want.

I feel like the only question that you can spend time asking, and it's not very much time at at all is, hey, for the right set of guys, is Juan Soto available? Right. You know, like, isn't that the only question that you can ask that isn't? Yeah. Yeah. Which guys, you know, that's the second question is which guys and, you know, depending on how long a sentence you're comfortable with, like the guys might be, at least some of them might be in the first question like would you think about Juan Soto for these guys like I okay like I get what I get what I think the report is trying to convey which is that like there is a seriousness to this conversation between these two theme teams that is more than just the sort of cursory perfunctory checking in on that. That happens a lot between all of the teams, you know, even on guys who ultimately are really never in any danger.

Sounds like so much more sinister about either the Padres or the Yankees than I mean it, but like are never really on the, on the trading market. You know, teams check in cause you never know. You might get a surprising answer and then be like, well, I guess we're going to swing a trade for so-and-so. Of course, the names are sort of the whole thing when it comes down to it.

The stuff that the names are attached to, their perceived value and their performance to date, and depending on whether you're talking about major leaguers or minor leaguers like how much money they're making how much team but all of that is dependent on the names like the answers to those questions

rely on the name you know that's how you evaluate like yeah that trade sounds good or no that trade sounds silly because like some of the and as an aside some of the trade proposals that have been floated I was like if I were if I were the Padres, I wouldn't do that. Like that seems like not enough.

Well, this report from him was on November 29th. He did have a previous report on November 9th. So 20 days earlier, he had reported that they have already engaged in at least one preliminary check-in with San Diego this offseason. one preliminary check-in with San Diego this offseason. So 20 days later, they progressed from preliminary check-in to exchanging names. But I don't know if there were any intermediate conversations, right? Oh, my gosh. So I don't know. This is kind of in the non-revelatory, revelatory rumors category.

I guess it's interesting that they're talking at all, but really, like, progress to the point makes it sound like, oh, here we go. But that's like conversation two. Okay. So he's theoretically available as almost every player is, technically speaking. In that case, here's my offer. Or, you know, I guess like in the initial conversation, you could be like, well, what are you looking for? And maybe without naming specific names, you could be like, well, we need this or that, or we need this many of that type of player. And then maybe you progress to, okay, well, here are some names attached to those archetypes, potentially.

But still, we're talking like two texts or conversations here. It's not like a long involved back and forth before you get to the name exchange. I'll put it this way, Ben. My understanding of the seriousness of their conversations, or let me say San Diego's conversations around Juan Soto, you know, as it relates to the Yankees specifically, but also more generally, it's like to the point where I was like, all right, I'm going to get my coverage ducks in a row. You know, I seem to... I do expect them to get traded somewhere at some point.

Yeah, I expect them to get traded. And like, you know, the fact that there is some amount of increased urgency because they've actually talked about names made me go like, hey, here's who should be like on call, you know, West Coast, East Coast. And like, Dan, let's make sure we got those zips ready to spin up, you know, like that sort of stuff. You got to make sure that machine's plugged in and everything. But I don't know, like, I think some of it will probably depend on how, if New York is the primary potential trading partner, they are also, it seems like, very heavy in on Yamamoto.

And so how they want to sequence those things relative to one another, I imagine will dictate some of it. And we, you know, we have an outer bound for the Yamamoto of it all. But it sounds like his camp is kind of trying to like do their little tour in slow roll, not slow roll things, but like they're taking their time. They're trying to get a deal done today and slow roll, not slow roll things, but like they're taking, they're taking their time. They're trying to get a deal done today. So I don't know. It probably means that when it will break is when I'm on a plane to Nashville on Sunday, if I had to like hazard, I guess, because that'd be sort of like maximally inconvenient, but that's not true. That is not the maximally inconvenient time. I cannot believe that I would dare AJ Prowler of all people to find a more inconvenient

time because I can think of so many more inconvenient times. AJ, just like, hey man, like let's be one on this, okay? I don't want my mom to think about your name at all this year. I want her to not be, to be like, who is the GM? You don't want to be exchanging names with your mom that includes AJ Prerowlers. Correct. Because like it's better when it's better when mom doesn't remember who the GM of the Padres is. Don't progress to that point. Yeah. We're like either either speed it up or really shut it down. You know, those are your options.

But like view that week in between as sacrosanct. Please, I'd like to spend time with my family. Well, we have had a smattering of transactions that have been completed. Some names and salaries were exchanged and finalized. Not the sexiest of transactions, but the Mets made some moves. They signed Luis Severino to a one-year $13 million deal, and they traded for Joey Wendell from the Marlins. And then the Reds made a couple moves themselves. They signed Emilio Pagan to a one-year $8 million deal that has a one-year $8 million player option. So it's sort of a 2-16. And then Nick Martinez signed for 2-26 with an opt-out after the first year, which occasioned a Bauman headline that is maybe his most magnificent yet.

We just talked about this on the last episode, but we egged him on, if anything, because he went with, I assume he went with, Reds sign Pagan risk giving up a million home runs. Home runs. Yeah. Let me pull back the curtain ever so slightly. Please. So Bauman files this piece. Yeah, it progressed to the point where you were exchanging headlines. Yeah. pull back the curtain ever so slightly please so bowman bowman files this piece and uh progressed to the point where you were exchanging headlines yeah and i was editing a different piece i was

editing ben clemens's piece that ran today on sort of the state of the rsn situation so i was like deep in the weeds on that and you know it was at a point where he had decided like it was gonna his piece on pagan was gonna run today and so i said to him hey this might be too cute by half like i don't know how i feel about it and then i let him know later like hey john's gonna end up editing you in the morning i've alerted him that this might be too cute by half but i have given him full discretion to leave it if he thinks it's fine and uh john did and i think that they um know, it came out the right way. And I'm glad it didn't get changed, having had time to reflect on it. And it does very concisely sum up my concerns with the Pagan signing, which is that, like, wow, does great American ballpark seem like a not maybe optimal place for him to play baseball. But I like Emilio Pagan. So, you know, maybe it'll be fine. And, yeah. Yeah, I mean, these moves, I guess it's most noteworthy to me because Pagan and then Martinez was each, I think, the highest paid player on the Reds when they signed. Martinez topped Pagan very quickly. I think the Padres had declined Martinez's 2-32, and he ended up getting, I guess, a little less than that.

But it's for the Reds, this is a big-ticket item, right? They just do not have a lot of players who are under arbitration or post-arbitration free agent era contracts. And so even now, after making these moves, they're still at a projected 71 million, which is above only the A's and the Pirates. So they still have plenty of room to maneuver. Will they maneuver?

I don't know. But it's an encouraging sign that they at least made some moves and they got themselves a reliever and they got Martinez, who's been a swing man, but could start for them potentially. So will they build on that? Like they've had higher payrolls in the past, but in this era of broadcast uncertainty, who knows what Red's ownership will do. But you'd like to see them surround that exciting young core that they have with some supplementary players. So it's a start. So if I'm the Reds front office and I have an ownership group that is baseline miserly in terms of its approach to payroll, I do think that when you look at what they already had, reinforcing the bullpen with guys you think are going to be good is a pretty cost-effective way to like raise your ceiling a little bit now would i like them to like bring in another starter i would like that ben i feel like um they would benefit from another starter and are they counting on all of their young guys like really being able to solidify their position as like you know everyday big leaguers they are relying on that. But like, assuming that that part goes okay, and that the

sort of green Ashcraft Abbott group is, you know, good, and you know, Martinez and sort of Lodolo behind them, and like, who knows what Martinez is going to want to do. And so anyway, like, I think that there's, I think that this is good. Like, there was debate around Martinez when he snuck on to the top 50 because he sounds like he wants to start. And so I am curious, like, how the Reds think of him because he sounds like he wants to start. He covered a lot of innings out of the bullpen for San Diego. He hasn't done great when he has started, but, like, he's a different pitcher now so I just like I don't know like I like it I think there's flexibility in his role and profile that's interesting for them I would like them to just spend some money because again like it would be

nice if the things you're counting on aren't like well these relievers signing and all the young guys hitting at once like you know it would be good to have some redundancy built in and to feel like you had more margin for error there. But he's interesting. I'm a little less worried about the home runs there, I guess. Yeah. It's kind of encouraging for the Reds that they did as well as they did last year and were in contention until the end of the season and took a big leap forward and were ahead of schedule, even though the starting pitching didn't work out for them. Because coming into that season, it was like,

oh, look at all these good young starters they have. And then a lot of those guys got hurt for long stretches, right? It just didn't pan out. So they had the 25th most war from their starting pitchers in 2023. And yet they did as well as they did because they graduated all those great position players who produced. So maybe now you combine both. Maybe those starters pitch up to their potential and you have the good young position players.

