Effectively Wild: A FanGraphs Baseball Podcast - Effectively Wild Episode 2322: Rose-Colored Glasses

Episode Date: May 16, 2025

Ben Lindbergh and Meg Rowley banter about Julio Rodríguez gifting a homer and then taking one away, two Red Sox outfielders teaming up to make a catch, home-run-robbery terminology, Conor Jackson and remembering some guys who were good for your fantasy team, pouring one out for the Austin Barnes Dodgers era, lopsided scores, and the […]

Take me to the diamond Lead me through the turnstile Shower me with data That I never thought to compile Now I'm freely now the scorecard With a crackin' shot of smile Effectively wild Hello and welcome to episode 2322 of Effectively Wild, a FanGraphs baseball podcast brought to you by our Patreon supporters. I'm Meg Rowley of FanGraphs and I'm joined by Ben Lindberg of the ringer, Ben. How are you? I'm okay.

How are you? Oh, you know. Yeah, I can guess. I probably do know, but we will proceed and banter about baseball nonetheless. We will. This is incredible that there was just a coincidence, I guess you could call it a coincidence that really reinforces the idea that it all evens out. You know how people say that in baseball?

It evens out and it doesn't obviously really. No. But this is a case of it actually evening out within a single series. I'm talking about Julio Rodriguez giving and then taking away in center field. And what happened with him and Trent Grisham here, because you say, you know, it's a long season and sometimes a ball falls that probably shouldn't have, and sometimes a guy makes a great play

and you can get all worked up about it or you could be philosophical and say, oh, in the end, and you can get all worked up about it or you could be philosophical and say, oh, in the end, it'll come out in the wash. In this case, this is just the perfect illustration of that actually happening. So on Monday, Julio Rodriguez gifted a home run to Trent Grisham. So it was well-hit, it was on the warning track,

it was close to the wall, but it was not going over. Well, I don't know, I'm not sure. was close to the wall, but it was not going over. And you think? I don't know. I'm not sure. I don't think that that was an automatic out. No, I don't think it was an automatic out, but I don't think it would have been out. I think if he just had not been there,

I think it would have been- You think it would have just caromed off the wall? Yeah, I think it would have been off the tippy top of the wall and stayed in the park probably. It definitely was aided by his glove. It was, yeah. So he went up and he looked like he had it. He looked like he had a bead. He timed it okay.

If anything, he jumped too high, maybe? Right, and maybe a little too early. Yeah, maybe a little too early, yeah. Yeah, maybe a little too early. And then it just popped off his glove and over the wall. And he was miffed, obviously. And it counts the same for Trent Grisham. And I liked how Julio, he fell kind of, but he didn't have to fall probably. It was just like he was broken by what had happened.

And so I don't know whether it was an attempt to make it look like the play was harder than it had been or whether it was just like, oh, that just happened. I'm just going to collapse and sit on my butt here and look dejected. It could have been a combination of both, but you know, it was good to get there. Some guys probably wouldn't have even gotten there. Julio's good at playing the center field, but that one didn't go his way. That one went Grisham's way.

And then two days later, Wednesday, Grisham sends another ball out there and Julio robs it. And this was actually a fantastic catch. This was even by the standards of home run robberies. This was an elite top tier robbery. Yeah, he went way up there and was just suspended in midair. I like a home run robbery where it looks like

there's some gravity defiance going on. It's like, how are you getting quite that much airtime? It seems like you should have gone down by now. So how about that? That's kind of incredible to have that happen in a single series with the same two guys. Nicole Zichal-Klein Yeah, I mean, my favorite part of it was that the Mariners lost both of those games, but wait, I didn't like that part at all. Yeah, the first one, you know, I think he would have had it if he hadn't whacked into the wall.

I think the wall is what like dislodged it from his glove. And then, yeah, the second one was really something. I didn't watch it in real time because I was editing, because it was a day game, you know, I was working, Ben. It was hard at work. And my colleague also hard at work, but with a greater ability to focus with noise on in the background than I have apparently.

Matt Martell was like, ah, Julio finally got Trent. And I was like, oh, and then I saw the replay. I was like, wow, he really, he really did get it. And then I got a text from my stepmom who's like, I'm at this game. It's amazing. And I was like, wow, real confluence. And yeah, yeah, there's all of that. So it was pretty cool other than the losing part. I didn't care for that, but what are you gonna do? It happens. So Hannah Kaiser, or actually it was Zach Kreiser, writing for his and Hannah's bandwagon sub stack,

asked what we would call this, the first one, the one where he assisted on the home run. And Zach wrote, this Julio Rodriguez assistance on a Trent Grisham Homer led Hannah to ask, what's the opposite of a home run robbery? My answer was home run delivery. I am open to more creative thoughts in the comments. Delivery, I get what you're going for.

