Effectively Wild: A FanGraphs Baseball Podcast - Effectively Wild Episode 2208: Thank You for Your Servais

Episode Date: August 23, 2024

Ben Lindbergh and Meg Rowley banter about the Mariners firing Scott Servais, the Angels not firing Perry Minasian, Joey Votto’s career and retirement, the continued collapse of Craig Kimbrel, NPB players pushing for a faster path to domestic and international free agency, and the NWSL abolishing its draft. Then (42:45) they’re joined by Patreon supporter […]

on baseball in life with a balance of analytics and humor philosophical music Hello and welcome to episode 2208 of Effectively Wild, a FanGraphs baseball podcast brought to you by our Patreon supporters. I'm Meg Raleigh of FanGraphs and I am joined by Ben Lindberg of The Ringer. Ben, how are you? More importantly, how are you? Because you seemingly have the power to speak into existence managerial changes. What did Jerry DePoto do? What did Jerry DePoto do? We're going to talk to Meg Rowley about a trade or two. What did Jerry DePoto do? No sooner had you mentioned on our most recent episode, the prospect of Scott Service losing

his job as Mariner's manager, that it has come to pass. Well, look, the first thing I have to say is it's not like they were particularly hard tea leaves to read, right? Dipoto had made some comments that made it sound like it was a distinct possibility. That said, I am disturbed to learn that I'm a very powerful witch and that this is how my powers used to manifest. I wanted to be a good witch who could use her powers to better the world rather than make it worse.

I'm worried now. I have a bit of stage fright because I promised an epic rant. And I just don't know if I have the energy for it today. I find myself befuddled. Look, here's what I'll say about the Mariners reportedly firing Scott Service and then naming Dan Wilson as their interim manager. A meg favorite, right? Throwback? Yeah, but look, I'm, uh, that's like the monkey's poke sure did curl. Who doesn't love Dan Wilson? I for some reason am fond of Dan Wilson. I wasn't even a Mariners fan. Yeah, handsome Dan.

Look, here's the thing though. So I can understand the argument. I will quibble with it, but I think that there is a reasonable argument that one could make that like a change is needed in the organization, right? And that maybe you want a clean house of senior leadership, and not all of it, right? Because there are parts of the Mariners organization that we think are working quite well, that they have demonstrated skill in pitching development, that they have seemed to draft well of late. I know a number of smart folks who work for that team.

So I don't think that the idea that the entire organization is in need of dismissal is borne out by what the org has managed to do well. But maybe you say, hey, look, we need a shift. We need to have new vibes. Everything's about vibes lately, Ben. We're a nation and an economy run on vibes. So maybe you need some new vibes and you need senior leadership out so that you can find those vibes.

Well, look, you can't do that and then leave Dipodo in place. That's ridiculous. And maybe further changes are on offer later, but if I were going to lay blame for the way that this season has unfolded, particularly since the Mariners not only squandered a 10 game lead in the division, but have fallen really far out of the playoff race, losing yet again last night. I don't know that Scott Service would be at the top of that list. And some of the folks who bear some responsibility for how the team has performed, namely the

players, like harder to move on from. And this would hardly be the first time that a manager has been dismissed because it's easy to let go of a manager relative to some other members of the organization. But I just think that as a team, and particularly as an ownership group, this club should think about who do they want to be? What do they want to accomplish? Because my perception of Scott's service from the outside is that he was pretty well respected and pretty well liked by a clubhouse that has at times been openly critical of the front office. I think he has managed to, and again, this is my perception from the outside. We've talked a lot about how difficult it is to assess many of the most

important aspects of a manager's job because we're not in the clubhouse every day. But my perception has been that in moments when the front office has actively antagonized and angered the players by trading away guys who were really well regarded, that Scott had managed to smooth over those incidents and continue to get good stuff out of his guys. And he never struck me as like a particularly poor tactical manager. And so I just find it to be, you know, putting the emphasis on the wrong syllable as it were. And then you pivot to Dan and look, I love Dan Wilson.

Dan Wilson was an important player in my childhood, more important than he was good. But that's what fandom is when you're a kid. You don't know how much war the catcher's worth when you're a tiny child. War is just but a glimmer in someone else's eye, right? I think that the decision to go there strikes me as quite odd because there are members of the current Mariners coaching staff who have not just extensive managerial experience,

but big league managerial experience, which isn't to say that it always like went great for Manny Acta, but he's been with that staff for a long time, seemingly passed over. People in baseball have nothing but good stuff to say about Christopher Negron, so that's a weird choice. I don't know if Perry Hill has managerial aspirations, but he is spoken of in glowing terms by his players in terms of his ability to help guys get the most out of their fielding on the infields. And then you have, again, a staff where the noted strength is pitching and you're like, nah, Pete Woodworth probably doesn't want it.

So it's just weird. It feels like, will you allow for a slightly strained political analogy that I've already made on Twitter, Ben? This feels like the playlist during the DNC roll call where it's like, are we just doing millennial nostalgia stuff now? Is that the play here? Yeah. Well, apparently Edgar's coming back to be on the coaching staff again. Just get the 90s Mariners back again. Who doesn't love the 90s Mariners? Let's get some 90s Mariners nostalgia here. What's Jamie Moyer up to? Can we get Heathcliff Slocum in here? Maybe-

Oh my God, Heathcliff Slocum. Wow. Good for you, dude. Good for you. John Halama. What's John Halama doing these days? I don't know. I have no idea. And so it's just like, this is all part of a broader criticism, which is just like, do you want to be a serious organization or don't you? You know, and maybe Dan Wilson would be a great manager. I don't know. Neither do the Mariners, right? And it's an interim thing. I'm sure that they will do a full search, like whatever, but be serious. Decide to be serious about be serious. Decide to be serious about the winning. Decide to be serious about these choices for all the talk that there has been

out of that front office over Jerry's tenure. And there's been so much talk because boy, Jerry loves to talk. Be serious, like go do something now. I understand that the rug got pulled out from you from a payroll perspective. I understand that you did make some moves and those guys haven't hit as well. I understand that Julio's season has been disappointing in a way you probably didn't anticipate, but be serious. Because he can't keep playing the hits from 1995. We're done with that now We need we need new songs. I know that on the last episode

I said that I only can entertain one new band a year But guess what? We need a new band. This band has already done its work We can't squeeze any more juice out of that band Okay So get you need a new band and it needs to play new hits. Quite literally hits, my friends, hits. And so it's just like, I'm just at the point where I'm like, ugh, I'm doing an exasperated sigh.

I can't even really work up to the full rant because it's just like, it's so predictable. It felt so tenuous. And I understand that there's like money stuff and like this free agent market didn't have the hitters that you needed to like do, but guess what? Last year's did and you didn't spend any fricking money then either. Okay. No, it's one of those things where ultimately a lot of the blame lies with ownership and that's not going to change. But then there's one of those things where ultimately a lot of the blame lies with ownership and that's not going to change. But then there's the intermediate level, which is the GM, the POBO in this case.

And Jared Apoto, he's had his chances, right? It'll be nine years next month since he was hired by the Mariners and they've made one playoff appearance, right? And at some point, you can keep dismissing managers. I guess most GMs, POBOS, they get to change a Mariner or two before they themselves lose their job, whereas Jerry has not changed a manager or had a manager changed under him because service has been there for his entire tenure. So it is often a prelude to the executive, the front office person getting dismissed. First, the manager gets dismissed.

And so maybe this is kind of like, okay, you're on notice, you're next. But it is some combination of blame to the moves that Jerry had to make because of the constraints that were imposed on him and then the actual moves that he made, which in some cases have not worked out so great. And he's had his chances. So. And I know that we're never going to get an answer to this question, even if it were posed in less antagonistic terms than I'm about to. But what I want to hear from Dipodo is, what about Scott Service's performance merits dismissal that yours doesn't? And he's never going to answer that question.

And I think that he is doing precisely what ownership wants him to do, which is part of why he hasn't lost his job yet. They seem content with good enough. This team is good enough. It's exciting enough. It's filling the ballpark. It's doing what it needs to to put butts in the new luxury suites that we put in where the press box used to be.

It's enough. It's enough for us to make the money we want to. We can cry poor because of a murky and complicated cable situation. It's enough for us to make the money we want to, and we can cry poor because of a murky and complicated cable situation. It's enough. I would prefer that there be an aspiration to more. I think that there are clubs where even when they aren't behaving in a way that's all that different from other teams in similar circumstances, the dearth of success that they have had should point to an obligation to do more than enough because this club's never been to a World Series, let alone won one.

It's not as if there aren't other models of ownership out there that can embrace trying to win and feeling like you're a steward of something and making a lot of money. It's not like the Phillies are having trouble filling Citizens Bank Park. They're not. People are going to those games. Yeah, you have a big payroll and maybe there are going to be years where stuff's a little leaner attendance wise and you have to dip into your billionaire money. But like, okay. And I don't want to like make too much of a hero out of John Middleton either because you know, everyone who has that kind of money comes with baggage.

But like, have a sense of community and stewardship. Like try to do more than enough. You know, it's too wealthy a place. If I'm going to have to pay that much for sushi when I go home, put a winning ball club on the freaking field for me, please. Like, there's just too much wealth and resource in this place for you to possibly have an excuse. What's that Microsoft money for?

You know? Wouldn't you rather spend it on this than like whatever the heck John Sands spending that money on? Like, go freaking... Okay, now maybe I've worked myself up a little bit more. Maybe. Yeah. You have to build up a little head of steam. It's fine to have to spend money on restaurants. It's nice to spend money on restaurants because then like you get the... I'm just saying, it's really expensive when I go home now. And it didn't used to be that fancy. And if it's going to

be fancy, at least have a winning team. Yeah, have a fancy team to go with it. Yeah, have a fancy team. Go have a fancy team. Actually, what I would really prefer is that the cost of living in Seattle go down and it be a place that people can actually afford to like live and buy homes and we could have a less fancy team but you know that trade-off isn't on offer I guess. That might be beyond Jerry DePoto's powers but if you don't have a fancy team you have a fancy Dan at least and a handsome Dan so that's something and I guess if Jerry DePoto isn't going to lose his job, at least not immediately, well,

he's not the only one in that division who is not being held to that highest standard because Perry Minasian, GM of the team that Jerry Depoto used to be GM of, the Angels, he just got himself a nice multi-year extension for what? I don't know exactly. It's not that the angels haven't been bad and disappointing. They do have some young and productive players as we discussed on the podcast recently, but gosh, everything has gone wrong for them. And that is certainly partly an ownership situation, but I don't know that they've done the most that they could have done within those constraints either. So if they're going to sign up for another tour of duty with Perry, then maybe it's just something in the water, in the air, in the AL West. I do have to say, I want to give props to

the comedic timing of the Los Angeles Angels because that decision on the back of the service firing news was very funny. I don't want to derive humor from someone losing their job, but really I'm deriving humor from someone keeping their job. I cannot overstate the degree to which the consensus in baseball with everyone I talked to was that Perry was going to lose his job at the end of the year. So I am desperate for the TikTok of this decision, not like TikTok. I'm still afraid of TikTok, but not

in like a weird moralizing way. I'm old now. It's fine. It's just not for me. I am dying for the TikTok of that choice because that was not what anyone I talked to that was going to happen. And I don't know if that's a case of you're not going to get the cream of the crop candidates to want to work for Artie Moreno at this point. So you settle for who you got. I don't know. Anyway, I guess while we're wishing happy trails to Scott Service and congratulating Perry Minnesian and not having to change jobs, we also have to wish a fond farewell to Joey Votto. Yeah. Has announced his retirement, did not make it up to the Toronto Blue Jays.