But it would also be nice to fill in some of the cracks in the roster with some other established players. And hopefully that's what they'll be doing. We'll see. Yeah, there's just not like a lot of depth here. And hopefully that's what they'll be doing. We'll see. league season and then showed that like that was not just an artifact of the pre-tacked ball which was a question when we were trying to figure out like where does this guy fit on the top 100 now because he was going through you know levels with that and so like i think he's good i think that like hunter green is figuring stuff out i there's like no depth here yeah you know all it takes to like really profoundly change their trajectory as a franchise right now and i assume this is not

like the totality of the group they'll go into the season with but like all it takes right now is us getting that alert like the first week of spring training that x red starter and i'm not gonna say a name because why invite that you know like why put that out into the world experience forearm tightness today and then we're gonna go oh crap so they you know this is not like a a complete competitive roster yet but like they are fun and interesting and i am trying really hard to like separate my impression of their individual players from some of the the like disdain that i do feel for their ownership group because that has not changed but like there's a lot here that's really exciting. And if they can, you know, continue to reinforce it, both raise the ceiling by hopefully bringing in an impact starter and

then, you know, help to fill, backfill some of the depth. I like, they're exciting. They could be exciting. That could be exciting. What if we have to start talking about the NL Central differently? What are we going to do? I hope we do. I hope we do too. What if we have to start talking about the NL Central differently? What are we going to do? I hope we do. I hope we do, too. What if we have to start talking about the Reds, which historically hasn't happened uneffectively well, but started this year. And maybe they'll give us more cause to do that in the future.

And like happy cause. Yes, exactly. Happy cause. Because we've had some unhappy cause in them. Yes. Yes. Well, speaking of lack of rotation depth and also speaking of pitchers who have had forearm tightness in the past, Luis Severino to the Mets.

So the Reds have a projected starting pitcher war that ranks them ninth among teams despite the uncertainty. The Mets are even post-Severino at 19th. They went into last season with one of the top projected rotations, albeit with some collapse and downside risks, some of which came to pass. But now they really need some innings. And Severino may not give you innings,

but he gives you another arm who has been effective or injured. Like he was always a good or injured guy until this past season when even when he was pitching, he was quite bad. So for those last five starts, those are right. Yeah. So that gives you some hope. And it's a one year deal with some performance bonuses in the mix.

So they hope that they get the ace level top of the rotation type Severino that was seen across town at times and not the injured or ineffective Severino that we've seen most recently. And he's just like another name to add to that mix. Obviously, they're in the Yamamoto hunt as well. And they will probably make some sort of splash depending on their competitive plans for 2024. But, you know, you're starting with Senga. That's solid. But then it quickly becomes iffy when it comes to either durability or performance. You've got Quintana.

You've got McGill. You've got Lucchese and Peterson, et cetera, like a bunch of guys who've had injuries or have struggled. So, yeah, it's a little dicey. Yes, or both. I do like on our depth chart pages, you can where they rank every rotation based on sort of projected war here. There's like a little green box with a plus in it, you know, to indicate that the player is injured. And David Peterson says, hip out. And out is like that he's out. Not that his hip's out, that it's expected to happen is the Brewers extending Jackson Churio, who is one of the Jacksons who is at or close to the top. One of the Jacksons. The Jackson 3 or whatever it is who are clustered toward the top of the prospect list these days.

And the terms that have been bandied about, we've heard eight years, 80 million. And we don't know exactly what the structure is, but it sounds like something will happen there. And I'm sort of surprised that this doesn't happen more often, that we just haven't seen more top prospects extended before they make the majors because it really hasn't happened all that often. And I think I've written or Sam wrote or we podcasted about how, well, this seemed like it would be the next step for extensions because everyone else was signing extensions and you could just keep pushing it earlier and earlier in the career when there's more uncertainty, when the player might be willing to sign at what turns out to be a team-friendly rate later on,

although you're assuming some risk as that team. But it hasn't happened that many times. There's a handful of prominent players who've signed before they make their Major League debuts, but not really more than that. So I'm just sort of surprised. And I've seen some people express some surprise that Churio would be the one who would get a record-breaking deal now for a player who hasn't made the majors yet just because of some risk in his profile. But to me, it's surprising that it doesn't happen more often with players

of this caliber. I agree. You know, when you think about Churio in particular, like, I'm less surprised. I mean, he's like a 60 for us at Fanagraphs. And I was talking to Eric Longhanging about like where he sits now, because Eric's writing about this extension for us. And, you know, he has spent time watching him play winter ball. And like he, he has him third on the board right now, and expects that he'll sort of stay in that range from a top 100 perspective when it's all said and done. Global top five guy is where he sits. There is maybe some amount of hit tool risk, like some, but he can really go get it in center field. Go get it. He can go get it, Ben.

He can go get it. I can't get it, Ben. He can go get it. You know, like Eric was like watching him play center and winter ball. And, you know, who knows if there was a little extra pep in his stuff because he knew he was about to sign a big extension, but like has really looked great out there and is an exciting player for them. And like, I think the thing to keep in mind and the part of it that I'm surprised by to your earlier point about why there aren't more of these deals. Like we can, like, I guess, Luis Roberto Jr. is like the example that a lot of people bring up. There have been ones that haven't worked out as well, right? Like Evan White and Scott Kingree. But also, these deals are almost always for so little money. Like, it's just such a microscopic amount of money

compared to the potential value upside that teams realize when they get these guys to sign early deals. Because, like, you know, okay, so, like, Evan White isn't good and hasn't been in the majors much, and, you know, is he what's holding Seattle's payroll back? I mean, no. He signed a six six year, $24 million deal, right? Like, King Grease was around that. This is more than that, but it's spaced out over so many years. And then you have to team options there, like it would make sense that they would be for more than the, you know, eight or whatever.

I am surprised because it just seems like the upside is so tremendous on the team side. Now, maybe that suggests that agents are like, no,'re not gonna do it because do i think that jackson trio is gonna be a good player i mean like people who know better than me say yes so i'm kind of inclined to believe it i think that when you play really good center field defense like your floor for being good and and productive is just so much higher because like you need good center field defense and so like i'm sure it'll be fine and he's only 19 so like even if this is like the however many years like you know like he can make some more money later i guess but i wonder i do wonder if agents are like even though it is a good slug of money, it is life-changing, like you've only played six games above AA and that might make this deal seem generous, but it also means that we might not

have a full understanding of like what your potential as a player is. So I do wonder if it suggests resistance on the agency side to these guys kind of maybe underselling themselves from a real value perspective. So there's that. Yeah. The success rate isn't that high in this small sample of deals for guys before they made their major league debuts. But when it works, it works so well that I think it would justify trying it more often. John Singleton, okay, that didn't work out. Evan White, Scott

Kingery, Eloy Jimenez hasn't been a disaster or anything, but you know, it was mixed, right? Because he's been hurt a lot and he's kind of a bad only player. But then you have Luis Robert, right? With the White Sox as well, six years and 50 million. And that has worked out really well. And I guess you could potentially lump in Evan Longoria's first extension, which came when he was six games into his major league career. And that worked out really well for the Rays. So yeah, conceptually, it seems like this would be a time when teams could take advantage of their greater appetite and tolerance for risk and players being at a stage in their

career where many of them haven't cashed in yet and would want to take that big payment, right? Even if it is short-sighted of them. But yeah, maybe some of them are getting good advice not to do that, which would be good as well. And you understand, like it's, I understand the, you know, the reluctance to say no in these cases, because especially at this stage of their careers, and I'm not saying anything specific about the Brewers here, I'm not trying to like level accusations up when they're ready and get extra draft picks for being on opening day rosters and stuff like that. But like the the the power is clearly on the org side at this stage of a player's career where it's like, well, we'll just decide to bring you up when we bring you up. they can't be that cavalier but like you know the power is clearly residing with them and so i hope that you know these these guys feel and that their representation feels like they're in a sufficiently strong position to be able to say no when they want to and you know it could just be that like jackson trio really likes being a brewer and he's excited to be a big leaguer and you know this is like this is a good bit more money than, you know,

than any of the other prior examples of this, although it is over a longer stretch. So, you know, and some of it will depend. Some of my impression of this is going to depend on the precise details of the options. But again, I have to expect that if they are saying yes to the deal, that the option years are probably going to be pretty lucrative. And it puts brewers in this really kind of nice position candidly because they can do it a couple of different ways like if he comes up and he's not as good as we think he is like it's not a lot of money if he comes up and he's as good as we think he is or better tremendously valuable to him and also like he's making a couple million dollars a year. Cool. If he comes up and he's really good and they get into his option years and all of a sudden the team is bad or like they find themselves payroll constrained in some other way, which it's not like they have

much on the books right now, except for like more Christian Yelich, they can just do a Glasnow and trade him, you know? And like, if he's really good and he's making, I don't know, what his option years will be, but, like, whatever the Brewers are willing to agree to from an option year perspective, which, like I said, is probably more than the sort of non-option years of the deal, but probably not anything completely wild, like, they'll trade him and they'll get players back. So, like, I understand the incentives on Milwaukee's side.