I wanna like, I wanna workshop it a little bit though, because I don't know that that's quite right. That almost sounds like it's referring to the hitter he delivered in that moment. So it's not clear enough that it's from the fielder, I think. Yeah, home run delivery. Hmm, home run. I don't know. Now I have to think, I have to think

for a minute. Can I, it's going to, it's going to percolate in the back of my brain until we're done recording and then I'm going to be like, aha! Yeah. I think Zach was on the right track with just assist, just home run assist is not a bad one, I guess. I'm just trying to think of like, what's the opposite of a robbery? So you're on a robbery, you're stealing something, you're taking something away that you're not entitled to. So and I guess that's what Zach's going for, like a delivery or you're giving something to someone as opposed to taking something away.

Did I say when I brought this up, I might've said gift, like he gifted it. Maybe a home run gift. Yeah, I was gonna say, is it like a donation, a present? Right, maybe it's like home run robbery, home run philanthropy. Yeah, well, I don't know that robbery and philanthropy are like quite, right, like I get, it is a gift, but I don't know if it's philanthropy, right? Like Trent Christian isn't needy, you know, he doesn't need alms.

No, he has needed home runs in previous seasons. In previous years, not this year. He has a plethora of bounty. He's got a surfeit. But you are getting something for free and in charity you're giving someone else something for free. A home run sample. Like a free sample like at a grocery store or something. Like when you go to Costco and you're like, try it on some perfume. Yeah. You're like, I've never thought about putting this particular spice on chicken before, but

if it's free, I, I'll try it. I'll give it a little bite. Yeah. Home run gift isn't bad really. Home run generosity. That's not, that's not quite right. Right. Cause he's not being generous.

He's, he's despondent. He's sitting on the ground at the end. He feels terrible about it. It's a. Yeah. Cause with a robbery, you are actually trying to steal it. You are trying to rob it. What about freebie?

What about home run freebie? Home run freebie. That's not bad. Yeah, home run freebie. Okay. I feel like that's getting closer. Yeah. Something that maybe conveys the accidental nature of it

would be good. It's almost like it's a, it's like a home run accident. It's like a... Yeah, but then it sounds like that, I think reintroduces ambiguity on the, like accident on the part of whom, you know, cause I can refer to the pitcher.

Oh, right. Yeah. Yes. So that's like, you want to, you want it to be clear. It needs to be, but I guess like a freebie could also be on the pitcher. We're in a real mess. Not as big a mess as the Mariners. I mean, they're, you know, not mess strong.

Everyone's hurt. Who pitches for them, Ben? They're gonna, you know what? I'm not actually making this as a prediction, but it would just be like, if they win fucking World Series this year with like two healthy pitchers and like a shaky bullpen, it would be funny, you know?

I think that- Yeah, just mash their way, rake their way to a title. And here's the thing, like we talk so much about like divine retribution, but this is my plea to the Almighty, like put your humor front and center, friend. Like, you know, make it about the funny to me personally. Yeah.

I need this. All right. We'll keep thinking about it. And obviously our suggestion box is always open. Open. Yeah. But this does then raise the other question because there was another home run robbery

that was a tandem deal. Did you see the Red Sox home run robbery highlight that took two people? It required an accomplice. I will send you. It took two people. Yeah. Can you even conceive of what I'm describing here

of what this would look like? Well, I just sent you to a story and yeah, Al Youp. That could be the answer, but it was. I'm on Alup. Willier Abreu went up in right field and he almost had a Julio happen where it came out of his glove. It kind of popped out.

You can't call it a Julio cause he steals, he robs me sometimes. Yeah, that could be either. Hold on, it's playing. Oh! Yeah. Oh! Yeah, that could be either. Hold on, it's playing. Oh! Yeah. Oh! Yeah, fancy.

That's delightful. Yes, so Carrie Carpenter had a home run robbed, but the robbery, it took a recruiting, you had to recruit someone else with their own set of skills because William Brady went up and then- And then there's Rafaela just ready up and then what a heads up you're making very Mario sounds finally an actual Italian yeah right Raffaella was there and had the reaction time and the presence of mind and so it

it took two. It was still a robbery, but it seems like we need, now this is one where you can call it an assist, maybe a home run robbery assist is one way you could go with it. Real mouthful. Maybe it's like a smash and grab or something. It's like there's two parts to it.