He tried, he did not perform. He of course got hurt and was a long time coming back from that injury and just hadn't hit at all at AAA and just clearly felt like he did not deserve to continue to play and was not good enough to play. In fact, in his retirement Instagram post, he wrote, I'm just not good anymore. Which that's sad, you know? I mean, I think it speaks to his level of honesty and candidness and self-reflection, what we have always prized

and valued in Joey Votto. But it's also sort of sad again that you have to come to terms with that moment when you can't hack it anymore. You can't hack anymore. You can't bang anymore. And I continue to think that I would rather go out that way, just being confronted with the evidence that I could not do it anymore, than to go out on top or close to the top and then wonder, should I have played on and unretire and do a comeback? I would rather be confronted with the evidence

of my mortality and humbled and realize that, okay, I played out the string and now it's time to move on and not have any doubts or second thoughts or anything about it. And it doesn't sound like he does. There's part of me that is relieved, I guess, just because the idea of Joey Vado just being a career red and only having played for the Cincinnati Reds in the majors is nice. On the other hand, only having played for the Cincinnati Reds in the majors is nice. On the other hand, if he was going to go anywhere, Toronto was the place for him to go that would not be weird. You know, would not be like he, he marred his single franchise career because it's his hometown team and he is, I would say the best Canadian hitter ever. Not necessarily

the best Canadian player ever. I think we could give that to Fergie Jenkins and even Larry Walker, but best hitter, I think you got to go with Joey Votto. So I would have liked to see him have that moment in front of his hometown team and crowd. And the timing of the retirement was especially poignant because the Reds had just been in town, right? And people had looked forward to this series as possibly this would be this nice sendoff for him. He could play for the Blue Jays against the Reds and it just was not

to be. And he just, you know, he couldn't do it anymore and didn't want to pretend that he could anymore. And there's, I guess, an added level of poignancy. He drove to Roger Center because he was playing in Buffalo and he was supposed to visit with the Reds before they left. He did visit with them. He got to go to the clubhouse and everything, but he wasn't able to make it for the games, I think. And he said he desperately wanted to participate in the games here, but just wasn't at the level

where he would have felt that he had deserved it. Yeah. I don't know that many people are that honest with themselves, even in the face of strong evidence that maybe the time has come for them to move on and accept that they aren't quite where they were anymore, but hell of a career. And, you know, he has so many options now. He is a deeply interesting person and I think has a lot of insight into the game. And so I have a feeling that like we as a baseball consuming public are, are probably not done with Joey Votto, even if Joey Votto is done playing baseball. So that's exciting. One would think, right, the broadcaster buzz began immediately. I mean, he's done some

some part-time guest broadcasting and he said that he had many more offers to be a member of the media than he did to be a baseball player this year, right? But, but he has sent mixed signals about that in the past. I mean, he's talked about how he just would want to go and be a school bus driver or crossing guard or something. And I think he was pretty serious about that. And there is a Zach Buchanan piece about Vado last September, which ended with this. And it really stood out to me because it goes against that idea that, oh yeah, Vado will be around and he will seek out the spotlight. And I'll just read. He'll share his personality more comfortably than many ever would have predicted,

but he also wistfully anticipates the day when he'll fade into anonymity. Truly, I fantasize about this. He said, I dream about playing my last game and basically shutting everything off, saying goodbye on social, saying goodbye to the media and just getting away like I'm done. I'm done with baseball, done with the public eye.

And maybe that will happen. I kind of doubt it because he just seems like a born poster, or at least he's become a poster late in his career. I mean, he's a social media star. He's on Instagram and Twitter and TikTok and everything else. And he's always had such a good thoughtful relationship with the media that it would surprise me if he just walked away and we never heard from him again until his hall of fame induction speech. But you never know, I guess. He contains multitudes and seems like part of what pushed him over the edge was just kind of having a nice meal with his family and realizing that he could be doing this

all the time. He doesn't have to be on the road and staying in hotels and being lonely, which he's talked about pretty frankly in the past. So I hope that we continue to benefit from Joey Vado's wisdom and insight and humor, but I guess the possibility exists at least that he will at least walk away for a while. Maybe he'll take a break. It'll be interesting to see kind of what moves him. And I wouldn't be surprised if the answer changes over time, you know, you don't have to like be fixed in these sorts of things. So yeah, I'm curious to see what's next for him.

Jared Ranere And he said years and years ago that if it got to the point where he couldn't produce anymore, he would walk away. He wouldn't want to keep playing. And I guess he made good on that. And I always thought that he was going to age extraordinarily well, or that if anyone could, it would be Joey Votto, just because, you know, he's kind of your prototypical cerebral player. And he was such a deep thinker about hitting and he was always looking for ways to improve. And when you look at it, I guess he had kind of a typical decline phase, really. Right. You know, he was worth about a four war from his stage 35 season on.

I mean, you know, he had that one resurgent season in 2021 where he put it all together again, but for the most part he got hurt and he just wasn't that good anymore. And that's usually what happens to players. And he was not immune to that. It's the old father time is undefeated sort of story. I just thought, you know, you hear about him like carrying around his tattered copy of the science of hitting by Ted Williams.

And it's like, he'll adjust and he'll find ways. And yeah, you just can't really, not even Joey Votto really can break the aging curve in that way for long. You could delay it a little, but it's going to come for you. And he's almost 41 and yeah, he just clearly broke down. So I've learned my lesson, I guess, between him and Trout and others when it comes to, oh, I think he's going to defy the typical patterns and he's going to age well. You never know. And most guys don't. It does seem like the perception of him and his career and his value has changed over the course of his career because there was a time where there was doubt, I think,

about whether he would be a Hall of Fame candidate, whether he would get in. Is he on the border? Is he on the bubble? What does he need to do to get there? And now it kind of feels like he doesn't need to do anything, but he's just going to sail in. I don't know if it'll be first ballot or not, but it doesn't feel like there's much doubt. And I guess that's because maybe the perception of player value has

changed over the course of his career. And we've kind of come more into line with recognizing the value that he always offered because I mean, you remember earlier in his career, especially the local media, the columnists and Marty Brennan and everyone would ding him for being too passive and too selective and not swinging enough. And I mean, there may have been times I suppose when if you're the best hitter in baseball or one of them and the best here on your team, you might have to go outside the strike zone. If runners are in scoring position, you want to drive

in a run, it's kind of up to you and you pass the baton to someone else. Well, if the someone else is not nearly as good as you, yeah, you boosted your OPP. But if you get stranded on first, what good does that do to your team? Maybe there are times when he got a little too passive, perhaps, but on the whole, I mean, he was extremely well disciplined as a hitter and I think that served him well and just saying, I'm going to go outside of my game and I'm going to try to reach out and hit a non-hittable pitch because it's a big moment and I feel like I have to rise to it. That's probably not going to benefit anyone. He's just going to hit a weak ground ball most of the time, probably. Part of why he was so good is that he wouldn't compromise

and he would only swing at things that he felt he could drive. I think he had probably a pretty good sense of that. But you might've said like in a different era, maybe he would have been perceived better if he had been a little less selective and he had racked up more counting stats, more homers and RBI driven in more runs, even if it had hurt his rate stats or his war, let's say people wouldn't have been paying attention to his war. But now it feels like things have shifted even over the course of his career where if he had hit more homers or driven in more runs or whatever, but had had lower on base and lower war, that actually wouldn't have benefited and bolstered his case, I would say. Yeah. I think that he, you know, when we think about like a guy getting into the Hall of Fame,

there's the production piece of it. And then I do think that having a sense of like where that player fits in baseball history and whether they play some sort of important role in sort of shaping our understanding of the game or helping navigate a transitional moment in our understanding of the game should matter some. I don't know that it is enough on its own to get a guy in, but Vado was an important player for a lot of people in sort of recontextualizing value. It's not like he's the only player in the history of baseball who walked a lot or was persnickety about the zone or had a really finely tuned batting eye, but I think for a lot of young fans who were starting

to get to know Saber Metrics and understand Saber Metrics, he became a really important example of just how important a contributor you could be by having this kind of skill set, right? I think that should matter some, and I bet it will. Because I think that he really changed the way a lot of people talk about players. And I think in a way that helped to broaden our understanding of the different ways that guys could be good. And it helped that he was such a hitting nerd and that he engaged with the analytical community too. Exactly.

And it was a two-way street, right? It was a dialogue with him, it felt like, between the sabermetricians and Vado, and that I think only reinforced the appreciation of him, aside from the fact that he was just so fun and quirky and thoughtful and could be a cut-up and also kind of profound sometimes and also kind of an Instagram clout chaser. Sure, yeah. To your point. He does a lot of different things. Increasingly a poster, right? Yes. Yeah. Early in his career and late that one season when he was just like,

let's grip it and rip it and I'm just going to hit homers. He wasn't so selective as he was at his absolute peak where you just couldn't get him to swing at anything that wasn't a strike really. And he would walk like 20% of the time. It wasn't quite that extreme at other times. So it would have been interesting to see an alternate version of Varo's career where he was more like the 2021 approach

for his whole career. But I doubt he would have been better or more valuable because it's hard to be better than he was for quite a while there. So I will miss him. I will miss the player and I will miss the personality. It's funny, the Reds just signed Dominic Smith. Red Sox cast off to play first base who'd been replacement level for Boston.

It's like they need Joey Votto, or at least a mediocre even Joey Votto. But I guess he couldn't quite be that anymore either. I almost predicted on our preseason pod, our bold predictions pod, one of my bold predictions was that he would have a Pujols-esque last hurrah for Toronto. Clearly that did not come to pass. That was quite bold. But I, because I had predicted that and because I wanted to root for Votto, I refrained from predicting that this would be the first season ever with no 40 year old hitter, no one 40 or older. And now that Vato is not getting a call up, it looks like that might be the case, unless Yuli Gurriel, who has hit well in AAA for Atlanta, and you know, they need help at all sorts of positions. So if they were to call him up, if Matt Olson took a day off at some point,

then I guess that would be a 40 year old. But otherwise this might be a milestone season in that respect. I'm sure the Blue Jays weren't pushing Vado to retire and give up that AAA roster spot. You'd think that the Blue Jays being out of it, they probably would have been happy to have just the sentimental PR story of calling up Vado in September to play for his hometown team.

And so there is something sort of noble about, if he could have requested that, I don't know how that would go over with everyone else in the organization if other actual prospects were passed over so that Joey Vado could kind of take a big league bow, but maybe they wouldn't begrudge him that. And if he had pushed for that, maybe he would have gotten the chance to do that and maybe it would have been even nice for the fans, but he just wouldn't have felt like it was sincere and earned, I guess. And so I respect that he walked away and chose not to indulge in that dream.