I get why young players like this stuff. And I just hope that like everyone comes away feeling like they are being sort of properly, they're both able to negotiate from a position of strength and getting compensation that they think is commensurate with their talent. And yeah, that's what I think about that.

While we were talking, the Mets signed Austin Adams as well. He only hit five batters last year in 17 and a third innings. How many innings? 17 and a third. Oh, wow. Better ratio for him than 2021 when he hit 24 and 52. This is like one every three and a half innings instead of one every two.

Right. So that's a great improvement for him. Yeah. Excellent. Well done, Austin Adams. All right. I look forward to further reductions in your hitting people rate. All right.

So I have one more thing to tell you before we get to our guest. I was perusing the Wikipedia page for baseball awards, prompted by some discussion in our Patreon Discord group. And this is just a lengthy and comprehensive Wikipedia page, hundreds of entries for all manner of baseball leagues at every level. And I was looking specifically at the MLB awards, some of them awarded or sanctioned by MLB and some of them by other parties. And there were a few that I hadn't heard of or wasn't aware of that I want to share with you here because there are just more awards

than have ever been dreamt of in our philosophy here. Like, I did not know. First of all, they have some discontinued awards. So some of these are still active and some of them they used to hand out. For instance, Clutch Performer of the Year Award, which only lasted for a few years and was discontinued after 2010. I kind of like that one. I kind of like Clutch Performer of the Year Award. I think we should bring that back, you know,

and it now would probably be based on some win probability metric or something. But I would kind of like being able to recognize someone for clutchness, even if they weren't that good overall. Just like, oh, you were clutch. Sometimes it's like a tiebreaker. It's a point in someone's favor with one of the other awards. But just purely recognizing clutchness relative to your typical performance, that would be good. Except I feel like probably good players would get it anyway. It would be like good players who tended to be clutch.

Maybe that's what happened as opposed to just like some scrubs who hit really well with runners in scoring position. But I would like it if it were awarded that way. I think that that would be delightful. But I do wonder if like because we have the tools we have, if they were just like the romanticism of this award is gone, we have to discontinue it. Right. And they also used to have a sophomore of the year award. So not rookie of the year, but sophomore of the year. Wait, hold on. I'm sorry, Ben. I have to interrupt you. A what of the year? Sophomore. Sophomore? Sophomore? Sophomore. Do you say sophomore? You say sophomore? I say sophomore. Yeah. Sophomore. I've never heard that before. Sophomore.

Second always silent for you, huh? Yeah, sophomore. But I say, what's the thing you used to draw with when you were a little kid? Crayon. Yeah, and I say crayon because I'm from the West Coast and we do that there. So, I'm not making fun of you. Maybe it's the same thing. Maybe they retired this award

because they couldn't decide, they couldn't agree on how it was pronounced. No, I think most people say sophomore, Ben. Like, I don't want to make you feel bad, but I also just want to point out that most people say sophomore. The BBWAA awarded whatever it's called from 1953 to 1962 in each league.

So it's been retired for several decades, but I kind of like it. You know, we have rookie of the year, but why not recognize a sophomore? I don't know whether you have to be just like in your second season or whether it's for guys who used up their rookie eligibility or what exactly, but like, is it second full season? But, you know, we recognize the rookies and then next year they come back. We should recognize them then too, especially there's the whole idea of the sophomore slump. So if you avoid the slump and you improve, then yeah, you're sophomore of the year. I mean, I guess if you have sophomore of the year, then it's like, well, why not have junior of the year? Why not have senior, fourth year player, whatever you would call it?

But I kind of like it. I think it's a little area that is not formally recognized that we should bring back. I like it a lot for two reasons. The first is that I think it would be really fun. You know, if we count, if we say that the year you're eligible for this is like the first year after you have exceeded rookie eligibility so you're no longer eligible for the end of year rookie of the year award we would be able to track like you know it would be fun to look at rookie of the year winners into maybe not winners of sophomore of the year but finalists of sophomore of the year to see like who are the best young

players right there's a fun trajectory to sort of chart there that I think would be cool. And we do end up with some like kind of, you know, like flash in the pan rookie of the years. It happens every now and again. And so to see like how that plays out over time would be fun. And particularly in our new prospect world, post 2020, where September roster days

count toward your active days limit in terms of being an eligible rookie, I think it would be nice to have a second year award to acknowledge guys who like kind of sneaky graduated and you don't realize it and they weren't really playing. Like I think about like Gabriel Moreno, right? Gabriel Moreno was not a rookie this year, even though he barely played last season. And by last season, I mean, his season with Toronto, he was just like up and on the roster, the active roster, but not playing every day. And so I know a lot of people when he got traded were like, he's an exciting young

rookie. And then I had to be annoying and pedantic and be like, he's not a rookie, not a rookie, not a rookie. And to be clear, he was a rookie by some publications estimation because like BA doesn't take active roster days into account. They only look at the at bat and innings thresholds. And I'm not saying that in like a snarky way. I'm just saying like, that's how they do it. So I'm pretty sure he was on their hundred, even though he wasn't on ours. Not because we don't think Gabriel Moreno is good, but because he wasn't, he wasn't rookie eligible anymore. So we pull him off. We don't think Gabriel Moreno is good, but because he wasn't rookie eligible anymore, so we pull him off. And so, not saying he would have won, but I bet he would have been a finisher. He would have gotten some consideration. He would have been someone who got talked about, and that would be nice. Because he didn't get a real rookie of the year chance in a way that benefited him professionally because he was up on the active roster. He was making big league money. He like, you know, I'm not saying it was bad.

It's just like he never got an opportunity to like have a rookie of the year campaign because of vagaries of like active roster days. But this way he could be a sophomore of the year. I really like it. Yeah. Okay. Let's start a petition.

Let's start a petition. Some active awards here that people might not know about. So everyone knows about the Commissioner's Trophy, the Honka medal that you get when you win the World Series. However, there are trophies for the AL Champion and the NL Champion. So the AL Champion gets the William Herridge Trophy, and the NL Champion gets the Warren C. Giles Trophy. These are former league presidents. Oh, sure, yeah. Giles Trophy. These are former league presidents. So that means that the Diamondbacks, you know, they didn't get the Commissioner's Trophy, but they still get the consolation prize,

the Warren C. Giles Trophy. And I guess this means that the Rangers, they got the Herridge Trophy as well as the Commissioner's Trophy. Oh, yeah, you get both. Yeah, the Commissioner's Trophy, unlike its counterparts in most other leagues, MLS and the NFL, NBA, NHL is not named after an individual. And so these league trophies are. And also you get a new one each year, unlike the Commissioner's Trophy, which I don't know if it's a loaner or you just get to hoist it and then you put it back. There's only one, right? You don't get to keep it forever, but there are new Herridge and Giles trophies awarded every year and you get to keep it back. There's only one, right? You don't get to keep it forever, but there are new Herridge and Giles trophies awarded every year and you get to keep it forever. So that's nice.

I think you should get to keep all of them forever. Yeah. I mean, some of the ones that are historic, if it's like the Stanley Cup, like you get your name etched on there. But isn't the Stanley Cup really the only one where it's like... Yeah, it's that special, I guess. Yeah. the only one where it's like yeah it's that special i guess yeah yeah right okay i also learned the nl home run leader wins the mel ott award okay but there's currently as far as i can tell no formal award for the person who hits the most home runs in either league so yeah there used to be a babe

ruth home run award which went to the mlb home Leader, but that was discontinued in 2010. So now there's an NL Home Run Leader Award, the Mel Ott Award. Mel Ott won six NL Home Run titles in his career. There's no AL Award, at least not a named one. So Matt Olson won the Mel Ott Award for leading the NL in home runs. But as far as I know, he didn't win any named award, at least, for hitting the most home runs in either league. So that's kind of quirky. That's weird. Yeah, that's weird. Yeah. You have some awards that are named for particular people.

Not all of them are. But for instance, there's an award for the best DH, the Edgar Martinez Award. Right. Handed out by the BBWA, which was originally known as the Outstanding DH Award. Marcelo Zuna in 2020 is the only NL player to have won it to date. I mean, I guess some of these awards, there's no suspense associated with the Mellott Award or the former Babe Ruth Home Run Award now defunct. It's like, you know, you don't have to wait to see who the finalists are or the ballots or anything. It's like, well, we know who hit the most home runs. Right, right.