That implies a violence that takes away from the joy of the moment that I'm not- Breaking and entering? No, that's not the same. We should call it a, what's this like? I'm gonna reveal myself to be such a particular kind of elder millennial woman, are you ready?

We should call it the Mary Kate and Ashley, because it takes two men. Yeah. That's what we should call it. I think that's perfect. Yeah. We should definitely have to go into clubhouses and defend that name to all of these men.

We should be like, hey, you know the Olsen twins? And they're gonna be like, no. Yeah, very relevant reference these days. Okay, so there were these twins and they did a lot of direct to video, like VHS releases. Okay, so VHS was, it's a lot of explanation, but I think the payoff is worth it. Yeah, we just did a millennial canon bracket at The Ringer,

and I think Mary-Kate and Ashley were in it, but that would be very millennial coded, just because they have receded from the entertainment stage to some extent. I mean, I know they still have businesses and brands, and they do all sorts of things. They're just not on camera as much. They sort of intentionally stepped away. And so they may not have the name value that we have with them. But I guess, I guess Allie, you would probably catch

on more quickly than the Mary Kate and Ashley, but, but I like where your head's at. It will only catch on faster because of a lack of commitment saying it to big leaders. We just need to have the courage of our convictions. I've had your back on Zombie Runner. You got to have my back on this. Oh, that's perfect. I don't see how anyone could quibble with that. Yeah, exactly.

So it was scored a nine eight. We could we could call it a nine eight, a ninety eight. I guess it depends on which outfielders are involved, but it was described as a nine eight put out. And according to the Alias Sports Bureau, it was the first legitimate nine eight put out since September 14th, 2003. When according to descriptions of that play,

I love how it's just like, even mlb.com is just descriptions of that play. We've heard tell of this ancient play that happened in 2003, which we can't, it might as well have been 1923. We can't actually look at it. I mean, unless it happened to be on YouTube or something, or I'm sure MLB, if they really wanted to, could ask people at the MLB network vault to dig it up. But the description of the play was Michael Ryan, right fielder Michael Ryan lost a Johnny Peralta fly ball in the Sun and it bounced off his face

And was caught by center fielder Dustin Moore. And so Ryan was credited with an assist on the play So this this was less painful for the Red Sox outfielders I love how happy every single person, you know, I'm sure the Tigers were Less thrilled in the moment. Although I think they went on to win this game, right? But I just love how happy every single person involved in this is. Like, Abreu has the look of a man who like knocked a glass off the counter, but whose partner was in the kitchen to snag it.

Like the relief, the pure relief of like, oh no, ah, yeah. I sounded especially like Mario that time. And then like, Rafaela is just like so stoked that he did that. Cause like, man, they really want you to buy these litter robot guys. I said, they have an outfield ad now, Ben. You're looking at this.

Yeah, well, they don't sponsor us. Look, I am committed to minimal ads and having what ads we do have be sponsorships that are very relevant. But if they wanted to send me a little robot and test it out, I, you know, I'd entertain it, Ben, I'm not saying we do it. I'd probably need to test the product to see if I think it's good, you know? Get at us, little robot. You can be bought is what you're saying, but only if you approve of the product.

Only if I approve of the product. Little robot, maybe. Dick's driving in Seattle. Two thumbs up. You can be bought is what you're saying, but only if you approve of the product. Only if I approve of the product. Litter robot, maybe. Dick's driving in Seattle. Two thumbs up. I wouldn't feel fancy if I had made that play because I think that I have good reflexes. I think I'm fairly coordinated.

It's like when you were talking about aging the other day and how you sensed that you're- You know, one of the 95 times you've done that in the last two months. You sense that you're slipping. I feel like because I don't test myself in any kind of high level physical competition, I can convince myself that I haven't really slipped

because I do feel fairly the same most of the time and feel like I look mostly the same. And so, look, if I were a baseball player and I were 38 years old, then I would be confronted by the fact that I have slipped, I have lost a step, I have lost some bat speed, et cetera. But as it is, I'm never tested to that degree. And so I can tell myself, yeah, you still got it.