Even if it's not exactly the way he wanted it to end, to your point, I think being able to step away on your own terms is really powerful. Because I would imagine that even when you know it's time, regardless of what that final year looks like, it has to be a very disorienting transition in your life, just as a person. And so getting to have some agency in it, I imagine would feel meaningfully better than

kind of having your, maybe your, you know, your knee blows out, your elbow blows out, what have you, and you just can't mount a comeback. I think that this would feel meaningfully better. Like the ideal is, is David Ortiz's final season where it's like you announce the retirement, you get to have an entire season where you're getting your flowers and you're really good. And so you get to go out on this high note, you have total control, everyone gets to have a moment with you where they appreciate the player that you were, but still are.

Most guys don't get that. He had a 163 WRC plus in his finals season. Man, good for you, David. What a time. But even when you can't have that, getting to have your say is, I think, pretty powerful for guys just as people, not even as players. And to ask things I'll mention, last time I suggested that I could buy the Orioles beating the Yankees in the AL East.

I was like, I didn't remember you saying you could buy the Orioles. I was like, wow, is the Patreon really different than I thought it was? Not quite that remunerative, but despite the best efforts of our upcoming guest later on this episode. The kind generosity of our patrons, for sure. Yes. However, I think I undersold the Craig Kimbrough factor in saying that I believed in Baltimore to take this title because if they keep running him out there, then I don't know that they

can win because I mean, their whole bullpen has been bad. So it's not like they've had a whole lot of other good options post all-star break. I mean, they have like Phillies low leverage guys that they're trying to turn into their high leverage guys and it's not going great. And Craig Kimbrell, I guess is kind of one of them because he was with the Phillies not long ago too.

And they've basically taken him out of leverage spots. I mean, more or less, he hasn't had a save since July 7th. He hasn't even blown a save since July 25th, not for lack of bad pitching, but he just hasn't been in. I was gonna say, can't, by doing the meme, can't blow a save. Exactly, right. And he hadn't even pitched in the ninth inning

for two or three weeks there. He was demoted to pitching in the eighth, pitching in the seventh. They finally gave him a ninth inning spot just a few days ago and it went okay, but it wasn't a save situation. It was, I think, a four run lead. He got a shot against the Mets on Wednesday in the seventh inning in a tie game, and Mark Vientos took him deep and the Orioles lost. And I just, I don't know how you extricate yourself from the Kimbrough situation in a tie game and Mark Vientos took him deep and the Orioles lost.

And I just, I don't know how you extricate yourself from the Kimbrough situation once you've gotten yourself into it. Post all-star break, he has the worst win probability added of any pitcher. Plus negative 1.54, even though the leverage index for him has been fairly low over that span. even though the leverage index for him has been fairly low over that span, he now has a negative WPA since 2019. I mean, it's been several seasons now, five or six organizations that have signed him, entrusted him with high leverage roles, and then decided, oops, that was a mistake. And then they keep doing it again. So we've talked about this before and been confused by this before, but I continue to be confused by it. So once he's on your team, I guess you feel like you paid him that much.

You can't cut him or something. And they just kind of keep trying to put him in important spots and it keeps backfiring. So lots of teams and their fans know this Craig Kimbrough experience and now the Orioles are getting to delight in it. Yep, they are. Last thing, I just want to shout out a couple labor related stories. One, our pal Evandrelik at the Athletic did a feature on ballplayers in Japan who are now actually working towards some changes. The union in NPP is much weaker than the MLBPA, and it's also just not as pro-union a country, like unions are not as powerful generally in Japan.

And so Tony Clark of the MLBPA has actually been working So Tony Clark of the MLBPA has actually been working with members of the JPPPA to advocate for themselves. And it's kind of incredible relative to the MLBPA just how little sway NPP players have had because Tony Clark is working with them on NIL stuff, name image likeness, right? Like, they don't even have that. And people, clubs hold those rights and clubs have final say over endorsement deals that players make, which, yeah, and not just that, but there's almost no history of work stoppages, really. There was a two day strike 20 years ago and that's it. And you know, the union itself only dates back to 1985 and they are trying now,

they're pushing to have a quicker path to free agency, which the MLBPA is also obviously, but in Japan it's a much longer path to free agency, You know, it's like six-ish years in MLB. And in Japan, it's seven or eight. It's like after seven or eight, it depends on whether you're drafted out of college or high school, but seven or eight and then to leave for a foreign league, it's nine years, right? Unless a team posts them, unless you work something out. And so the players are pushing for free agency after six years, just like MLB

players have, and also for a quicker pathway to go overseas if they cared to. So it's, it's all seemingly going to come to a head pretty soon. And we will see how far they're willing to push this and what the result will be. They're kind of going a legal route to essentially do away with the equivalent of the reserve clause that MLB used to have. So it's really interesting that it's just decades really behind where the MLB players are in terms of their rights and the balance of power compared to the clubs. That is fascinating.

I think that's pretty cool. Like, you know, solidarity, man. Yeah, I like the cooperation and, you know, I guess it's not totally selfless. It's like the MLBPA will maybe get a cut of, you know, if the NIL stuff gets worked out, then they could help manage that because they've already got that sort of set up for their players, right? So, you know, they have some financial incentive here too, possibly. But it is really interesting that the two highest level leagues in the world where,

you know, players come and go with increasing frequency and success, the labor situation is just completely different. It's like decades and decades ago. And so, and how will that change, I guess, the level of talent in that league and who comes over to MLB if there's a quicker pathway to do that? So it can change things from that perspective too. So it's a really interesting article. I will link to it. It is long and in depth and there are a lot of wrinkles to it.

And then the other one that I wanted to flag which was sent to us by a Patreon supporter, Peter. So the National Women's Soccer League has now just done away with its draft, right? And everyone is a free agent. So- Yeah, I saw that. Yeah, and this isn't quite as inconceivable

as it would be in baseball or one of the other major American sports, because there is, you know, in European soccer, it kind of works that way too, where you don't have a draft, you have academies, right? And teams sign players super young, and then they develop them internally. So there is sort of a soccer precedent, but for an American sports league, it is really radical. I mean, it seems radical to us who are so used to the idea of a draft, which the concept of a draft, I guess,

would seem radical if we didn't have one or if we were subject to a draft in our professional lives, it would sure seem radical, but we're just kind of used to the strangeness of that in sports. And so there's a Wall Street Journal feature about that and whether that could lead to change in the NBA or MLP or the NHL or the NFL, right?

And, you know, players and executives and union folks are taking notice of this NWSL change. And it's kind of, it's such a different circumstance and it certainly seems player centric that there won't be a draft, but also I guess, labor piece is seen as very valuable to the league right now because, you know, what with the rapidly expanding popularity and lucrativeness of women's sports,

the NWSL has been expanding quickly and their CBA runs through 2030 and so they can now get a lucrative media rights deal without the prospect of labor strife and turmoil perhaps. By the way, NPB doesn't even have CBA terms like MLP has. It's so different and strange. But I don't know that this will like totally upset the paradigm in the sport that we talk about here. It would be quite a difference for MLP to just do away with its draft, right? And NWSL has a salary cap, right? That's a difference from baseball, though not from the other major American sports. And so the league probably also has less leverage because players drafted into the NWSL had

the option to go play internationally for some other high level clubs. And the NWSL was founded in 2012, so it's not as if an enormous amount of history is being overturned here. There are just a whole host of differences aside from the fact that it's a major American sports league. Everything else is different, but is it precedent setting? Could it guide players association priorities in future negotiations? Who knows? It's pretty thought provoking, pretty compelling.

Yeah. I have a quick update. Okay. Brian Divish has said, a source has confirmed the firing because he had not yet confirmed Ken's report. And then he says, it's likely there could be more changes to the coaching staff for this final month. So I don't want to speculate about anyone else losing their job, but I wonder if some

of the logical internal candidates for an interim position are perhaps to be unavailable or working in a different capacity. So stay tuned to this space for me having to get mad at people I admired as a child because of the Mariners. All right. Well, stay tuned to this space because the podcast continues and we will now be welcoming in a top tier Patreon supporter who will answer some listener emails with us. Oh, oh, oh, darling, I'm a very modern fan Reading up on all the analytics I wanna know about baseball Presented by Patreon supporters Oh, effectively, why oh?

Alright, well we are joined now by listener Mike Troutier, Patreon supporter, Sam Horton. Welcome to the show, Sam. Hey, Ben. Hey, Meg. Thanks for having me on. Happy to have you on, especially because you have paid dearly for the privilege. So as I always ask our Mike Troutier Patreon supporters, what could have possibly possessed you to support us at this level, though I guess your story, like some others who have joined us,

is you have a patron who has enabled you to join us? Yes, exactly. So I'm continuing in the effectively wild tradition of receiving the Mike Trout badge as a gift. So yeah, that's from my sister Sarah, who I introduced to the podcast a little over a year ago. So, yeah, she was kind enough to give me this opportunity as like a birthday gift. It kind of aligned well. She got a new job and it just seemed like the right time. She had mentioned me going on the podcast for a little while.

It's not something that she had an interest in, but yeah, it just worked out well. So you introduced her to the podcast and then she paid you back by funding your appearance? Exactly. Exactly. I think that when she got the new job in May, I think it was, I think Mike Trout tier Patreon level was at the top of her list. I'm not exaggerating. So yeah, I think the price she paid for this is a small number in comparison to the joy she's gotten out of listening to the pod for the last year or so. Wow. Happy to hear that. It just goes to show, tell your friends and or relatives about Effectively Wild and maybe eventually they will pay to have you appear on the podcast.

Exactly. How did you discover Effectively Wild? Yeah. I discovered Effectively Wild pretty recently compared to most of the people that come on the show. So, I found it my first semester of college, which was 2022, I think right after the season had ended. And I think I just found it online. I think I had just thought, oh, I need to get into podcasts for some reason.

I don't know why I thought that, but- That's what I thought 12 years ago and here we are. Right. I don't know why I thought that, but. That's what I thought 12 years ago and here we are. So I think I just Googled best baseball podcasts, Reddit, and everyone was like, Oh, you got to listen to Effectively Wild. So, um, yeah, the rest is kind of history. Well, then you should pay for those Redditors to come on the podcast. You should endow a Mike Trout tier. Wow.

It should just be a pay it forward sort of situation. Probably. I think maybe, maybe one day. So you mentioned that you were in school, you're still in school. In fact, we are speaking to you Thursday afternoon, which is your first day of classes. Your classes have concluded. You're not speaking to us from class. You have returned home, but tell us where you are and what you're studying. Yeah. So I go to the University of Florida. This is the beginning of my third year, which is also my final year in school, at least for my bachelor's. So I study political science and African-American

studies. Political science was my original major going in, but I came in with a lot of credit, so I felt necessary to add another major to kind of extend that time. So I've kind of fallen in love with African-American studies, maybe more so than political science, even though they're similar in a lot of ways and reinforce each other well. But African American studies is more multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, so you can kind of draw on political science things as well when you're doing research or working on things. So yeah, this year I'm actually starting a research project with one of my professors. We're going to be looking at

masculinity and black NFL quarterbacks. He's, you know, one of the foremost scholars on sports and black culture. So we're gonna be looking at some players in the modern game and kind of looking to how they navigate notions of masculinity within the confines of the NFL and how they've kind of challenged or conformed to traditional understandings of masculinity. So, yeah. Well, I can clear the floor if you two just want to chat about political science for the rest of this episode. No, no, I'm good. I think there's enough of that. He just got out of class, Ben. Like, come on, let the poor guy take a break. Podcast classes in session now. This is where we school you on baseball. And I reveal how much of my own degrees I have forgotten in the years that have transpired

between now and then. What is your sort of broader baseball story though? How did you come to the sport and what teams do you root for? Because you are in fact a Florida man. I'm a Florida man, but big reveal, I'm not a fan of the Rays or the Marlins. Oh. I was born and raised in Florida, but I was born and raised a Mets fan. Hey. Wow. A fan of the New York team in Florida?