Yeah. But it's still nice to be recognized. And along those lines, there's a Luis Aparicio Award awarded every year since 2004, which is given to the best Venezuelan player in MLB, determined by a vote conducted by Venezuelan sports journalists and Spanish-language media around the world. So Ronald Cunha Jr. is the most recent honoree. He won the Aparicio. And along the same lines,

there's the Tip O'Neill Award, which is named after 19th century American Association Triple Crown winner Tip O'Neill and awarded by the Canadian Baseball Hall of Fame to the Canadian player judged to have excelled in individual achievement and team contribution while adhering to the highest ideals of the game of baseball. And as of now, we don't know who the Tip O'Neill award winner for 2023 is. Announcements come in December 7th. So get hyped for the Tip O'Neill award reveal.

You thought award season was over? Nope, not yet. Will it be Josh Naylor? Will it be Edward Julien? Might Nick Pavetta take home his first Tip O'Neill? Jordan Romano, who is the reigning Tip O'Neill award winner, might he go back to back? Intrigue. Yeah. Intrigue.

Yeah. I like that. Maybe we should have one for every country. I don't know. Yeah. I kind of like that. At least every country that's represented by a lot of players in MLB. Sure. Do you think that we are well served by more or fewer awards? Just like philosophically, are you like concerned about award dilution, basically? Like participation trophy complaints? Yeah. Yeah.

I think there are so many awards that some of them just get lost in the shuffle, like these ones that in some cases I wasn't really aware of. And so the more awards you have, the more some of them are going to get diluted and no one's going to know. Sure. But I think the particular people, I'm sure it means something to Ronald Acuna to win an Aparicio, right? Or if you're a Canadian player and you win the Tip O'Neill, I'm sure that's kind of cool. So if no one else knows or cares, then it's still special to you.

So that's something. Yeah. Yeah. I'm into that. I think that like, do I worry about like knuckleheads on the internet being like, I don't know what gets an award. I mean, like,

sure. But like I've said before, why do we got to, we shouldn't, we don't need to indulge knuckleheads. We could say, get out of here. You're a knucklehead.

And the knuckleheads may just not know that these awards exist, you know? So you know about the big BBWA ones and the silver sluggers and maybe the Hank Aaron award, or even the player's choice or the All-MLB Team. There are just so many awards, really. There really are. But just a few more. The Hutch Award. What's that? Which it best exemplifies the fighting spirit and competitive desire of Fred Hutchinson by persevering through adversity. It was created in 1965 in honor of Fred Hutchinson, former pitcher and manager who had died of lung cancer

the previous year. And so you have to go through something that sucks to get the Hutch Award, but you persevere or you help other people through something that sucks. So each winner receives something that sucks. It's probably an understatement, but each winner gets a copy of the original trophy, which was designed, I believe, by Dale Chihuly, Mariners fan. Well, because we have a major cancer center in the Northwest named after Fred Hutchinson that was started by his brother. Okay. And you got the Hutch Award. I think they are involved in awarding the Hutch Award.

Oh, really? I think D. Strange Gordon was the last player to get the Hutch Award in 2019, although there was an honorary one awarded in 2022 to Anthony Fauci. He got a Hutch Award. Also, Jimmy Carter got a Hutch Award in 2015. So I guess you can just kind of give it to anyone sometimes if you feel like it. Along those lines, there's the Tony Canigliaro Award

for a player who best overcomes an obstacle and adversity through the attributes of spirit, determination, and courage that were trademarks of Canigliaro, who of course got beamed and came back from that very severe injury. This was created by the Red Sox and picked by a panel composed of the media, representatives of the commissioner, and the two leagues' offices. And I guess there's a lot of overlap probably between this award and comeback player of the year, like Liam Hendricks just won both of those. So if you came back from something, then you overcame an obstacle, you persevered, you could be in the mix for all of those awards, you could kind of clean up in the comeback category. It's such a tricky thing, like sometimes it's like you're coming back from like a big life thing and sometimes you're coming back from not being very good the prior season.

Liam Hendricks, you came back from cancer or Cody Bellinger. You were bad for a few years and you had injuries. But yeah, there's like a range of human experience and it's fine to acknowledge all the different points along it you know um and it's not as if being you know when you have a year where you're really not good at professional baseball and you're a professional baseball player like that that's trying in its own way i mean i don't want to make like draw equivalencies here right this is the problem with it but like i'm just saying like there's a range of stuff that happens to you as a person and some of it's like more severe but all of it can be, you know,

a thing you have to come back from, Ben. It's all a thing you have to come back from. And the last two, this one, I really like and wish it were better known, the Babe Ruth Award, which is given to the most valuable post-season player by the New York chapter of the BBWA. And this has been awarded in some form since 1949,

but until 2007, it was given to the most valuable player of the World Series, which was sort of redundant because this is not the World Series MVP award. This is a separate thing that's not sanctioned by MLB, and it's awarded several weeks after the World Series. So it would be kind of anticlimactic to give the Babe Ruth award to the best player of the World Series who's already won the World Series MVP. And so they changed it. And now it's just given to the most valuable postseason player, which I like a lot. I think that was an award that needed to exist. Just doesn't even have to go to a player on the winning team, though it probably usually does. But yeah But that's a way to recognize someone who is excellent across various rounds as opposed to just you were great within this one round, you get to be MVP. But just a postseason wide award, I think that is a very valuable one. I agree. And I look, I don't want to artificially constrain it, but I like the idea of it being an award that is at least open to people considering players who did not emerge victorious, right?

Yes. Because sometimes you have really exemplary postseason runs, and they don't end up winning the World Series, but they should get a little award as a treat, you know, because they're really good. And you can only do so much as one guy in baseball, so you shouldn't be iced out of award consideration just because, you know. Yeah. And this last one, maybe the least known of any that I've highlighted here today. There are so many that you would know the names of. But this one I think I was totally unaware of. The Warren Spahn Award, which since 1999 has been given to the best left-handed pitcher in MLB

by the Oklahoma Sports Museum. And it's based on wins, ERA, and strikeouts, I believe, or at least it used to be, which is appropriate, sort of old school Spahn-esque stats. And it hasn't yet been awarded this year, but I'm guessing Blake Snell will pick up his second Spahn Award to go with his second Cy Young. But yeah, this is a weird one. It's like an extra qualifier that we don't have in the Cy Young Award. It's like, yeah, you have to be left-handed to be eligible. But that's kind of cool.

You know, best lefty, best southpaw. I like that. I do, too. I don't know. I think we should have like, you know, you have like a fun name for doing the thing, right? You're a southpaw. That's fun. That's fun.

You should be. Port Sider. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And you get to recognize more great former players who get their name on an award. Yes. So fun all around.

And otherwise, you might just be completely oblivious and ignorant of it as I was. But if you know, you know, I wonder whether Blake Snell, if he gets the Warren Spahn after winning the Cy Young, like what's the level of excitement after you've already won the Cy Young? I don't know whether there's ever been a Cy Young award winning lefty who did not win the Warren Spahn award, but it's got to be a bit of an afterthought. It's like, but I was the best of all the pitchers, they said. And now you're saying I'm the best of a subset of the pitchers. I guess that's kind of cool too, but it seems like it should be inclusive perhaps. But I still like it. I like the specificity of it.

Yeah, I do too. All right. Well, you all gave us the awards of telling us that we're at the top of your listened list. So we appreciate that. And now we will talk about other honors that can be won by baseball players. In just a moment, we will be joined by Jay Jaffe for his more or less annual spot on the podcast to tell us all about this year's Hall of Fame ballot and Hall of Fame voting trends. All right. We are once again joined by Jay Jaffe, senior writer for Fangraphs, author of the Cooperstown

Casebook, creator of Jaws, which is about to turn 20. My goodness. I remember when it was just this high. Hello, Jay. Welcome back. Thanks. Good to be back. 20 years.

I know you probably haven't done all of your reflecting on that yet because the actual anniversary is January. But what does that mean to you? It's wild. This started sort of as an outgrowth of what I was doing as a blogger, which was kind of applying a WinShares look to the ballot just to sort of see what it told us about the ballot and built something that actually became a tool that actual voters use, including high-profile ones. So it's been pretty remarkable to see how it's been accepted and how, how it's, how it's become pervasive you know, MLB network and baseball reference and referring to it and people I've never met referring to it and people, you know, I got to do a book.