And every time I drop something and then catch it, now you might say if I were truly coordinated, I wouldn't have dropped it in the first place, but I'm good at the recovery. I'm good at the just quick snatch up. You thought it was gonna fall and it didn't. And I feel like I haven't lost that capacity. And that's nice because I'm sure it's a delusion,

but that delusion is not punctured as readily because I'm not a professional athlete. And so I'm not testing myself against anyone who is going to embarrass me. And so unless my body rebels and betrays me in an obvious or painful way, which fortunately hasn't happened so much, I can just kind of go along thinking, yeah, you're still young, Ben. You're still in your prime. Whereas if I were a 38 year old baseball player, I almost certainly wouldn't be able to believe that anymore. So what you're saying is that we, I would be more aware every day that I am older than J. Bruce, if I were actually a pro athlete. I think that's right.

I think that assessment is sound. Yeah. Alley-oop, Mary-Kate and Ashley, it just sounds like more fun. Plus you get to, again, explain what a VHS is to young athletes. They might not know. J. Bruce has been gone for four years.

I mean, not gone, he's alive. He's not, yeah, Jesus. Gone from the majors. 2021 was the last time that J. Bruce walked among us and only for 10 games then, gosh. Doesn't seem like it's been that long. I think he gets to like leave his house, even though he's not a professional baseball player anymore.

He's still allowed to like walk around the neighborhood. Yeah, hopefully, yeah. He's a lot younger than Rich Hill. I was gonna say, I had this feeling the other day. I don't know whether you ever get this, but well, the baseball reference newsletter, which I subscribe to, and I just I click on that every day and it has some notable lines from the night before pitching lines, batting lines. And then maybe it has a fun stat head fact. And then it has birthdays. And it seems to be just sort of a randomly selected sample

of players whose birthday it was that day. And I like looking at that, because remember some guys. And this week it was Connor Jackson's birthday and he just turned 43. I guess it was last week now. Connor Jackson, mostly of the Diamondbacks, but also of the A's and the Red Sox, some other teams. He played 2005 to 2011.

And I'm guessing most people don't have strong memories of Connor Jackson because he was 95 OPS plus career in seven seasons, 2.2 baseball reference war, which is the page I'm on right now. Kind of an unremarkable career on the whole, just based on the stat line. But I have this fond association with him because I had him on my fantasy team in 2008,

which was his career year. In fact, his baseball reference war in 2008 was higher than his career war. So that tells you how the rest of the years in his career went. But I happened to have him that year and I don't remember how or why I had him. Maybe he was just a waiver wire pickup.

He had a few years in there. It was like 2006 to 2008 where he was an above average hitter and he wasn't great because he wasn't playing premium defensive positions or anything. And he didn't have as much power as you would want from a corner guy playing for the Diamondbacks, but he got on base and you know, he'd run 370 ish OBPs and even then that was pretty solid. And that was in the days when I was just all in on OBP, not that I'm down on OBP.P. now, down with O.P.P.

Just, you know, it was post-Moneyball. And so we were very into who gets on base and who takes walks. And so I saw Connor Jackson's name and I thought, ah, Connor Jackson. And I just flashed back to that fantasy season. And I haven't played fantasy basically since then, but, but this is the thing I miss. I don't miss it that much. I miss a little bit the ribbing and the camaraderie of it when I was actually playing with my friends, when I was still in school and everything, but the checking of the team and I was very diligent about it. And that's one of the reasons I stopped because doing other baseball stuff, scratch that itch and I would become kind of compulsive about it. Yes, me, who would ever expect that?

And I would invest a lot of time into it. And so I just had to go cold turkey at a certain point and I haven't missed it mostly, but I do miss this particular association with a player, I guess because I've lost my fandom for a team even more so than you have, and so I'm still fond of players, certainly just not so much through that partisan lens,

just because I'm rooting for that particular player, but not because they were on my team, or even my fantasy team. I don't even have a fantasy team anymore. And so seeing Connor Jackson's name, happy 43rd to you, Connor, still younger than Rich Hill. He's been out of the game since 2011, or at least out of the majors.

I miss that. I miss that little spark of association. I don't know whether you get that from SimLeagues or some of the other things that you do, or you have that for fantasy guys in your past, but I'm sure the listeners know what I'm talking about. Oh yeah. I think any opportunity to remember a guy is like a, is a nice thing and to have

like a weird, it is sort of a weird relationship to them as a player. Cause like you have, you have favorites, right? You have guys we talk about a totally normal amount on this podcast. But it is different than having an active daily rooting interest for them, right? I don't know, I've been, I mean, he's on the aisle right now, but last year I ended up with, Tommy Edmond is on my C League team. And like, you know, we use the prior year stats for this year's play. So like, he's a part-time player for me this season because of how his injuries last year affected his playing time.