I can't believe it. I know. You must be the only one. And I've never even, I'm 20 and I've never been to the city. I've never been to a city field, which I'm hoping to do next year. But yeah, I came to the Mets in kind of an interesting way. I guess the best way to talk about my fandom and how I got into baseball is through my family. So my dad was a Mets fan

because his dad was a Mets scout. My dad grew up in Newport News, Virginia, and my grandfather, his dad, was a scout at Norfolk when the Mets AAA affiliate was there when there were the Tidewater Tides, now Baltimore's affiliate, of course. So he kind of scouted there and my dad grew up with his dad working in the organization and kind of watching these players come up. So he was a Mets fan his whole life and now I'm a Mets fan. So it kind of got passed down that way. And my dad took baseball super seriously.

He pitched in the minor leagues in the Cardinals organization. I did not go that far. I was not as good at baseball as my dad was. I kind of quit, I think, freshman year. I was like, okay, this has been good enough. I got what I wanted to out of the sport. I found it very fun to play, but I knew that I wasn't going to have a career in it, so I kind of cut my losses. Yeah. You had AP classes to take and credits to rack up and majors to accumulate. Exactly. So no, I didn't love it in high school, but I've had fun and I'd like to, you know, play when I have free time. It's still fun to do.

How high did your dad get in the Cardinal system? Yeah. So he pitched in, I think double A and then his elbow kind of sprung before they really did. And it's not like he was a big prospect or anything. He was like a single inning relief guy, but he got to, like, I think he got a spring training invite and got to play with some big leaguers and stuff. So yeah, he was, he was experienced in that regard, but it was cool to have him as my coach growing up. So that was, that was fun.

Yeah. Did you pitch too? No, I was horrible at pitching. I think I caught actually, I was a. Yeah. Did you pitch too? No, I was horrible at pitching. I think I caught actually, I was a catcher. And then in high school, I kind of moved around. I played some infield and outfield as well. But yeah, I caught in like little league and stuff. But as I got older and the pitches got harder, I really like framing and throwing out runners

and that sort of thing. But blocking was never something I could really, I could never clear that mental barrier, so to speak. But it's difficult once they're throwing 70, 80 miles an hour, I was like, all right, this is too much for me. So yeah, it's like Meg always says, there has to be something maybe a little wrong with you to become a catcher. We're glad that people do because we love catchers, but we don't understand.

Yeah, pitching was terrible though. I hated it. I felt so alone on the mound when I was pitching. Yeah. You do have company in the catcher's box. You might have too much company. You might have one of those umpires who's putting his hands on your shoulder and leaning on you. And then you've got the batter there. So you're never alone. That is true. Any good scouting stories passed down from your granddad? Yeah, so I like never actually met my granddad. He passed before I was alive, I think. But just through my dad, I think that my grandfather scouted A-Rod

and he had said, he like had called him and was like, we gotta get this guy, we gotta get this guy. I don't know if the organization was in a place where they could. I don't really know the like draft order of what the situation was, but I know that he ID'd him at I think a younger age. Well, if he thought A-Rod was good, I guess that's a good sign. Yeah. Yeah, I suppose so.

It would be bad if he whiffed on that one. Yeah. 40 future value on A-Rod. Yeah, I suppose so. It would be bad if he whiffed on that one. Yeah, 40 future value on ERA. Yeah. All right. Well, let's answer some emails and we'll see where that takes us. So a question comes from one of your fellow Patreon supporters, Lee, who says, I checked the Wiki and couldn't find this precise discussion after Kershaw, Scherzer and Verlander, and maybe Kenley,

who will be the next active pitcher to make the Hall of Fame? The reason I ask, some of the most effective pitchers are the least durable, and for better or worse, Hall of Fame voting has always relied on long careers or sustained production, not flash-in-the-pan excitement. DeGrom may have had an incredibly high peak and great stats for a couple of years, but he's missing so many innings, for example. So the question remains, who could possibly be next after those four? My mind goes to Chris Sale, but even he has a long way to go to make a strong Hall of

Fame case. And more broadly, what are your thoughts on whether we can or should adjust Hall of Fame expectations around this durability slash effectiveness dichotomy? It does seem like some corrections got to be coming at some point if the Hall of Fame and if baseball writers ever want there to be a pitcher elected to the Hall of Fame again, because we've seen lots of guys who were really great, but just don't really meet the historical standards because of fewer wins, lighter workloads, you know, your Tim Hudson's and your Mark Burleys and guys like that, Andy Pettit, you know, who were kind of on the cusp.

And if you era adjusted, you could make a strong case for them. But because you're comparing to past eras, they have fallen short, at least according to the baseball writers. So I don't know when it's going to come, but at some point, probably the voters will have to lower their standards somewhat. I know that when, so every year after the induction ceremony, Jay Jaffe kind of looks ahead to not just the next year, but sort of what is the current state of the guys who are active or, you know, are sort of on the cusp of active. And I say that because I know that one of the names that I don't think you

listed there that he identified as, at least from Jaws' perspective, is sort of a lock among the starters is Granky. Right. I was going to say, I guess he's technically not retired, right? So he's kind of active even though he wasn't active this season. Yeah. And he, you know, he had worked out earlier in the year and was sort of entertaining teams down in, in Arizona. I actually saw Granky at the Pac-12 tournament in May. I like was in the press box at Scottsdale Stadium and I looked over and I was like, is that Granky? Is that Granky just sitting in the back row? Granky comes immediately to mind.

I think Sale will be kind of, it'll be interesting to see because if he's able to have a couple more years like this one, I think the conversation changes. He's currently south of the Jaws standard for starting pitchers, but he's, I think, 10 baseball reference wins off of that and Jaws is on the B ref war scale, not ours. So that's important to keep in mind. But yeah, after that, things are, the gaps widen out, right? Like DeGrom is, I think when Jay ran these numbers, was at 42.5 S jaws and the hall of fame standard is 56.8, Garry Cole's at like 38.

And then for the relievers, yeah, it's like Jansen, Kimbrough is like pretty far off, Chapman is even further. So there's going to have to be a reckoning around like, what are our expectations? Because like you said, like the gaps are only going to get wider for starters. And it's not like it's going to be reasonable to say that the 2020s didn't produce any Hall of Famers. That as a notion seems ridiculous. So we are going to have to go through some sort of a correction on what constitutes an acceptable threshold. Because you want it to be something. You can't have guys who are close to reliever numbers, right? I guess, unless you do just say, well, starting pitchers really are just less valuable than

they used to be. I mean, they are, right? So there's that ongoing debate about, well, if you're the best of a certain type of player, then you should get in. Maybe it's the best DH, maybe it's the best reliever. And you could say, well, if you're the best starter, obviously teams still need just as many innings from their pitchers, but those innings are distributed

over many more pitchers. And so I guess if you want it to be a hardliner, you could make the case that, well, these pitchers just aren't as valuable anymore. They just, they aren't. So there should be fewer of them in there, but that's not fun, I guess. Right. But it's also not as fun that pitchers don't pitch as much anymore and they get hurt and they don't go as deep into games. We've been talking about that. So if we

lament that from an entertainment standpoint, then maybe that should be reflected in Hall of Fame voting. How do you feel, Sam? Yeah, I think there, obviously, we have to keep some sort of standard, right? For total war accumulated or whatever we wanna do. But I do think that there does need to be some sort of adjustment. Yeah, I think Granke is pretty obvious, but I really hope that deGrom can get in,

obviously, as a Mets fan. And even though he's on the Rangers, it doesn't even feel like it because he hasn't pitched very much. But I'm hoping that maybe after this elbow surgery, and he's presumed to come back this season, I know he said he wants to get out there at least, for mental reasons. But I hope that maybe if he could string together a couple more de Grom-esque seasons, not even necessarily 2021-like, but you know, something similar that I'd like to think that he'd be right there. I'm really interested to see how voters approach his case. And then I think we're really going

to be reckoning with this issue in like a decade when there's guys that have super low war totals, but we're so dominant for a few seasons and it's like, okay, but how do we understand their careers? Nicole Soule-Bare, Ph.D. Because I think part of it is like, you know, baseball is happening now, right? I appreciate that part of the biggest thing that the hall is trying to do is sort of enshrine greatness. And I think that that needs to be counterbalanced with the idea that it also serves as a fossil record.

The idea that you would just have Clayton Kershaw be the last enshrined starter feels ridiculous. Maybe we need to rework our understanding of longevity to your point, Ben. Part of why we have guys going fewer innings, throwing fewer pitches is this quest to keep them available and to keep them from getting hurt. Maybe we'll look back and say, well, these guys don't have as many innings on their arm. They aren't hitting the same kind of strikeout milestones or what have you, but their careers were five or 10 years longer than they otherwise would have been because they didn't end up

getting Tommy John, although sometimes they just end up getting Tommy John anyway. But I think it's okay for us to redefine our understanding of what a Hall of Fame starter is and have that be sort of era adjusted in the same way that we era adjust like hitters, right? Maybe it's just a similar concept, but you do need to have a floor. There's got to be a floor. Yeah, right. We era adjust hitters, but the best hitters of today are still roughly as valuable as

the best hitters of yesteryear. Not quite as much maybe because the caliber of competition has increased and it's harder for the best players to stand out from the pack, but playing time-wise there hasn't been as much of a degradation there. So I do think Sale will get in. I think he has a very good shot. I wouldn't necessarily have said that before this season, but the way he's bounced back and if he finally gets that Cy Young award this year, that'll help, I think. He was often named as maybe one of the best pitchers who never won a Cy Young and people are always shocked to hear that

he never won one because he was so frequently in the top five, top six, top three, even voting. That was several years ago. And so to make the comeback that he's made here, I think that will help him. And other guys might get in in the interim. Like I think Cici Subatheia will sail in. Right. And so, you know, if Cici gets in, then does that open the door to Felix or Cole Hamels or someone like that?