It's been a thrill and I know it's not something I take for granted. And, you know, I try to take this project of evaluating the hall of fame ballots seriously every year and give everything a fresh look instead of just kind of going on autopilot. But it's flattering that people have found this useful. And I think there's a certain elegance to it that really does help tackle, especially what were some very unruly ballots and has changed Hall of Fame voting for the better. Yeah. I recently read the numbers and we concluded that MVP ballots and end-of-year awards ballots had become more alike over time and also have come to mirror war more closely

or to be more closely correlated with war than they used to be before anyone knew what war was or before it existed. And I would guess that something similar has happened with Hall of Fame voting for some of the same reasons, but also because we have Jaws now and it has definitely helped reshape the debate for a lot of voters and obviously has helped you become a voter yourself. Yeah, I think we're seeing fewer Jim Rice types get in, at least via the writers. I think the writers' selections have gotten stronger in the time that we've been doing this, although there's obviously people can quibble about relief pitchers and where they fit into all this, and I'm sure that's something we'll be touching upon here,

given the status of Billy Wagner. But yeah, I think it has reshaped it in some ways. I haven't done the math. The actual jaws of the—I did some back-of-the-envelope stuff. The actual jaws of the players being honored hasn't moved very far since the system became more widely available via baseball reference. But part of that is the artificial suppression of excluding the 20 years for Jaws among your accomplishments that you're proud of. That moves you into a seventh place tie on the Effectively Wild guest leader board. Congratulations. Eight of those appearances were to talk about the Hall of Fame. And I looked at the dates that we've had you on to do that, and it's been all over the board from, well, I guess, middle of the summer, if you count that after an induction ceremony, to January, to late December, and a few times, like now, late November,

which I feel like is the time to get you. Because despite the fact that you're in the middle of a move right now, you haven't been in the trenches as long in the latest Hall of Fame discourse cycle. And maybe we get in early before you're incredibly in demand and everyone wants to talk to you and argue with you about the hall of fame well sure but of course always make time for for for the effectively wild podcast especially now that uh i am a part of fangraph so it's uh it's kind of uh you know it's it serves it serves everyone's interest well here so i'm glad to be back and uh that's interesting, interesting stats to add

to the back of my baseball card. Well, I wanted to start with an interesting stat that you had in your introduction to the VBWA ballot. So we'll talk about that ballot and some of its trends and new entrants and returning favorites. But before we do that, I wanted to highlight, you made a note in your ballot intro that last year's vote had the fewest number of votes cast of any cycle since 1983. And some of that is the hall having purged the rolls of voters who were pretty far removed from any coverage of the sport. But some of that is voluntary attrition or lack of ballot casting, including by Ben on this very podcast. that will sort of course correct as more BBWA members become eligible to cast votes because, you know, this is such a significant honor for these players. It's an important part of the sports history. I agree with Ben that we're sort of better positioned than we've ever been to be

able to evaluate players' careers and sort of put them in their appropriate statistical context. And yet we have so few voters at this time. So what do you make of that and what it might mean going forward? Well, I think, you know, more than anything, I think it's a reflection of the contracting media environment that we're dealing with here. You know, we've seen it all around us, and we're very lucky to be, you know, at a place that is not subject to this annual bloodletting, you know, the way the newspaper industry has been, where you've got fewer people covering, you know, the local team, you've got smaller staffs, you've got fewer

writers traveling with teams, you know, so just my own BBWA card, I mean, I've watched the number fall. I think my first number was 643, and I'm now number, this past year, I was number 269. So it's basically one being the most senior number. So

yeah, there's been a lot of attrition. And that's the biggest thing. I think the purging of the rolls obviously had an effect that eliminated about 100 votes, a little over 100 votes in the first year or two, and has winnowed down the field even further. We are 184 votes off the peak in 2012. I think there's maybe a small contingent in there that has reacted to the demand for transparency or the expectation of transparency by publishing ballots, but there's still 18 to 20 percent of voters are not publishing the ballots. The hall decided to go against the BBWA's repeated wishes to make voting completely transparent the way that we have with the annual awards. You know, and so I don't think this process has forced many writers out.

I do think maybe some writers are sick of it for other reasons. Perhaps the PED, the annual PED debates, perhaps the viciousness of social media, which again, I think ties back to that expectation of transparency. I think it's a combination of forces. And, you know, maybe it also reflects some less than compelling fields that we've gotten in the last few years. You know, we've only had two players elected over the last three cycles, David Ortiz in 2022 and Scott Rowland in 23. So, you know, maybe there are people that are saying, you know, Ortiz was a big ticket guy, and there was a spike back to a more normal level of votes per ballot, at least, if not voter participation. But I don't know. It'll be

interesting to see how this tracks. But, you know, part of it, the BBWA has also gotten a bit more selective with its membership as well. I know this is something you and I have discussed a little bit, Meg, in terms of, you know, chapter by chapter of determining eligibility instead of doing it at a national level. So, you know, the organization is going to have to do, you know, it's going to have to figure out how, you know, how it wants to survive in what form. And Hall of Fame voting is not the reason the BBWA exists. It is a privilege that comes with membership and tenure. But, you know, it is tied to the fate of the organization, for sure. And just because you mentioned the transparency and the anonymity, there was a bit of research about that published by a former guest of ours, Louis Paulus, recently on his newsletter. He's written about this before, but I'll link to his latest piece on it because, as you know, there is a difference in voting patterns among the people who disclose their ballot and those who don't, whether that's because people who vote a certain way are less likely to make that public or whether it's because the secrecy of it affords them the willingness to do something different.

It's hard to sort of separate that out, but it could change things meaningfully if that weren't an option anymore. And it is a better BBWA ballot this year. There are some compelling players we will get to in just a moment. But before that, we should probably dispense with the more imminent matter of the committee, right? Because there are eight managers, executives, and umpires who are up for election on the 2024 Contemporary Baseball Era committee slate. And the results of that are going to be announced on Sunday. And you've done profiles of all of those people, Cito Gaston, Davy Johnson, Jim Lewin, Lou Piniella, Hank Peters, Bill White, Ed Montague, and Joe West, a memorable, effectively wild guest.

So I had forgotten that he was on with you guys. I actually, I looked to the podcast, but I didn't actually get to listen to it. But because I can't, I can't have somebody in my ear when I'm writing. And I've just been so nose to the grindstone this week as I kind of recover from all the impact of spending a week moving boxes around. Yeah. So who do you think should get in, if anyone among this group? And who do you think will get in? Because those are often different answers. Right. Well, you know, I look at this, and to me, of the four managers,

I think Jim Leland is the most worthy. For me, the separator, Cito Gaston is the only one who won two championships. The other three each won a single championship, Davy Johnson, Jim Leland, and Lou Piniella. Piniella never got back to the World Series after 1990. David Johnson never got back to the World Series after 1986. Both had some great teams that were kind of disappointing in that regard. You know, a reminder that the playoffs is something of a crapshoot.

Leland won with the Marlins and then took two Tigers teams there and didn't win with either of those, but at least got back. To me, that's the real separator there. He does not have the highest winning percentage of the group, but he did win the most pennants. And his winning percentage is weighed down by his loyalty to the Pirates organization after Barry Bonds and Bobby Bonilla left. And he stuck around for much longer than he probably should have and

then had to endure the Marlins being torn up as soon as they won. So I don't think his one loss record is a reflection of his of his crew managing skill. But when he had the resources at his disposal, he had some great teams. So to me, if I was making a ballot and could include three guys, he's the one from that group I would include. My top candidate on the ballot is Bill White, who I knew he had this nice career, short of Hallworthy, as an all-star first baseman for the Cardinals and Phillies in the 60s. I learned a lot about him in researching and writing the piece, though. I mean, he's basically, as a player, he's somewhere between Steve Garvey and Gil Hodges in terms of Jaws, you know, 30th, 40th, somewhere down there. He's not a guy who you'd elect on that basis to learn.

But you add to that the fact that he was a pioneering broadcaster with the Yankees. He was the first Black play-by-play announcer in the country, I believe it was. Certainly first in baseball. And was kind of beloved in that role alongside Phil Rizzuto. And I think Phil did a lot to help Bill be accepted right off the bat. He was apparently very welcoming and very supportive and all that. Bill was the straight man to Rizzuto's kind of wackiness and gift for gab, but they played

well off each other. I did not get to listen to them growing up, really, because I did not grow up in the tri-state area, but the clips I've heard, they're very enjoyable. But he did that for 18 years and was quite good at that job. And then he accepted to become the National League president. He was the first Black top-level executive in any sport in the country as well. He did that job for about five years, had to deal with some tough stuff kind of in the wake of Pete Rose's suspension, and a lot of nonsense with umpires, including an incident involving Joe West. But he oversaw the selection of Colorado and Florida as expansion teams. And I think that was he felt that was his biggest accomplishment. But, you know, he was he was openly critical

of baseball's hiring practices in the wake of the Al Campanus debacle, which probably is what put him on the map as an executive candidate in the first place. But when the Rockies didn't interview any minority candidates, he called them out. His other big contribution was while he was a member of the Cardinals, he openly spoke out about the fact that the lodging was segregated in Florida for players long after the major leagues had been integrated. And, you know, within a couple of years, everybody, basically the Major League Baseball was able to strong arm, you know, these Florida towns to allow these accommodations so the teams could house together. And he spoke out at a time when that was great risk. You did not have black players speaking their mind like that.