But when he got off to the start he did this year, I was like, Tommy Edmond, look at you. Look at you, Tommy Edmond. This is so great. Yeah. You know, a year from now, it's going to be so useful to me. You know, the Seattle Sasquatches are going to like really be rooting for their starting center fielder, Tommy Edmond. So come back soon, Tommy.

But yeah, it's a different kind of thing. And it's a fun, I hope that the way people can engage with it is that way, where it's like a fun, it's just like a fun thing. I know that it can also lead you to have a deep well of grievance against players who are just doing their best, arguably. But when it works out the other way, it's really nice. Man, if you gave me a trade package centered

on Connor Jackson and Dave Bush, you could have gotten anything out of me back then. Dave Bush was one of my guys too. I don't know why, but Dave Bush, he had his moments also. And I felt like he had, there was a Dave Bush breakout coming and that never really came. I think it was maybe because I had strikeout to walk ratio in one of my leagues. I was always pushing for weird stats instead of the standard five by five. Again, who could have guessed me? And he had like 2006, I guess was his career year. And he kind of had like an average ERA, but I think he led the league in strikeout to walk ratio. He led the national league and he was just,

he was my guy, you know, I just, I still have guys, obviously. People are familiar with most of my guys, but it's just, it's for a different reason. And I kind of, I miss that association sometimes. Yeah, it's a special thing. You know who has been a guy for the Dodgers for many years and who is now no longer their guy.

No longer. Austin Barnes. End of an era. Man, that guy, he lasted a long, long time. Yeah. We found out what it was that would finally do him in, I suppose. And it was the combination of a WRC plus of 44, but not just that, that alone is not sufficient because in 2023, he had a WRC plus of 41 and he still got 200

plate appearances and came right back the next year. So it took that plus the presence of a top prospect at the same position, Dalton rushing. And that is the end, at least for now, of Austin Barnes. But I love that player archetype too. I wouldn't necessarily love that player archetype if I were a fan of that team, but I like that as a neutral observer. And I remember being a bit mystified by this. And I think we, we talked to Fabian about this on our Dodgers preview pod. And I just sort of asked Austin Barnes, still a Dodger.

Right. How did that happen? And it now has ceased to happen, I suppose, but man, he had a run. He got a full 10 years in with the Dodgers during a period when they were the most successful team in baseball, winning the division perennially, winning multiple titles, and somehow the constant, the longest tenured position player throughout it all was Austin Barnes. All the star power that the Dodgers have had then, it was Austin Barnes who outlasted them all. I don't want to impugn Austin Barnes's skill, right? I don't want to be a wet blanket.

You know, Austin Barnes has had stretches. They aren't recent, super recent, but he has had stretches where he has been at the very least a quite productive defender. The Metrics have not super loved him lately. So there's that. It's not like an Austin hedgeedges. What is it with Austin's? You know, what's it with Austin's and being like subpar, but still roster catchers.

But it's not like with Austin Hedges where approach of the plate is better not spoken of, but the defense is, is obviously good, particularly the framing. But, you know, Austin Barnes appears to be beloved by many members of the Dodgers pitching staff, perhaps most importantly by Clayton Kershaw. Yeah. So like, DFAing him right before Kershaw comes back is, you know, that's- I know, that's tough timing. I almost wonder if that's why, right?

Because once he's back, you can't get rid of him. You can't let him go, yeah. It's like, yeah you can't get rid of him before Clayton comes back. Yeah. And it just goes to show that if you are a pleasant coworker, you might stick around for a while. You know, just like be a good hang. Cause I'm open to the idea that whatever diminishment of his defensive prowess there has been in terms of the stuff that we can measure, that he may well just be really good at handling his staff and game calling and all the stuff that we have a hard time quantifying and that isn't being captured by the defensive metrics. I don't know, but I'm open to that as a cash of value and contribution

that we're at least not accounting for. And also it seems like people like hanging around him and so there's that too, but Dalton, this thing is really good. So, you know, I think you got to, you got to maybe make some moves. It is interesting that they would make this decision not only because of the timing of the, the Kershaw of it all, but also this is a team whose rotation is, is quite injured and is having to like cycle guys in. And that might be like an interesting circumstance for a guy making his debut to navigate. Now Will Smith is still Will Smith and he's been hitting very well and he's around. So it's not like rushing has to like suddenly be the field marshal on his own or anything like that.