I don't know that I see that happening for Hamels, let's say. I do wonder if Johan Santana's career ended later. If he came up for voting for the first time now, would he get more support than he did at that time? But yeah, Sale, who might just have the highest strikeout rate for a starter with some minimum number of innings in a career, obviously that needs to be error adjusted too, but I think just his level of dominance could do it. And other than that, yeah, you mentioned a couple closers and relievers, though I think even that will get harder because relievers aren't racking up the save totals that they used to. Kimbrough and Jensen have those

high save totals, but it's a little like wins for different reasons, but it's not like you have a designated capital C closer who gets all your save opportunities anymore. Those are more widely distributed. So I don't know that you'll see those counting stats either. So that won't really be a feather in their cap. So yeah, it's going to be tough. It may be like it'll come from like the veterans committee or whatever we're calling the committees now reaching back and inducting some guys who the BBWAA passed over. And that doesn't always then lower the baseline for future BBWAA candidates, but maybe it would in this case, if you sort of break the seal and you put in Tim Hudson and Andy Pettit and people like that, then maybe

when candidates like those guys come along, the writers will be more forgiving and lenient with those guys. And who knows, you could have guys like Zach Wheeler or Aaron Nola, you never know who's going to age remarkably well and just last a long time and keep compiling. You could have said Stephen Strasburg if he hadn't had his career cut quite so short, right? But yeah, there just aren't a lot of great candidates. Yeah. No.

Okay. Question from Peter. This is, I guess, also about some future Hall of Famers. I'm listening to Ben's reaction to Mike Trout's season-ending injury and blaming it on super pretzel is ridiculous. Yes, it was. I was aware that it was ridiculous. I was being somewhat ridiculous. My question is, can you pinpoint the day when Bryce Harper stole Mike Trout's healing factor? I don't know how he did it, but my memory of young Harper is that he was constantly banged up, missing time after running into walls, et cetera.

And right around the time Trout starts becoming injury prone, Harper is setting records for recovery time from Tommy John. I don't think it can be a coincidence. Second question, assuming Harper ages well, would you rather have a Trout slash Griffey career where you're transcendent in your 20s and injured slash disappointing in your 30s,

or a Harper career where you're viewed as talented, but underwhelming in your 20s, and then an MVP candidate through your thirties. I guess, could we even call Harper underwhelming in his twenties? I was about to say, exqueuse. He was whelming. I was whelmed. He had like a nine and a half win season when he was 22. He won two MVP awards and a rookie of the year in his 20s. Yeah, he had 197 WRC plus when he was 22.

I think it's a great question though, because I feel like Bryce Harper is one of those guys who I can't wait to see how fans who were not aware of him when he was like 16, right? And who came to him later in his career, maybe when he became a Philly, sort of how they perceive the early seasons, the national seasons of Harper's career. Because I think it's right that there was this perception that he was sort of underwhelming relative to expectation, but that's because the expectation was wild. The expectation was completely unreasonable. And Harper bears at least a tiny amount of responsibility for that.

He welcomed that expectation, right? He didn't seem like he was prone to shrinking from that expectation. But the idea that this guy was like disappointing before he got to Philly is, wow, he had 197 WRC plus. Yeah, it's true. I think that that is purely a product of just how sky high and unrealistic the expectation was.

And he was kind of inconsistent. I mean, he had the incredible 2015 and then a pretty pedestrian average 2016. Right. Yeah. And so he's fluctuated from MVP best player in baseball to merely good or very good at times. And yes, he did have injury issues. And I don't know that we can quite call him an Ironman at this point.

Yes, he did recover extremely quickly from the Tommy John. He does seem to heal quickly, but he hasn't played 150 games in a season since 2019. So let's see him do that. He might yet do that this year. I guess there are just about enough games left for him maybe to just squeak. Yeah, right around there. So yeah, he's been more durable of course. And there were seasons early in his like 2013, 118 games, 2014, 100 games, 2017, 111 games, and then 2022, 99 games. So yes, it does seem like the story has flipped there where Trout has gone from the durable one to the injury prone one.

And Harper now is the guy who heals extremely quickly. So that is odd. Yeah, I don't know. I think that with Harper, like just looking at his games played, I know you mentioned then that he hasn't, you know, played in that many games, you know, 150 since 2019. But looking back early in his career is age 19, 20, 21 season, basically his whole time with Washington. It's not like he, you know, his floor was a hundred games. We're talking about trout now playing, you know, 29 this season, 36 and 2021. So like, you know, Harper was banged up, but it's not the same with trout where it's just like one after another, after another.

And that makes sense because, you know, he's going to rebound better as a, as a young kid versus as Mike trout's aging. But yeah, it's just, it's super to rebound better as a young kid versus as Mike Trout's aging. But yeah, it's just, it's super frustrating to see for Trout as we talked about. Yeah. And we've returned to this topic and put these two head to head and pitted them against each other so many times in the history of this podcast. In fact, a listener named Max emailed just a few days ago to say that he was listening to episode 282, a deep cut, which was titled Re-Assessing Trout vs. Harper. So already that. Almost 2000 episodes ago, we were reassessing those two. And then I replied to point him to

several subsequent reassessments. So episode 771, episode 867, more recently episode 2,159, those two have just been tied together for so long that it would be nice if they retired at the same time and got inducted into the Hall of Fame at the same time. I don't know that that will happen because Trout is more than a year older and also the trajectory his career is taking right now. I don't know that he will have the staying power of Harper. Max was asking about the possibility of Harper catching up to Trout war-wise. We answered that question about Mookie and Trout. Could Mookie catch up to Trout? Harper, even now, fan graphs war-wise is more than 35 wins above replacement to Trout. Harper, even now, FanGraph's Warwise is like more than 35 wins

above replacement beyond Trout. Trout just built up such a huge lead that I don't really see how that could happen, especially now that Harper is a first baseman. Yeah, maybe slightly lowers his war ceiling, but it would be appropriate if their careers tracked each other. And if Mike Trout just got to be a Philadelphia Philly. I just wanted to be a Philly so bad. I wanted to be a Philly so bad. Yeah. Just give me Harper and Trout like a late career Trist speaker and Ty Cobb playing together. That's what I want to see those two. I want their careers to wind down in tandem. I just, I can just hear Philly's fans being like, oh sure, Saddlers with another DHY, don't you?

Or if Trout somehow resurges back to his former self, then I'll be tormented as a Mets fan for my... Yes. Yeah. Maybe Trout will just be a 40-year-old center fielder refusing to change positions and playing five games a year. I guess we didn't actually answer the question here, which was which kind of career would you rather have?

Maybe because we quibbled with the framing of the question that it's not as if Harper was really underwhelming in your twenties. But if you had to choose between just being incandescently, just unparalleled, pureless, and look like you're on track to be best player ever, like Trout or Griffey, and then things just completely collapse in your 30s, would you rather have that or a more run-of-the-mill Cooperstown caliber career, I guess, where you don't necessarily boost expectations to the point where people think you're going to be the best ever. But you also aren't saddled with this sort of sad second half to your career where your incredibly accomplished career

turns into a what if sort of scenario. Looking at it's tough, right? I guess I'm less, I'm not less enamored with with trout than anyone. I mean, Trout's, you know, arguably just the greatest player ever we've seen for a stretch. But I think that on like a human basis, it's got to feel a little better to be Harper right now, because you're getting to play, you know, I mean, he's in his age 31 season and you expect him to play for many years to come. You just can't necessarily say the same thing about Trout. Like, you know, Harper's hoping to go take his team back

to the World Series and win it, and Trout's sidelined. And I just think that reality on a human level, I don't know if, you know, Trout having multiple 10-war seasons, you know, almost over a decade ago makes up for that, but I tend to think that, I don't know, Harper's on the field and playing with his teammates and Trout's not, so. I think I agree.

I think I would rather be Harper. And, you know, because of the way we quibbled with the question, like what an embarrassment of riches to choose, you know, between, right? Like, oh, you have to settle for being Bryce Harper. Oh no, what will you do? But he seems like he's having a great time. He seems very much like, you never know

who's gonna win a World Series, right? But he seems like he plays for a club that has as good a chance as any. And for an owner who, you know, talk about the contrast and the way that those organizations are perceived at this point, right? Like, you know, you have John Middleton giving quotes about being a steward for the team and the responsibility that comes with being an owner and how you have obligations to the city.

And Artie Moreno is like, I'm going to extend Perry though, because that's the ticket, you know, that's going to make the difference in Anaheim. So I think it would just be a lot more fun to be Harper than to be Trout. And Trout's perspective on that in a time when he was less injured and when things seemed less dire for the org might've been different because there are such interesting compliments to one another because Harper clearly likes being in the spotlight and is happy to do the pandering thing. He is comfortable with that in a way that Trout has never seemed to be. Maybe Trout's content with the way that at least aspects of his career have played out

because he hasn't had to do that bit. But I think I'd rather be Harper. Who would be a better defender? Double-Torn Meniscus, Mike Trout or Nick Castellanos? That's a mean question that I asked. I'm not going to hold either of you to an answer because I feel so bad for having even asked. It depends on whether you're talking about playoff Castellanos when he raises his defensive game.

But yeah, the last time we talked about Trout versus Harper, I think we noted that Harper has had a more memorable career in some ways. Just having the postseason playing time that he's had, having a thousand OPS essentially in the playoffs and just many more memorable signature moments than Trout has had, which is partly a product of their personalities and respective levels of flashiness and kind of courting the spotlight, but also a product of the teams that they've played for and the opportunities that they've had to play in the playoffs. Yeah, I think that people are going to remember Harper hitting bombs in the World Series

or the NLCS more than they're gonna remember. No, there's just not that with Trout. You know, you look at the war leaderboard, right? But it's not the same thing. So. All right, question from Jonathan. When my brother and I would play catch as kids, we would often intentionally receive the ball on the backside of our closed glove, trapping it with our throwing hand. And since the ball was already in our throwing hand, we could throw it back in a swift motion. It was just our modest way of showboating. I'm guessing this tactic has been applied by middle infielders turning a double play, but has an outfielder ever made a similar style catch in a desperate act of throwing out a tagging runner? The likelihood of dropping a fly ball

with this method is significant for sure. But hey, pros in a pinch do amazing things. If an outfielder has nothing to lose, bottom nine tie game, fewer than two outs in the winning run on third base, and a ball hit at a depth that makes throwing out the runner unlikely, why not give it a shot? I'd love to see this attempted, regardless of success, if just for the potential majesty of the single fluid motion that could send a fly ball back toward home plate faster than we've ever seen before? Do you think this is worth trying? So a flashy transfer where the ball never actually goes into the pocket of the glove, you just kind of stop its flight on the backside of the glove and trap it in your hand and then it's already in your hand

and you just make the throw. Could we see this? Should we see this? I mean, is it worth trying? Depends on the situation, right? In a close game, no, right? No, it's not worth trying. But I'm skeptical as to how much time it would actually save. Maybe that's a misunderstanding of the game or transfers. I know that sometimes you get the ball stuck in your glove and you see a guy kind of, you know, trying to get it out. But I don't think that it would save that much time, especially in the scenario where he's describing where it's, you know, you're not likely to throw out the runner. Well, then I guess we could test it out, but I don't know if it would really do much.

Yeah. I'm trying to mime the motions right now, just to see how many milliseconds am I shaving off here? Because yeah, I guess the nice thing is when you catch the ball in your glove, it is kind of presenting the ball to your other hand and you can just put the hand right in there. Whereas if you kind of have the ball braced against the outside of your glove, then you're kind of more awkwardly reaching around

and you're already bracing the ball, I guess, with your non-gloved hand. So it's kind of in there already, but the angle of it, you kind of have to like pull it back more to get something on the throw, right? So yeah, maybe it would save you some amount of time, but it doesn't seem like a lot. Yeah, I think the catch and throw motion that you described Ben is right. I think it's more fluid when you catch it, you kind of bring for me a righty, your left hand into your right and it just kind of all flows, but you're doing this weird reach around with your hand on top of your glove. It seems strange.