And it really did have a positive impact. So I think he's a guy who not only was very accomplished in three different areas, but was also very socially conscious and played a major role in moving the game forward in that direction. And if you're not going to, you know, that's what you have a Hall of Fame for, is to put people like that who move the needle in and recognize them and celebrate their accomplishments. And he really fits that bill. So I definitely include him.

And of the others, the two umpires, I'll be honest, I don't know what to do with them. Joe West obviously has the longevity, very kind of abrasive public persona, you know, saw himself as a guardian of the game, was supposedly, you know, the go-to guy on rules, but boy, just always seemed to court conflict and was suspended three times. No other umpire before him had been suspended in season, according to the research at the time. He was the diametric opposite of Ed Montague, who strove for the anonymity of an umpire, which was kind of the, you know, the notion that if you know the umpire's name, he's probably done something wrong. That was kind of Ed Montague's credo. He was the son of a major league player, and he grew up around baseball.

His father actually closed the deal in signing Willie Mays, which was a really cool thing I didn't know. Of the two, I mean, personal preference, I'd probably take Montague just because I found him to be more interesting in a lot of ways. Joe West was just a bad vibe. But Hank Peters, the executive who played a role in building the 70s A's teams in their four-runner years in Kansas City and then oversaw the late 70s and early 80s boreals, including the 79 pennant winners and 83 champions, and then helped build the early 90s Indians as club president and hired John Hart. He's also got a very interesting case, too. So if I had to, I would put Leland and White and Peters on my ballot and leave the umpires for the people who have the more inside baseball knowledge of their skill on the field.

Well, we will find out whether they take your advice or not this coming Sunday. But let's maybe look ahead to the BBWA ballot. And we can start with the newcomers because we've heard a lot about the returning folks. So help us understand the field. And we can talk about which of these guys you think is due for induction either on first ballot or later and then if there are any names that you maybe expected to be on this year's ballot that were left off that surprised you there's three strong newcomers on this year's ballot uh you've got adrian deltrey joe mauer and chase utley this

is a nice uh bumper crop of honorees. These guys, their final year was my first year at Fangraphs, and I wrote about all their accomplishments along the way, kind of saw them off. I remember Beltre at one point moved into the lead for most hits by a player who was born outside the United States. Albert Pujols has since overtaken him. But a member of the 3,000-hit

club with over 400 home runs, the second-highest total of defensive runs at third base, behind only Brooks Robinson. He's fourth in Jaws. He's an easy selection. He became a beloved player during the last leg of his career with the Rangers, a social media favorite because he always seemed to be doing something, whether it was spectacular defense or dugout antics or moving the on-deck circle that one time.

It was just a fun player and I know that earlier in his career, like when he was with the Mariners, he often didn't live up to expectations on the offensive side, but he really found himself in Texas. He's an easy selection, and I expect he's just going to go in with 90-some-odd percent. Joe Maurer should be an easy selection, but I think there's some misunderstandings about his career that are probably going to slow his progress. He was an elite catcher, three batting titles, two on-base titles,

if you care more about that thing. No other catcher had won multiple batting titles, or only one other catcher had won multiple batting titles, and a total of seven of them have won it throughout history. He was just elite in that area, elite in the offense. Outstanding pitch framer earlier in his career and always a good pitch framer. Excellent defensively despite his height, which it was widely presumed that between his height and his early knee problems, he wasn't going to hold up well at catcher. And that unfortunately

proved kind of true. He missed a lot of time due to injuries, not including his concussions. And then the concussions are what ultimately put him off the position, pushed him to first base. And he spent his last five years as a more or less league average first baseman. I have him seventh in Jaws and fifth in peak with all seven of those peak seasons coming as years as a catcher. To me, that's an obvious Hall of Fame choice, even before we account for the pitch framing. But some people are hung up on the idea that because he only caught 920 games, that's somehow not enough. We didn't get to watch him crumble to dust in front of our eyes.

He wasn't manly enough. He was assumed to be too soft because he missed so much time due to injuries. I hate all this s**t. I'm sorry. I've been fighting this battle since he retired. I've been fighting this battle since he retired. Yeah. And there's a certain segment of the Twins fan base that I think blames him and his $184 million contract for the Pollard's miserliness when it came to spending elsewhere.

It's the old Bill James observation of teams that fall short, their best players are the ones who get blamed a lot of the time. That seems to have been true, at least for some segment of the fan base with Maurer, which we see on social media, which I kind of enjoyed poking that bear a bit too much. Dan Hayes and I did a podcast for Fangraph's audio last year, and we had some fun with that one. This is Dan Hayes who covers the Twins for The Athletic. So Mausch, to me, is an easy choice. I suspect he's going to get in, but I don't know that it's going to be first year.

I think it's going to take some time to appreciate just where he stands with regards to the advanced stats, and we're going to have that discussion about pitch framing, which is not included in JAWS, but which I've kind of tried to come up with a way of dealing with um on the side it's going to be relevant not only for for mauer but also for for yadi and melina and buster posey and we should be talking about russell martin and brian mccann in the same breath as those guys as well as for utley you, he got a late start to his career. Excellent advanced stat, darling. Accrued a lot of value on the base paths with a high stolen base percentage and great fielding numbers. Was bypassed for the MVP award when Ryan Howard and

Jimmy Rollins, his teammates, won it instead with much lower wins above replacement totals. Unfortunately, between the Phillies not playing him regularly until he was 25 and then knee problems kind of curtailing his time as a regular in his late 30s, he just did not have a long career. He didn't get to 2,000 hits. As I've observed time and again, the writers have not elected any player with fewer than 2,000 hits whose career took place in the post-1960 expansion era. The only player from that era who's gotten in with fewer than 2,000 hits is Tony Oliva, who just got in a couple years ago via the era committee. You know, I'm hopeful that Utley, who is 12th in Jaws among second basemen and ninth in seven-year peak, can buck

this trend. But it's not going to be an easy fight. I expect this is a guy who's going to get in somewhere in the mid to late years of his candidacy, if at all. But I'm hopeful. I know you've written about the framing question. I have too. But how are you planning to account for it? I don't know that Maurer needs framing to get him in, but it helps his case. It helps his case. Yeah, obviously, if you have a system that compares to standards that were set by many players who played from before we had the same data that we have on that now that kind of complicates things it does so what i've done is baseball prospectus had uh a guy named max marshy who i guess i don't know if it was your time your time there ben uh who did uh this retroframing methodology uh after mike fast had introduced his framing methodology max was able to use uh you, without you system using only balls and strikes or called strikes above average, basically, going back to the dawn of the pitch count era in 1988.

Framer, you know, at a time when he was just being endlessly maligned for his lack of success in throwing out base runners. That did a lot to sort of boost Piazza's standing. So what I do is I take the BP numbers from the pre-PitchFX era and then use the Fangraphs numbers that we have for the PitchFX and StatCast eras. And I do kind of a rough runs-to-wins conversion based on their career rates or their season rates. I can't remember which it is. I think it's their season rates. This is really, you know, grinded out stuff in Excel. But I have an FJAWS, a framing inclusive JAWS that I use. And we're able to have that for Piazza, Ivan Rodriguez, Mauer, Molina, Martin, McCann, Posada,

who does not do well in pitch framing at all. I looked at it for Jason Kendall. He's even worse at pitch framing and does him no favors. But basically, I think, if I'm remembering correctly, Mowers is fourth. Posey is such a good framer that he moves past him despite a deficit in baseball reference more. But Mowers, very strong there.

It would improve his jaws to include that by about, I think it's two or three points. So I think when you see that, you have to recognize that, yes, this is clearly's two or three points. So I think, you know, when you see that, you have to recognize that, yes, this is clearly a Hall of Famer. And Posey, too, you know, even, again, with the short career and the retirement out of, you know, fears of his concussions

having an impact on his later life. You know, this is a debate. I will put the mattresses on, tying it again over the next decade, I'm sure. And speaking of variants of Jaws that have some prefix before them, you also have an S-Jaws, right? And I wanted to ask you about how you're handling starting pitchers because there are some good ones still on the ballot, right? And, you know, you've had Pettit and Burley, and now you've got Bartol, Cologne, etc. And there will definitely be no doubt starters who get in over the next decade or so. Of course, Kershaw and Verlander and Scherzer and Granke and probably Sabathia. But

it's really hard for the pitchers who are just a tick below that to get in, even though they were great relative to their peers. So how do you think we should handle this? And when, if ever, will starting pitchers start getting into the hall again? I basically started using, you know, developing something called S-Jaws to sort of account for the overweighting of the peak years of high workload guys before the pitch count era and the five man rotations really started cutting into the pitch count era and the five-man rotations really started cutting into innings and making the 200-inning starter an endangered species. Pettit and Cologne, or at least pre-injured Cologne, were workhorses who could pile up

those innings. They weren't good enough at preventing runs, though. And even with the adjustment, I have Pettit only 92nd in Jaws. A low peak. Burley is just above him at 90th. The guy in the middle is Sandy Koufax with a high peak, but almost nothing outside of that peak. They're both below the standards. They're both below a whole mess of recent guys,

such as Johan Santana, cole hamels tim hudson or her sizer tommy john himself frank tanana wilbur wood kevin apier kept you know a whole bunch of these other guys that uh that were kind of ignored uh as hall of fame candidates if they you know when when they were eligible um santana hit the ballot uh at the time that it was just absolutely clogged and one and done and a lot of these guys never even got that much traction so I don't know that you start with with recognizing Andy Pettit who obviously also has the complicating factor of the HGH admission from the Mitchell Report and all that at the same time between him and Burley I mean there's still a gulf there between those two and CeCe Sabathia, who I think is going to be the next Hall of Fame-recognized starter.