But the timing of it with their injuries, Kershaw's return, all of this like kind of musical chairs, it's just an interesting bit of timing. And it's not like they, the staff is pretty hurt, but they're still playing well. Although, you know, the Potters are only a half game back. I didn't realize that they were that close. They're still leading the West of the Dodgers, but like there's a nipping at the heels going on. So maybe you just feel like you gotta get a better bat

in the lineup on the days that they are so they're in a spot where they have to be kind of rigid about their lineup though, as we've noted previously. So it's interesting like, he's gonna catch, you know, some of the time presumably, but it's not like they can be like, okay, we want to get you regular at bats at the big league level. So you'll dh on the days when you're not catching because famously famously they have one of those, you know, it's pretty good one. I think they've said, yeah, and Will Smith is doing well. It seems like they want rushing to catch for now, though they could try him at other corner positions. That's an option. But I guess they don't want to mess with him too much. But then again, if he catches exclusively, then maybe you're holding back his bat a bit. So, yeah, trade off either way. But yeah, I guess the fact that their staff has fallen apart, you might say that makes it even more imperative to have a good glove guy back there.

But then again, it also makes it more imperative for you to score and hit. So I guess either way you could interpret it. And, you know, it's kind of a new staff, like a lot of new pitchers. And so maybe there's a little less value to having a guy who's been there forever. Really, it just kind of tickles me that he was able to do it so long.

Like the lowest wattage guy, you know, the constant. You would never, when you think Dodgers of the past decade, your mind would not go to Austin Barnes. And yet he was the one who was there throughout that run. And I think that the personal catcher has receded somewhat that we don't have as many personal catchers, I would say. I don't know, we could probably stat blast that if we tried, but it seems like there's a little less of that going on.

And that's maybe for the best because there were certainly some frustrating fan situations that I can recall where someone insisted on a personal catcher and that person catcher just didn't seem to be very good. And it's just like, I get that there's a real relationship here and it could affect your performance on the mound in ways that are difficult to quantify, but it is kind of easy to quantify that this guy can't hit at all. So it's kind of frustrating,

get out of your catcher comfort zone a little bit. But Kershaw's had that now with multiple guys, not that Barnes was solely Kershaw's caddy, but he had that with AJ Ellis for roughly as long, almost as long, I guess. AJ Ellis had nine seasons or parts of nine seasons with the Dodgers. And I guess this is Barnes's 10th. So sort of similar run.

And Ellis was a better hitter. I was actually surprised to see that he was a near league average hitter over his career, which is not bad for a catcher, though some of that came at the tail end when he was already gone, I guess. And Barnes actually hasn't been that bad really. Like I guess the last couple years he sort of has or at least two of the past three. It's so, so small sample. It's almost like looking at a reliever season or something. It's so volatile. It's like, it's like Austin Barnes. It's almost like looking at a reliever season or something. It's so volatile.

It's like Austin Barnes, he's going to play 50 games and get like 200 played appearances. Right. Yeah. So he hasn't played 100 games since 2018 and he played literally 100 games. He still only got 238 played appearances. So yeah. And the career high was the year before that 102. And that was that was the year he had a 142 WRC.

I wonder how much of a longer leash that gave him just like that. He had that in him even for a fraction of a year where people saying, Oh, he's, he has that club in his bag. Like you never know the 142 WRC plus Austin Barnes could come back and he did 2022. He was an average-ish hitter. Like he had some years, but that one year, I don't know what was going on that year. Even the the stat cast was not out of line. He actually, yeah, like his expected weight on base was 368 that year. So I don't know, it was all clicking for us and Barnes in 2017 and it never clicked quite that well again, but even if you look in the years since then,

so 2018 to present, if I do a per 600 plate appearances war using fan graphs were, he said like 1.9, which would be a roughly league average player if you were a starting player, and 600 plate appearances for him is like three years, but still on balance, he wasn't hurting them really. And also it didn't matter that much because they were the Dodgers and the season aside,

the margin of error was pretty big. Like they had a buffer, they could carry Austin Bartons. They didn't have to have a star at that position when they had a star at every other position. Right. And they still have a star at almost every other position, but the margins in the division are just tighter this year. And you're right. Like he was basically a little bit better than league average in 2022. And you have to account for the fact that like, he's a catcher. So like the bar is quite low at that position.