Although now I guess I'm thinking of the typical place you would catch a ball over your head. Let's say if you're a righty like me in your left hand and so it's off to the left side of your body. What if you prepared to do this and you kind of caught the ball toward the right side? So it's kind of where your right hand would be as you raise it up to throw. So it's sort of on that side of your body already. That might ease the transfer. That might smooth out the motion a little bit.

So maybe if it's something you practiced, but yeah, you would run the risk of looking bad, right? You'd be looking like you were trying to showboat unless it really was a desperate situation where you had no choice otherwise. I like the creativity, the ingenuity here. It would look kind of cool. It reminds me of the Kevin Kiermaier deke play that we talked about in the past, Meg, where you kind of pretend to catch a fly ball high and then you let it drop lower and you try to deke the runner on third into leaving early before you have actually caught the ball as the outfielder and then you can throw behind them and get them doubled off. That I think would work sometimes. This I'm more skeptical, but I like the idea of having sort of a special signature defensive play,

you know, just kind of like a Willie Mays basket catch, which I think he said he did because it put him in a good position to throw and it was a signature move and how cool is it to kind of have a signature defensive play, right? And outfielders don't typically have that. Infielders sometimes do. They might have a dive or some kind of Aussie cartwheel or a jump throw, which is not necessarily always actually advantageous if you're Derek

Jeter, let's say, or maybe it's a reflection of your lack of range that you even have to do that. Outfielders, they might have a single signature play, but you wouldn't really think of them having like a distinctive style of catching a ball unless, you know, maybe they're really adept at home run robberies or something. But yeah, this would probably, kids would emulate this way of catching and then they'd be reprimanded by their coaches. So this would be the opposite of two hands fundamentals. This is not that. Yeah. If it worked, I think it would be worse, right? Because then the situation you're describing

might actually come to fruition, but it would be cool. I think think it would be worse, right? Because then the situation you're describing might actually come to fruition. But it would be cool. I think the highlight would be everywhere, I'd imagine. Oh, yes. Yeah, I think the highlight would be everywhere. But I also think that it would be the sort of thing that we would start seeing like in travel ball games all the time until the coach was like, okay, but knock it off though, because we just got to like... Yeah. All right. Question from Jameson who says, related to a topic on podcast 2201, I think this was when we talked about unusual settings

for baseball games. Something I've long thought would be interesting is a major league team and one of its affiliates swapping parks for a game. I'm a Red Sox fan. So the idea came when their AAA team moved to Worcester. I figure it only really works if the minor league team is 1. pretty close by, and 2. plays in a newer nice ballpark with a newer nice clubhouse. I have to think the Boston Red

Sox would sell out Polar Park in Worcester in a flash, and it would be really cool to watch the Worcester team at Fenway, though it obviously helps there that the Worcester team is really good at the moment. They could take advantage of days off to split them up, but I think it would be even better to play the minor league game at the major league part during the day and then the major league game at the minor league part in prime time. So conceivably a few sickos could attend both games. So what do you think of a ballpark swap for the big club and its top affiliate? I love it.

Not, you know, like for an entire season because your ballpark in Vegas isn't ready, but I like it. I think it would be fun. I agree. I think it would be very fun, but I wonder at the same time what we're accomplishing. Like I understand that like seeing these guys play, you know, in a smaller setting is very fun.

Like I love spring training, just being a Floridian. Like I get to go see the Mets every year in Port St. Lucie and I love that type of environment seeing the guys up close. But at the same time if we're talking about the proximity being a necessary component of it, it's not like you're bringing the big league team to a place where people don't have the opportunity to see them necessarily. You're kind of just doing it close by. So I think it would be much cooler if teams were able to go somewhere else. Like, just for my understanding, I grew up by Daytona, so Jackie Robinson Ballpark was formerly, the Cubs were the former affiliate down here, and then now it is the Reds, the Daytona Tortugas.

So if the Reds came down and played in Daytona, that'd be cool, but obviously that's not feasible, given the situation we're describing. And then I don't know who's packing up the Reds came down and played in Daytona, that'd be cool, but obviously that's not feasible given the situation we're describing. And then I don't know who's packing up the Reds ballpark to go see the Tortugas, but I think that it would be fun. It would definitely be fun for the players. And so I think they should be afforded the opportunity to do this even as an exhibition, just to get them acclimated. And maybe sometimes that happens or their workouts in the parent clubs park, but

just to give them a taste of what that would look like and feel like. And I guess having a big crowd would be part of that. I don't know that a team would go for this because you're going to be costing yourself some attendance, right? I mean, yeah, you're going to sell out the AAA park, but that's going to be much smaller capacity. And some teams might not get the gate from that. I mean, I guess it depends on what your arrangement is with your affiliates and do you own those teams. And I don't think that a minor league team playing in the major league club would sell out a major league park. I don't think it would. Nicole Zichal-Klein It wouldn't. The closest equivalent I have

ever experienced to this is when there were weather related issues up at Everett. And so there was the Aqua Sox came and played a playoff game at, I think what might have still been Safeco at that point. And they did not sell out. They sure did not. Jared Ranere Yeah. So you'd certainly have some sickos and people, you know, socks prospects would be all over this, but I don't know. It was cool. It was a lot of fun. They didn't sell out, but they had open seating, they had sections roped off so you could only go so far up the concourses and there were limited

concessions and all of that. But it was neat. It was a neat thing to see and witness. And it was, man, watching Aquasoc's guys try to hit home runs in that big league ballpark was like, oh boy, you're not quite ready for that, are you buddy? But it was cool. It was a neat thing for, you know, an evening. Sometimes stuff can just be neat. It doesn't have to be profit maximizing. And the question that Jameson mentioned

about just how many, even AAA parks are just gonna be big league ready and so what renovations and upgrades might you have to make and would players complain about that. So I think though, just have it be not necessarily a swap. I guess I don't really see the benefit of having the big leaguers play at the minor league park other than it's nice for fans of that affiliate, I suppose, and people in that town. But what if you just had organization specific futures games, right? Just like exhibitions and it's in the big league park.

I mean, the minor league season ends before the major league season. So you might have to do it say in September when the major league team is on the road or something. And it would be kind of a reward almost like, you know, you send your top prospects to the Arizona fall league or something, or this would be, Hey, job well done. We'll send our top pro yeah, just a futures game for that one organization. And let's showcase the future of this organization and also give these players a taste of what's to come.

And that park's just going to be empty that day anyway. So why not? I like that idea. Yeah. I think that's a far more likely scenario. I think that the swap seems unfeasible. I don't think that that would actually happen. Although I do want to acknowledge the value and kind of the intimacy of seeing big leaders

in smaller settings. I think that it's super cool. Like what I alluded to earlier with Jackie Robinson Ballpark in Daytona, I was very lucky enough by coincidence just to get to see DeGrom rehab there. And Daytona's pretty close to where he grew up in Daly on Springs. So they had his old Stetson photo up on the board and everyone was there. It was packed out to see him pitch just a couple innings. So that's a super cool experience that I think if they could make that happen more

often, it'd be cool. Some people suggest that the MLB Little League classic should be played with Little League Dimensions. And I would sign up for watching that once at least. Only if they make the Yankees do it every year. Yes. Because I want to see Aaron Grudge hit against Little. CB Yes. LSW Yes. LSW Yes. LSW Yes. LSW Yes.

LSW Yes. LSW Yes. LSW Yes. LSW Yes. LSW Yes. LSW Yes. LSW Yes. LSW Yes.

LSW Yes. LSW Yes. LSW Yes. LSW Yes. LSW Yes. LSW Yes. LSW Yes. LSW Yes.

LSW Yes. LSW Yes. LSW Yes. LSW Yes. LSW Yes. LSW Yes. LSW Yes. LSW Yes.

LSW Yes. LSW Yes. LSW Yes. LSW Yes. LSW Yes. LSW Yes. LSW Yes. LSW Yes.

LSW Yes. LSW Yes. LSW Yes. LSW Yes. LSW Yes. LSW Yes. By the way, if there's precedent for this that we're overlooking, let us know if we've overlooked an instance of an outfielder catching a ball on the outside of their glove and throwing in one motion, please let us know.

And also, I think that we undersold Garrett Cole's Hall of Fame chances. We mentioned him in passing, but I think he's probably the leading candidate and I've been somewhat worried by how he's pitched this season, but his first few starts of August have gone well. He's looked more like vintage classic Cole, so if he does right the ship and avoids some serious long-term elbow injury and surgery here, having gotten his Cy Young out of the way last year, the peak for him is pretty high. So I think he'll have a decent argument.

Yeah. Talk about guys who was like, he hasn't won a Cy Young yet. Right. Yeah. And then, you know, won it for not his best season, but sometimes that's what happens. Sometimes you win the Oscar for not your best movie, but can be kind of a makeup award at times. But all right, couple last ones. Andrew says, while I was reading Andy McCullough's new book, I heard my father get mad in the other room while watching the Dodgers play the Tigers.

It was a framing assisted strikeout that led to my father proclaiming, there should be a rule where if the catcher has to move his mitt, it can't be called a strike. Like at all? What? What started as hearing a ridiculous statement from afar has quickly turned into pondering a genuinely interesting

yet agonizing reality. What if that was the rule, that if the catcher has to move their mitt at least X amount of distance, so not at all. Because I was like, they do have to receive the baseball. This is always the problem with the people who are like framing is cheating. I'm like, they have to catch the thing. They have to. Yeah. That the cat,

if the catcher has to move their mitt at least X inches or whatever from their original glove position to receive the ball, the pitch could not be called strike. This would not affect swinging strikes. Do you think we'd see a significant increase in taken pitches, more injuries to catchers and umpires, a decrease in breaking balls and more reliance on fastballs? I feel like this rule change would cause

all sorts of ramifications that I haven't even thought of. And yeah, those are some good ones, right? So with the emphasis on framing these days, yet you'd have to break catchers of the habit. I mean, they're trying not to move their glove too much as it is. You want to try to keep it still. But in this case, if you, there's no advantage to making some demonstrative movements to make a ball look more like a strike

if you're automatically not gonna get the strike anyway because you moved your glove that far, right? So this would, it would place a great emphasis on command. And so you would have to have pitchers really try to hit their spots, which might mean that they would have to take something off, right? So if you want less max effort pitching, this would be one way to do it, I guess. And also, yeah, if you want fewer strikeouts, right.

I mean, less max effort, lower VLO. And also I think Andrew's probably right. You'd have to throw more fastballs, right? I mean, you're going to miss by less most likely with fastballs. And so you'd have less nasty breaking stuff, less swing and miss. So I guess in that sense, it might bring about a version of baseball that we want to see. I have another question. Can I ask you a question really quick?

And then Sam, I want to hear your thoughts. So miss, move by a certain amount, but also probably have to clarify, miss the zone by a certain amount too, right? Because like, what if you get crossed up and you have to move your glove, but you're still receiving it in the zone? No, I think the premise of the question is that it could not be a called strike even in the strike zone. If it's one of those situations where you have a cross up, right? And sometimes you don't get the call in those cases because it looks like a lot of glove movement, but in this case you would be barred from getting the call, right?