And then you've got the four guys who are still active here, Verlander, Kershaw, Greinke, and Scherzer, who are clear Hall of Famers at this point. I don't know what to do. I mean, we have such a dearth of Hall of Fame starters. Because the era committees aren't really taking up these cases and bringing these guys in who are demonstrably better than Pettit, but not as good as

let's just say Mike Messina, or Roy Halladay, to use a shorter career example. These guys who didn't get to 3,000 innings or who didn't sustain that kind of greatness. It's kind of tough to start with Pettit. And at the same time, or Burley,

at the same time, as these ballots get a little less full, I'm starting to think about, well, you know, should we talk about these guys more? Should I start to want to vote here towards one of these guys and seeing if others do and seeing if we can get this guy close? I don't know. I'm still sort of torn about that because Jaws really does guide my ballot, even though it's not a strict over the line, yes, under the line, no, that I use. But I am thinking about this more. I probably will keep playing with S. Jaws to see

if I can convince myself that there really is a clear rationale for somebody like Pettit to cut the line. Because there's just so many pitchers between him and some of the guys above him that I think should have been honored already. So I don't quite know what to do. I guess maybe along those lines, I'm curious. We end up with a couple different categories of potential inductees. There are the guys who get in on their first ballot. There are the guys who maybe don't get in on first ballot, but who we can all agree are like likely Hall of Famers, probably sooner rather than later. There are the one and dones who make one ballot appearance and then fall off because they don't meet the requisite

vote totals to stick around. And then there are like the guys who kind of linger, even though they're not likely to ever be inducted, but they managed to secure enough votes to hang around. And so I'm curious of the new guys on the ballot, who strikes you as sort of an obvious, maybe one and done, and who do you think is going to hang around even if eventual enshrinement isn't particularly likely? I think the one that stands out to me most is a guy who could linger is David Wright, who was so popular in his day and so good. He really was on a Hall of Fame path. I did a series this summer where I discovered through some research that if you get a 40-war, seven-year peak, you're about 75% likely to be enshrined.

Not necessarily via the writers, but 75% of those guys with a 40-peaker in the hall. David Wright got to 39.5 and would have had probably another decade to improve upon that score. So I think it's fair to say he was on a hall path, not unlike, say, Nomar Garciaparra. But his body just couldn't hold up due to the injuries, particularly the spinal stenosis and the shoulder problems. And so he was really, I think, limited to, what, 75, 77 games after his age 31 season. He was so good before that that I think it's worth keeping him around on the ballot.

Jason Stark actually had a column today about that, about how he's planning to vote for him. And when I look at that group, he's the one that stands out most to me. Bartolo Colon as well. Look, Bart's third act was just so purely enjoyable. I got to cover him a bit with the Yankees and Mets, and it was fun to see him doing his work on the field.

Despite the fact that he's a big dude who does not fit the conventional mode or body image of a professional athlete is amazingly flexible. I mean, I've seen him kick. He can kick with the Rockettes. You know, incredibly hard worker who had a very positive influence on the pitchers around him in terms of their work ethics as well. His career area was 4'12". So, you know, he wasn't good enough at preventing runs to really score all that well in war and Jaws.

And he also, of course, had the PED suspension. So he's not really a strong candidate by any stretch. But, man, that third act, like Adrian Beltre, he was a social media sensation. Like Adrian Beltre, he was a social media sensation. I have a particular affection for him because when he hit that home run off James Shields in 2016, my wife was pregnant with our daughter. And we started calling our daughter, who then we knew was a girl. We did not have a name picked out. We started calling her Bartola from that point.

And when Sports Illustrated threw a baby shower for her, they got a sign that says, Welcome, Bartola, that has hung in my daughter's room. We moved it. We just moved from one part of Brooklyn to another here. We took the sign with us. We haven't put it up yet, but we're intending to. We want to make sure it's okay with our daughter. Reminds me of, I was trying to talk my wife into Melina as a name for our daughter,

not after Yachty, but after Jose, which I think would have been possibly unique, but she didn't go for that. That's funny. I'd You know, I, like, I'd love to see Bartolo stick around because I'd love to, you know, I can't wait to write that profile. I mean, it's going to come a little bit later in the series, but it's one that I, you know, I hope I can do it justice because there was so much fun there. He's also as a coincidence in his first act with,

with when he was with Cleveland and as a coincidence, in his first act when he was with Cleveland as a young heath thrower, I think it was 1999, he has the distinction of taking a no-hit bid deeper than any other pitcher I've gotten to see. This was against the Yankees in 1999. I think he got seven and a third or seven and two-thirds at Yankee Stadium one day. And by the sixth inning, I think I was rooting for him, but it didn't come to pass. So I think we're going to get multiple BBWA inductees for the first time in a while because of Beltre. Even if Utley or Maurer, et cetera, have to wait a while,

we will probably get one of the returning players clear in the threshold because Todd Helton was very close, 72.2% last time. Billy Wagner was at 68.1%. Are those guys both gimmies or just one? And do you see anyone else who's a holdover making a big jump? Helton is definitely in gimme territory. The only, I think it's 20 out of 24 who've gotten above 70% have gotten in the exceptions are two pitchers uh jim bunning and kurt schilling bunning fell back not once but twice he had uh i think he was subject just sort of caught the crossfire of what was a generalized uh bbwa blank ballot protest from

certain quarters that deprived him of election and then stronger candidates came along and and kind of blocked his path and he had to go through the veterans community to get in Schilling. I don't think we need to hammer that one. We know what happened. I think we'll just say self-sabotage prevented his election. So I don't see that. I don't see that being a problem for Helton.

So yes, he's a gimme Billy Wagner with about 68% and two years to go. So, yes, he's a gimme. Billy Wagner with about 68% and two years to go. My research shows that about half of the guys at his distance get in on the next year. All of them get in eventually with the exception of Schilling via one route or another. Sometimes it takes the era committee or the veterans committee to get these guys in. era committee or the Veterans Committee to get these guys in there, guys like Nellie Fox, who've fallen short, or Jack Morrison had to go through the committees. But he's an eventual election. I'm hopeful we can get him in on the writers' ballot. Beyond that, you've got Andrew

Jones at 58%. I don't think it's his year, just because of the crowd. Gary Sheffield, on the other hand, he's at 55%. This is his 10th year on the ballot. So I think there'll be some kind of push to reevaluate his career. 20 points is a huge ask for a candidate. But we saw Larry Walker make a similar jump from 54.6% in his final year. So it can be done. And if we've got people filling out 10-man ballots, he's got a real shot. So I'm optimistic there, but it's not automatic by any stretch. thought that Carlos Beltran was pretty well in. Last year was his ballot debut, and he debuted at 46.5% of votes. What do you make of sort of the vote total he got in year one? And, you know, do you think that he is someone who will eventually be enshrined or people, voters going to look at his role in the banging scheme and consider him in sort of the same

bucket that they maybe do PED users? Yeah, I think this is really going to be interesting. I mean, I think without that baggage, a guy who starts out at 46% gets in eventually. I mean, just, you know, there's very few examples of, I think Steve Garvey with 43% is now the highest. You know, I always talk about the 50% line. It's actually closer to 43% or 44%. I'd have to double check my tables here. But 46% is a guy who's eventually getting in via one door or the other without that. So that was solid.