And as I mentioned, like he was, you know, there were swings, but like not a bad defender for a lot of that time. So you can understand how it happens. It's funny, it's like a place where you can point, if you're a Dodgers defender and you're trying to say, no, they're not punishingly, relentlessly competitive, you could be like, but they have Austin Barnes. Like how, you know, like, come on, come on,

they're carrying Austin Barnes. How serious can they be? this is an attending club? That's so, that's ruder to Austin Barnes than I mean it to be. But like, you know, what are you going to do? One of the many things that distinguishes the Dodgers from other teams is that they have all this resource, right? And their resource allows them to be like, hey, do you provide some amount of small value, even if it's not a lot, but it's like value that we value and we think you're good at it and that it's positive and it's, you know, it's something that boosts the club, even if it's on the margins, be a special assistant, be a this or that, you know, like I just wonder if he's gonna, I feel like the days of Austin Barnes affiliated with the Dodgers are probably not done, even

if his time on their 40 man might be. Yeah. It's almost like a Milton from office space situation where it's like, what would you say you do here? And then he's just kind of down at his desk in the basement and it's like, look over there, show hay, look at Freddie Freeman, look at Mookie Betts. Don't worry about Austin Barnes just throwing onto this roster spot for a decade.

That's too harsh too, because it's not like he wasn't contributing. He was, he was adding value, the value that he had to add from that roster spot. It just amuses me to no end that he lasted that long. And so I'm sort of sad to see this almost miraculous run end. On the whole, he gave

you what you wanted out of a backup catcher more or less. And the Dodgers bench was ancient with Austin Barnes there because they really had a loyalty to their guys on the bench. Like Chris Taylor, who's looking kind of cooked and Miguel Rojas and Kike Hernandez has been better this year. But when it was those guys in Barnes, it's just a lot of mid thirties and a lot of guys who've been there for a while and guys who at least theoretically have versatility, but maybe you wouldn't want to test that so much anymore the way that you used to, and that seemed like it could be something that would come back to bite them. And so I wonder if it is that, hey, we actually need to win. We might

not really have a lot of leeway here this year, because this is actually turning into a race. And so we can't afford to just kind of coast when it comes to our bench bats. Let's bring up the top prospect. And I think they do need to do that. They need to establish a next generation. And they've had a hard time doing that with some guys who were kind of kicking around like out men. And then they go and get some younger guys like Roki Sasaki, that's not working out so hot so far.

And then Haesong Kim and, you know, Andy Pahes, right? Like they have those guys, they kind of have to transition to that generation at some point in order to keep this perpetual playoff machine rolling because you can't ride the Freeman Muncie core forever. I'm not even going to say Shohei and Muki yet. I'm not ready for that yet.

And you know, Smith, but like all those guys are over 30 and in some cases considerably over 30. So you do kind of have to work in the youth movement one way or another, which can be tough to do when you're also expected to win. It is to their credit that we, and I think rightly perceive them as having, you as having an available well of talent in the high miners that can serve as reinforcement in the event of injury. We're seeing that depth tested,

obviously, with some of the injuries that they have on their roster. But we look at them and we're like, wow, this is still a really great player development organization. They draft well, they make trades that do have prospect return, not all the time, obviously, because they're often making buyer's trades. But there are times where they will get guys back, often because they have crowding at the actual upper levels and they don't have available 40 man space because the league has insisted on them only being able to have 40, despite how it feels to us. So, you know, I think we credit them with that, but you're right that there comes a time where you want

and need that talent to be developed to be more than depth. And at a certain point, like you can't replicate that with triple A game time. You need to get those guys into games at the major league level and kind of have them prove themselves and set themselves up as the next round of contributors. And like this seems like a really good place for them to do that because the incumbent part-time guy, as we've detailed, maybe not the best player in baseball. And they, you know, they have catching. They don't have quite as much of it as

they used to since Cartaya flamed out and then got traded. But this is your guy. So let's see what he can do. Cause I mean, Will Smith is going to be around forever, but at some point I'm sure that both he and the Dodgers and rushing are aware that if rushing pans out the way that he is expected to by evaluators, that the time share time will flip between the two of them, right? Because Will Smith's contract is for like 10 years, right? Yeah. And he just signed it last year. So he's going to be around for a while. But I'm sure that there will come a time when Will Smith is like, you know, the savvy veteran who is playing part time more often. Um, he's in the reserve role.