Because you could just say, this was not a well-executed pitch, right? Like it didn't go where it was supposed to go. It still is a well-executed pitch, kind of, because it's a strike. Well, yes, I guess so. But then does this not lead to a slippery slope where people will say, well, if you're arguing that any pitch in the strike zone should be a strike, then why should framing matter?

Why should a catcher's glove motion move at all? Because they aren't all strikes is the thing, Ben. And you still have to catch it. You still have to catch the ball. I hate this, right? But no, it's just more so because it's like you pointed out, Meg. I don't know. I don't like the ideas of strikes that are set.

Say you set up outside. You're trying to actually miss. And then it goes in the zone. And the guy takes it. And you have to move your glove, say, from down and away to the middle of the zone. Is that not a well-executed pitch? Is it poor? I would say it's not. move your glove, say, from down and away to the middle of the zone. Is that not a well-executed pitch?

Is it poor? I would say it's not. It's not, right? Right. It's the results that you want, maybe, if you do get the call, but it's not what you intended to do. It was a mistake, right? Right.

But if we're trying to promote more action and stuff, is batters just sitting and taking pitches and then saying, well, great, it went down the middle of the zone, but you didn't execute it. Is that really what we want for the game? That's right. Listen to Sam, so smart. That was kind of my issue with it. Yeah, because the hitter cannot decide whether to swing based on the movement of the glove because the hitter doesn't know where the target was, right?

Unless he's peeking. So you can't make a... Yeah, they do. But you can't really make a swing decision based on this. And so it would be kind of after the fact. And then you'd get lucky. It's like, oh, I took a pitch right down the middle, but he moved his glove. So I got lucky and it was a ball. So that maybe wouldn't

be so satisfying from a spectator perspective. But if one reason why we appreciate framing is because of the craft and the skill of it, which is why I think, then couldn't you say that there should be an equivalent craft and skill on the pitcher's part where they actually put the ball where they are trying to and where the catcher is telling them to throw it. And why should they get credit then for failing essentially, but failing upwards into the strike zone? They do get punished though, right?

When guys get hits. That's kind of my thought on it is guys get, you know, you pay the repercussions when the batter executes, right? I don't want it to just be a, you kind of remove the two-way or I guess the three-way thing with the catcher component of it, right? It feels like they're less connected in this scenario where you would, I feel like you'd have a lot of batters just standing up there and taking a ton of pitches. And I don't think that's achieving what we want.

And we don't, we don't have a framework for punishing the opposite. If a guy has a lot of power, he has a lot of power and he has an excuse me swing and he hits a home run, we don't go, well, you didn't get the barrel to it. You didn't hit it flush, so that run doesn't count. We don't do that because that would be ridiculous. It would be ridiculous. I just think that whenever I hear questions like this, and I understand the desire to try to have better balance between pitching and hitting, I think is an admirable one. And I'm not just saying this because I like framing, although I do like framing. But whenever I hear questions like this, I just think we're underrating how hard

everything that these guys are doing is. Because there's sort of buried within the question, this assumption that you've made a mistake. And to Sam's point, the potential punishment of either issuing a walk or allowing a hit isn't enough. The repercussions of that aren't strong enough. And so you have to incur additional penalty because, well, you should just be able to put the ball wherever you want to. But like, it's really hard to do that. And you know, sometimes you're trying to like have these borderline pitches so that the hitter has to like make you pay for it. And I just think it's all very hard enough and we don't need to add additional complication to that.

And so if we're going to do this, then we have to take back, excuse me, swing home runs. And that's the only way that it's fair. And we're not going to do that because again, it would be ridiculous. We love those. I love it when a guy doesn't mean to even really make contact at all. I mean, he's like trying to protect and like, that's all he's trying to do. And then it's like, Oh, right. I'm your Don Alvarez. Sorry. That's a home run.

Yeah. Right. People expect too much when it comes to command. And we know from- That's a way shorter way of saying what I was trying to. Well, yeah, we know that even the best command pitchers, I mean, on average, you're missing by several inches at least, right? And so this would have to be fairly forgiving and you could make it fairly forgiving. You could make it just so that you can't reach across the entire zone, right? You could legislate it.

So it's not like just a slight glove motion invalidates the strike, but a really pronounced one, if you just miss by a ton, but you happen to miss in the zone, then that could be a disallowed strike. Right. But you'd also, I guess, have to determine when to start the movement tracker. Cause not every catcher, I mean, some catchers really put the glove where they want the pitch to be, but it's usually more of kind of a gesture in the general direction and some really move their target

more than others. Plus, these days, more and more teams are just telling their catchers to just set up down the middle and then let the pitchers stuff play up. And you're not even really aiming for a particular spot. You're just sort of aiming for the center of the zone and letting your natural nastiness take care of everything after that. So you're building in some glove movement, essentially. You're kind of doing away with the fiction that you even can hit spots.

But this reminds me of the last time we talked about framing and there was a Patreon supporter, JD in our Discord group, who was kind of railing against this and, you know, doesn't enjoy watching incorrect calls and just wants pitches to be called according to the rulebook zone, which is completely rational and reasonable and understandable. And many people, if not a majority share that opinion. And so he asked, why should the hitter get penalized for a good take just because the umpire made a bad call? And my response to it is that the way I view it is that it's because the catcher or some combination of the catcher and the pitcher, because the pitcher plays a part in this too, also did something skillful, which I find and Meg finds aesthetically and visually pleasing, though your

mileage may vary, in exploiting the umpire's tendencies and receiving the pitch especially well. So I don't see it as that different from a pitcher making a good pitch and getting punished because the batter made a good swing or because he doesn't have good defensive support or a batter putting a good swing on a pitch and getting robbed of a hit by a great defensive play. In this case, you do have a non-player, the umpire who's involved in the outcome of the play, but that non-player and their fallibility has always been a feature of the sport, which doesn't necessarily mean it needs to be forever. And it introduces all these analytical and tactical complexities that I enjoy.

So I don't see it as being the equivalent of say an ump calling a ball foul when it was fair or vice versa pre-replay where it was just a mistake, but no one really helped them make that mistake. Whereas in this case, framing a player's performance is strongly affecting the call. But you could say that's kind of the case with whether you're hitting your target or not to for the pitcher. Yeah. All right. I think we're against it, but it is an interesting thought experiment. Well, and just one more thing to your point, when there are those really, really big dramatic misses, those are very rarely called strikes anyway. So the worst defenders are very often called balls, even when they are technically in the zone.

Last question comes from Brian who says, I thought maybe this tweet from Dan Hayes could be a good discussion topic. I'm of two minds. I guess I should read the tweet. This is from Dan Hayes who covers the twins for the athletic. This was in response to when Carlos Santana, whom we have discussed and praised recently, hit a home run against the Giants that was his 30th MLB park. He had already hit home runs against each MLB organization, but this was the one

that sealed the deal for him to have homered in every active park because Oracle Park was the lone major league park that he had not homered in. And so this was a milestone homer for him, but maybe not to the general public, right? So Hayes reported that the fan who caught Carlos Santana's 30 for 30 ballpark's homer asked for Giants season tickets in exchange for the ball. And the Twins said no. So this was in San Francisco,

I guess it was a Giants fan who caught the ball and asked the twins for Giants season tickets in exchange for the ball and the twins declined and Dan said in response to that, I get trying to capitalize, but the ball isn't valuable to anyone but Carlos Santana, who I bet would have met the dude, signed a bet, signed a ball. Instead, he got a home run ball and that's it. So Brian said, I'm of two minds. Had I caught the ball, I would have returned it to the player.

But at the same time, if a fan has spent hundreds or thousands of dollars showing up to games, always hoping for the glory and joy of catching a ball and he finally catches one, should he be expected to give it up to a multimillionaire who's already had more glory and money than most of us will ever experience?

I understand it would set a bad precedent to give season tickets to every fan who catches a historic ball, but a signed bat from a visiting player doesn't seem like a fair exchange. Maybe they meet in the middle and buy him a few tickets instead of season tickets. So where do we come down on this specific instance? And I guess the broader issue of whether fans should hold out for maximum value when they catch a ball that is of sentimental value to a player, but perhaps also of value to the market. Yeah, I think on this specific instance, me personally as a fan, I would just lean towards giving them the ball and meeting them. I understand definitely with historic home runs,

trying to maximize your value. I think that's within the right of fans. They paid for the ticket. They were in the right place at the right time. Obviously it's a lot of luck, but I totally understand that. You know, most of the fans going to the ballpark, they're, you know, that that will be life-changing money, say for a judge home run when it was the 62. But for something like this, it's just, I don't know, no one's lining up at an auction house for the Carlos Santana 30, I don't know, the 30 ballparks. Like this isn't a high, high price item. So I would just tend towards, you know, meeting the guy

and you get a cool experience out of it. It's not necessarily, you know, trying to get tickets or something. I think that's, it's worthwhile to ask, but ultimately I would just lean towards just meeting the guy. Yeah. I feel like intentionally overshooting what you think is feasible here is fine because you probably know this isn't going to actually yield what I want it to, but maybe you get an extra sign something out of it. It is interesting because I think that if you, if the fan did try to take it to an auction house to your point, would you just sit in the back as Carlos Santana with a disguise on and try

to, because you'd probably get it, you'd probably get the ball that way. I don't know, for the big ones, I get wanting to get something and I think that that's fine. And I think that generally teams are in a position to give them a bunch of stuff. And I don't have any problem with them saying like, look, you're just going to put this up for auction. We will let, I don't know, we'll make sure that Aaron Judge gets this ball back or that the Hall of Fame does or whatever. Like we're going to, we'll let this play out so that you get what you need to out of the exchange. But for one like this, it's like, I don't know, buddy, I think you're going to be disappointed

when you get to Sotheby's or whatever. I wonder if they do a big auction. It's like, wow, there's one guy in the back and he looks a lot like Carlos Santana. Actually, what I would do if I were Carlos Santana, the baseball player, is I would then try to call Carlos Santana, the musician, and be like, you come, and then it will be all discombobulated because it's like, which Carlos Santana? And then one of us will win the auction and it'll be nice. Yeah.

Yeah. Right. Yes. This is a case where I don't know whether that fan was just shooting super high and then ended up with nothing. And I don't know if there was any subsequent negotiation. You know, when the twins called the fans bluff, did the fan then settle for a lower price or out of spite, keep it or did the ball mean? Did the fan then settle for a lower price or out of spite

keep it or did the ball mean something to the fan? Cause you know, if it's the only ball you've ever caught at a game that might have some sentimental value to you, even if it's not because it was Carlos Santana's personal milestone. Although if it's a visiting player, I don't know if that's as special to you, right? If it's not for the team that you root for or a player you particularly care about. But yes, when it's a super valuable ball, then I'm all for maximizing that value. And there's a lot of pressure put on fans often and teams we talked about the case with that Otani home run ball and the Dodgers seemingly pressuring the fan and, you know, just kind of trying to railroad you into

giving up something that might be really valuable. One of the nice things about baseball is there are a lot of souvenirs. You get to keep balls. It's a cool thing about the sport. And when you get a very valuable one, hey, you just won a lotto ticket. You bought your ticket to that game and you did the scratch off and you got yourself a very valuable ball. So I do think that on the whole, maybe fans sometimes, and there might be giveaways remorse in some of those cases where it's like, huh, I could have held out for a little more than that. I do think it's nice and neighborly when it's like, Hey, this means something to the player. And, you know, I want them to have it on their trophy case. That's it's kind of a pro social impulse, I guess. If you're not like, you know, if you don't need the money, I mean, you

probably need it more than the player in most cases, but if it's not a premium for you and you just want to do a favor to the player, I guess that's that's nice. But also, I don't think you should sell yourself short or not sell at all. Right? Right. Even in this instance where the ball's probably not worth anything, if the fan wanted to keep it, then that's cool. I don't think Carlos Santana is staying up at night because he doesn't have this baseball. But he did the thing, right? He gets the satisfaction of having done the thing. Right. I wonder why the, right? He gets the satisfaction of having done the thing, right? I wonder why the twins turned that down.