It's below what he should have gotten, I think. I think this year is going to be the real test, though. Are voters going to treat him like the PED users in which there's a definite block that's large enough to prevent his election, the way that there was for Barry Bonds, for Roger Clemens? Or is this going to be something like the Roberto Alomar situation where, you know, the spitting incident deprived him of a first year election, but then he had such a huge jump that he still got over 90 percent the second year, this year, we'll have a better idea by the size of the jump this year, you know, whether this is going to be, you know, resolve itself quickly or not. We're nowhere near being done with PD guys. I guess we never will be really because,

you know, once Manny and A-Rod are off the ballot, you're still going to have Nelson Cruz come along or Robinson Cano down the road, right? As long as players cheat, you will have cheaters who are eligible for the Hall of Fame. But it seems like we're kind of close to being done with the pre-suspension PD players, right? Because you got Sheffield on his last ballot, and then there's Pettit who admitted it, though trying to rationalize it, right? But I guess that's just about it. And I know that a lot of voters, you included, I think, have used that as a delineator, right? If you were actually suspended, then that counts against you. If not, you know, it's the Wild West and anything goes, right? And you're always going to have the even thornier questions about domestic violence or DUIs,

et cetera. But purely for PED questions, I guess we're just about past that era of what do we do with these players who were connected to PEDs but never actually tested positive? Yeah, it's, boy, it'll be nice to move past that era, I guess. But, you know, we're still going to have A-Rod on the ballot. We're still going to have Manny on the ballot for a few more years, although he's not making any traction. It's interesting that their early percentages have been larger than some of the Bonds-Clemens early percentages, even though their transgressions were more obvious. I think it just reflects an evolution of the electorate towards a younger and more realistic group. But unfortunately unfortunately i think we're going to

be talking about this stuff like you said i mean robinson cano what is last year was was this was this final year 2022 so we're looking at 2028 to 2037 yeah oh my god yeah yeah i when i was we were doing um baseball between the numbers no the, the second book, Extra Innings. Extra Innings, yeah. The second BP book. And at that point, it was still 15 years on the ballot for players. So I think I had A-Rod on there through 2036 anyway. So this doesn't really change anything that much. If we go back that far, it's going to be a good long time. Ryan Braun coming up, that was the other one.

Nelson Cruz, obviously, this past year was his final one. So, yes, we're never going to see the end of it, but you're right. We are going to see the end of this period where there's more vagueness, at least until these guys land on era committee ballots. We've already seen the harsh treatment that they got from the hall, you know, where there's more vagueness, at least until these guys land on era committee ballots. Right. We've already seen the harsh treatment that they got from the hall just in terms of selecting that committee, which it was a setup. I don't want to mince words there. It was a setup.

You got, you know, Frank Thomas and Ryan Sandberg, two of the more outspoken hall of famers on the subject, you know, sitting as judge and jury. Well, we will be following all your profiles as usual. And of course, the work of Ryan Thibodeau and co. at the Hall of Fame ballot tracker, which we've probably asked you about before, but I forget whether you, I know you appreciate the work that goes into that and cite all the research. Has it sapped any of the suspense for you of the big reveal? No, I think there's still enough margin for error that it's almost always a nail biter, especially for these 10th year guys. I mean, even last year for Roland, we didn't know. I had two entries written on game day in know, what if we have a shutout

and what if no one gets in? I had to write both of them. And it was the same for Larry Walker, who just scraped in. So I don't think it's ruined the suspense at all. I think it's probably enhanced the suspense, you know, and certainly I believe it's changed the process for the better. You know, it's the expectation of transparency, I think, has served it well. I mean, you know, the hall has done nothing to stop it, you know, because it's good for business. You know, we've turned this six-week period into a spectator sport, you know, where, you know, a lot of attention is paid to the Hall of Fame and people show how much they do care. Some people, you know, are delighted saying they don't care because this person or that person isn't in it. When's Pete Rose going in? We always have to have

that little story explained as how the moral equivalences aren't the same. So, look, Ryan and his team are certainly allies in this, and I communicate with them occasionally. One of them will catch something that I wrote and correct me or do some research that I request on tracker stuff. And so it's great having that. And also, you know, just people I can complain privately to because I I've, I've trained myself out of the habit of complaining about individual balance. It just doesn't serve my work well, but doesn't mean there's not one or two every year that, uh, caused me to cover my iPhone, uh, in, in spin up coffee or something like that, or whatever beverages I'm drinking. And sometimes you just got a vent and Ryan himself and,

and, and his, his team make very good sounding boards for that kind of ventilation. And I'm, I'm grateful to them. And, and I really do appreciate their work and I do appreciate the, the support they've given me over the years.

Are you going to vote this year, Ben? Nope. You're just opting out of the entire thing, huh? Yeah, I'm out. Sorry to disappoint people, but don't have to track my ballot. It's not for everybody. Meg, where are you in your BBWA membership?

I'm a couple years off yet. So I was a... 2019. The 2019 season was my first in the association so i have a little ways to go yet um and so i will bravely say because no one will remember if it's true or not that provided i am still around and um eligible that i will vote because i you know take that duty seriously but i also reserve the right to chicken out, you know? It's just like Ben. And of course, if you're a Fangraphs reader

and you want to vote, it won't count quite the same way. But the Fangraphs crowdsourced ballots are open now. So we will link to that and you can make your wishes known. And yeah, keep reading Jay. We will link to his work as well. You can find him on Twitter and on Blue Sky and on the page in the Cooperstown Casebook. And whatever time of year we talk to you, it's always a pleasure. So congrats on 20 years of JAWS, or I guess your 21st time.

21st time. We're going to celebrate the 20-year anniversary in January. I'm going to do something, try to do something for it. I haven't quite figured out what, but it's worthy of a party

and it's worthy of me saying a few thank yous publicly to people who support this work. Yeah. What beverage will you break open in honor of Joss turning 21? It's the hardest question

of the entire interview. That is a good question. I have not figured that out yet. I'm going to have to plan something, though. You've pointed to another area for which I need to plan. Yeah. All right. Great talking to you, Jay. Thank you. All right. Thanks so much. All right. By the way, if anyone who's just joined us recently is wondering why I haven't voted for the Hall of Fame, I did go into all of that on an episode back when I was eligible for the first time a couple of years ago, episode 1792. So you could check that out. And the rationale probably hasn't changed that much, although it's partly that I just find myself caring less and less about the voting aspect of the Hall of Fame. I always enjoyed talking to Jay about it, but much as I've come to care less about awards votes and results, it's sort of the same with the Hall of

Fame. So I haven't really regretted it is what I'm saying. I suppose it's not something I'm agonizing over or wracked with regret about. Might revisit my stance at some point. Just kind of checked in with myself, examined whether I felt dramatically different about it, whether I wished I were voting. Hadn't changed my mind, so I haven't changed my approach as of yet. Maybe someday, especially if some of the process stuff that I was uncomfortable with a couple years ago changes. Also, kind of closing the book on the baseball interceptions and turnovers topic, but I'll read one more response from listener Nate, which I thought was interesting. He said, during both of your discussions on interceptions recently, my dominant thought was that baseball

is a game of constant interceptions. The goal of the pitcher is to get the ball to the catcher as He said, used to be in possession of the batting team until the fielding team intercepts it to make a play and take control again. Sometimes this results in an out, sometimes it doesn't, but it is critical for the batted ball to be intercepted or the batter will score. The issue may be that we think of interceptions as a football thing where they're relatively rare, but basketball, soccer, and hockey are made up of constant interceptions slash steals. Maybe football is the weird one for not having more, or this is all nonsense. It's an interesting way to think about it. Of course, when baseball started, the point was for the pitcher to let the batter put the ball in play. So an interception wasn't a bad thing. It was part of the plan. And it's still not always a bad thing because a ball in play that becomes an out is better than a strike. But as Nate is saying, to become an out, it has to be intercepted again,

at least as Obi-Wan would say from a certain point of view. If you are one of the aforementioned people who listens to us a lot and you want to show your appreciation in a monetary way, you can do so by supporting the podcast on Patreon by going to patreon.com slash effectively wild, as have the following five listeners who have signed up to pledge some monthly or yearly amount to help keep the podcast going, help us stay ad free, and get themselves access to some perks. Karen Robinson, Andy Cruz, Matt McNulty, Mike Waller, and Kathy Harden, thanks to all of you. Patreon perks include access to the Effectively Wild Discord group for patrons only, access to monthly bonus episodes, the latest of which we just released, prioritized email answers, potential appearances on the podcast, discounts on merch and ad-free

fancrafts memberships, and so much more, patreon.com slash effectivelywild. If you are a Patreon supporter, you can message us through the Patreon site. But even if you're not, you can still contact us, send us your questions and comments via email at podcastatfangrafts.com. You can rate, review, and subscribe to Effectively Wild on iTunes and Spotify and other podcast platforms. Those five-star ratings and reviews on iTunes also put some wind in our sails.

You can join our Facebook group at facebook.com slash group slash Effectively Wild. You can follow Effectively Wild on Twitter at EWPod, and you can find the Effectively Wild subreddit at r slash Effectively Wild. Thanks to Shane McKeon for his editing and production assistance. We'll be back with another episode

before the end of the week, which means that we will talk to you soon. Romantic, pedantic, and hypothetical Semantic and frantic, real or theoretical end of the week, which means that we will talk to you soon. do. Authentically strange and objectively styled. Let's play ball. It's effectively wild. It's effectively wild. It's effectively wild.