Did they just not want to set a precedent? Was it just too rich for their blood? Would Carlos Santana have paid that price? Would he have paid for this fan to have giant season tickets? Or was it the weirdness of demanding that one team purchase a season ticket for another team? Yes, I agree. Is that what was the impediment here? That is kind of weird.

Yeah, it's weird. I think that's very strange. What if the fan had caught that ball at Target Field and had asked for twins a season ticket to the twins? Then would the twins have done it? Was the objection like we don't want to buy a season ticket to another organization's games maybe? I don't know. All right. Well, Sam, it's been a pleasure for us. Hopefully for you. Hopefully Sarah got her money's worth and you did by extension. Is there anything you would care to plug or promote while we have you?

No, not really. I know that your listenership are full of lovely people. So I'd just say continue doing good in the world and making an impact on the people you care about and the communities that you're in. And yeah, that's all. All right. I guess you just did the equivalent of giving the ball back to the player. I guess you could have done some self-promotion and instead you just said, let's do some good for the world.

No, I was thinking like, should I plug a specific cause? Like I thought about this and then I was like, no, not really. Like I don't, there's nothing, it's not to say that there's not things I care about. Like my sister, she's working for like a climate change nonprofit. I was like, oh, I could plug climate change. But like your listeners know that climate change is important. Like I don't need to plug that. Meg talks about the temperature in Phoenix enough that people know it's too hot out there. It's too hot. It's not quite that in Florida.

It's only 90 here. So I could not imagine Arizona that sounds so terrible. And we don't have enough water and often you guys have too much. So we're just... Way too much water. Can we make a deal? Yeah. Maybe we can do like a swap. Yeah, a little swap.

Season ticket for baseball. Yeah. Like if the Orioles and the Mariners could swap offense for pitching. Oh. And your states could swap water for lack of water. Yeah. Wow.

Yeah. Or if the Mets offense, I mean, the Mets offense isn't incredible, but if we had the Mariners pitching, I think we'd be surely in postseason positions here. I do want to say, Meg, the 10-game lead in June is very reminiscent of the 2022 Mets. And I know that they won 101 games, so it's not exactly the same, but I know the feeling of being disappointed, even though we made the wild card and it's a different scenario. It's just, yeah, no service.

It's, oh. You're taking the over on the current 25.4% playoff odds for your Mets? No, that feels right. I'm not taking the over. Like watching them, watching them, it just feels like since August, they've just been hovering.

And even toward the end of July, it just feels like they've been hovering around 500. And I don't know. I'm not like you said, Meg. I'm obviously going to be more optimistic because I'm a Mets fan and I want to believe. But yeah, this pitching staff, I don't know, the Senga injury felt like a knife to the stomach. I was watching that and I was just I looked up and I went, no, that can't be. it was bad and my mom's always watching and she's like no no it could it's not that bad And then of course the news is horrible and Christian Scott Obviously, even though he wasn't great him having the elbow thing

Yeah, I don't know that the rotation like this this team isn't making a deep postseason run with like Jose Quintana And yeah, Sean Manaya and Severino have been like good, the bullpen's still shaky and the pitching's just not quite there. Yeah. Among my Mets friends, they seem less inclined to believe just in general about the Mets. I immediately regretted asking a Mets fan to be unreasonably optimistic about their team because it seems like if anything, Mets doomerism is pretty popular even I'm kind of getting the feeling that they're going to be going to be doing a lot of things. I'm kind of getting the feeling that they're going to be doing a lot of things. I'm kind of getting the feeling that they're going to be doing a lot of things. I'm kind of getting the feeling that they're going to be doing a lot of things.

I'm kind of getting the feeling that they're going to be doing a lot of things. I'm kind of getting the feeling that they're going to be doing a lot of things. I'm kind of getting the feeling that they're going to be doing a lot of things. I'm kind of getting the feeling that they're going to be doing a lot of things. I'm kind of getting the feeling that they're going to be doing a lot of things. I'm kind of getting the feeling that they're going to be doing a lot of things. I'm kind of getting the feeling that they're going to be doing a lot of things. I'm kind of getting the feeling that they're going to be doing a lot of things. I'm kind of getting the feeling that they're going to be doing a lot of things. I'm kind of getting the feeling that they're like, oh, you gotta believe. And it's like, well, I don't really know that I can believe when this is what we're seeing.

So All right. Well, we wish you the best. Thank you. Thank you guys so much. I really appreciate it. I just want to say like your podcast has made a big difference in my life and my sisters and you know, listening, you know, three times a week has just been such a pleasure.

You know, you guys feel like friends in a weird way. And I know that's not, sometimes those relationships get weird and that's not what I'm implying at all, but just yeah. Listen to me. Parasocial if you're on the podcast. Oh, wow, exactly. But like I think my sister expressed to you in her email,

then it's just given me and her a way to connect more so and her to kind of engage with baseball just given me and her a way to connect more so and her to kind of engage with baseball and me to teach her more so because she's been a more casual fan, but now she's like, well, what does WRC Plus mean? And I'm like, okay, here, I can explain that now. So it's given us a way to connect both just me and her to connect and then connect with the game better. So yeah.

Well, thanks for helping us continue to make those connections. Of course. All right, Ben. All right, Meg, thank you so much. And I hope that you guys have a great rest of your day. All right, well, a few developments from after we recorded. One, the Mariners fired their hitting coach.

Okay, tough to argue with that. Two, it was reported that Dan Wilson is not the interim manager. He's just the manager manager. Mr. Manager, as George Michael Bluth would say. Meg messaged me. She's not thrilled. Three, service found out that he'd been fired

the same way we found out that he'd been fired via social media a couple hours before he was due to meet with DePoto. Four, the Dodgers announced a Shohei Otani and Dikoi bobblehead, a dual bobblehead. The dog's head bobbles too. Clever, except that Shohei Otani looks like Bill Clinton. It just doesn't really look like Shohei.

It looks more like Shohei than Joe Mauer's Hall of Fame plaque image looks like Joe Mauer, but not that much more. And five, Effectively Wild's favorite knuckleballer Matt Waldron was optioned to AAA by the Padres after a few rough starts in a row. But I don't want to end on that downer news, so I'll give you a very brief, single, post-script stat blast. Okay, this one was inspired by a quote from Reds catcher Tyler Stevenson after the final game in the aforementioned Reds Blue Jays series. This quote caught my eye and Craig Calcateras

in his cup of coffee newsletter. Here's what happened. The Blue Jays went up six nothing on Cincinnati. Then the Reds scored 11 runs to go up 11-six before the Blue Jays tacked on one in the bottom of the ninth to make it 11-seven final Reds victory. And the Reds catcher said, quote, anytime you can score 11 unanswered

is usually a good thing, end quote. Kind of a captain obvious quote, anytime you can score 11 unanswered is usually a good thing, end quote. Kind of a captain obvious quote, right? Scoring 11 unanswered runs, usually a good thing. Sounds like an understatement. And maybe it was said sort of tongue in cheek, but is it ever not a good thing? I guess it's a good thing to score 11 runs, even if you lose. But I wondered, has a team ever scored 11 unanswered runs and lost the game? Or is it in fact always a good thing to score 11 unanswered because it always results in a W? Even teams that scored 5 unanswered runs have an 8-0-1 winning percentage. It helps to score lots of runs while your opponent is not scoring any. So what about more than twice that many runs scored unanswered? So I consulted frequent stat

blast correspondent Ryan Nelson. He ran the numbers and Ryan determined the all-time record of teams that scored 11 or more unanswered runs in a game is not a perfect winning percentage. The most recent time this happened was June 8th 2006, Rangers vs Royals. The Royals went up 4-0. The Rangers then scored 11 runs, and then the Royals scored 12 more runs, and they won 16-12. So I guess that game counted in the win column and the loss column, because the Royals also scored 11 or more unanswered, and they won while the Rangers lost.

The most unanswered runs that have ever been scored by a team that lost the game? 14. And that happened on August 25, 1922, Philadelphia Phillies vs Chicago Cubs. The Cubs went up 26-9 through 6 innings, including a 14 run outburst in the fourth, so I guess that counts as 11 or more unanswered runs. And then after going up 26 to 9, they allowed the Phillies to score a combined total of 14 runs in the 8th and 9th, which made the final score 26 to 23 Phillies. So the moral of the story is, Tyler Stevenson was right, scoring 11 unanswered is usually a good thing. Almost always, even.

But not always. Sometimes you score 11 unanswered, and you still lose. But you can't lose if, like Sam Horton, you support Effectively Wild on Patreon, which you can do by going to patreon.com slash Effectively Wild, as have the following five listeners not named Sam Horton, Joseph Viner, Dylinda Thomas, Andrew Lindsay, Rob Fibbs, and Jason George. Thanks to all of you. Patreon perks include access to the Effectively Wild Discord group for patrons only, monthly bonus episodes, playoff live streams, prioritized email answers, potential podcast appearances,

discounts on merch and ad-free FanGrafts memberships, and so much more. Check out all the offerings at patreon.com slash Effectively Wild. If you are a Patreon supporter, you can message us through the Patreon site. If not, you can contact us via email, send your questions, comments, intro and outro themes to podcast at fancrafts.com. You can rate, review, and subscribe to questions, comments, intro and outro themes to podcastatfangraphs.com. You can rate, review and subscribe to Effectively Wild on iTunes and Spotify and other podcast platforms. You can join our Facebook group at facebook.com slash group slash Effectively Wild.

You can find the Effectively Wild subreddit at r slash Effectively Wild. And you can check the episode description in your podcast app or the show page at fangraphs.com for links to upcoming Effectively Wild listener Meetups at MLB ballparks. Thanks to Shane McKeon for his editing and production assistance. That'll do it for today and for this week. We hope you have a wonderful weekend and we will talk to you next week. Well, it's moments like these that make you ask, how can you not be pedantic about baseball? If baseball were different, how different would it be?

On the case with light ripping, all analytically Cross check and compile, find a new understanding On Effectively Wild, how can you not be pedantic? Yes, when it comes to baseball, how can you not be pedantic? Hello and welcome to episode 2208 of Effectively Wild, a fan grass baseball podcast brought to you by our patron, let me try again. Sorry. I like that turkey sound.

Yeah. Yeah. Gobble, gobble, gobble, bird bird.