He's the short side of that catching tandem. Um, and then rushing is the primary guy and you gotta, you gotta let him face big league pitching Ben for that to happen. So, yeah, amazed that we got through that without either of us saying that they were rushing Dalton to the majors. I mean, I did just- I don't think they were rushing him. And that's why I-

No, I don't think they are. Yeah. I didn't make the obvious joke. He's 24. You know? This is why we got some very, they were correct. We've got a number of emails about the funniest possible pope fandom. Oh, yes.

And many people pointed out that the Padres or the angels would have been funny. And I want you all to know, I considered those options, but I thought the joke too obvious. And so I went for a higher degree of difficulty. Was my funny successful? I'll leave that to you to judge. But I thought, of course, of course, of course, of course, you know, you think about, of course you do. But then you say too easy, you know, you think about, of course you do, but then you say too easy, you know?

The cheap joke. We don't always say that is the thing. And so you never know with us, because we're not above taking the obvious punchline at times. And so you can't assume, you can't assume the double play. You can't assume that we thought better of making an obvious joke,

but in that case, perhaps we did. Yeah, showed some restraint. I applaud it. There you go, restraint. Wanted to direct your attention to an article that you may have seen already, but it was written by our pal, Patrick Dubuque at baseball prospectus just today,

and it is headlined, The of losing lopsidedly. And as you might tell from that, it is about something that you proposed on the podcast. You had an idle musing. Yeah, before you went away that it seemed to you that there were maybe more lopsided scores, maybe more blowouts. Was that what you postulated?

I did. It felt like we were seeing a lot of blowouts. I felt like I had blowout fatigue, in fact. I don't think I said that part, but that's what I was feeling in my spirit. I saw that he wrote this piece, but I haven't had a chance to read it yet. Was I right?

It checks out. Yes. So yeah, your inkling was onto something, and I guess Patrick had a similar inkling. Yeah. And yeah, you said this before Tanner Hauck multiple meltdowns. That just added to the tally. That was rough. It's been rough for him over there.

It has. But not just him, Patrick looked at the standard deviation of score differential. So basically just how much the scores, the lopsidedness of the scores varied. And so if it were a bunch of close games, you'd see low variability there, but lots of lopsided scores, there's a higher variability. And he went back to 2001 and thus far, he didn't compare through the same date, he just looked at through the season to previous full seasons and found that this is the highest, the most variable score differential to date.

And so it does actually check out that there have been a bunch of lopsided scores and blowouts. So then he interrogated whether this means anything and ultimately concluded not as far as he could tell. And one thing that Patrick pointed out is that you tend to get more lopsided scores, more blowouts, more variability in the margin of victory when scoring is higher, because when no one's scoring, when it's a dead ball era, when it's a year of the pitcher, you're just not gonna bounce around that much because it's like you're lowering

your offensive ceiling essentially. And it's not as if we're in a super high scoring era right now. Right. So you wouldn't think based on the run environment that we would see lots of lopsided scores and yet we have nonetheless. But yeah, I've seen other people mention this maybe independently. I think I've seen our Patreon people in the discord group posit this from time to time, whether they pick that up from you or not. I don't know. But yeah, seems to people in the Discord group posit this from time to time, whether they pick

that up from you or not, I don't know. But yeah, seems to be in the ether and there actually seems to be some basis to it. Well, I'm glad that Patrick could apply his usual rigor to my idle musings because that seems more informative than me just being like, here's a thing I noticed. Are these guys crashing into each other? There are so many runs. Patrick said, it's not just that the scores are widening. It's which scores are doing it. On Sunday's full slate, seven of the 15 games were won by five runs or more,

but five more were taken by one or two runs and another resulted in a three run save by Jordan Romano. Only four games resulted in saves as opposed to seven the day before and five after, but four is actually the norm. He said that save rate is consistently bull between 24%, 26% all the way to the turn of the century. There's a good reason for that.

Managers can pretty carefully control when to use a closer, but they're also getting save situations to use them in and that hasn't changed. It's the four run loss that's disappearing. And because the flood gates are breaking earlier, we're seeing a comeback of everyone's favorite symptom, which is pitches thrown by position players and position players used.

Where blowouts go, you're often gonna find position player pitchers. So bit of a revival in those after a tick down in recent years. So I guess that's a net negative perhaps, but yeah, Patrick could not determine any reason to think that this was going to be sustained. So perhaps it's just fleeting,

but real at least for a short time. I'm so glad to be right. It doesn't happen all the time. Sometimes yes, but other times not as much. It's just null hypotheses all the way down, Patrick concluded, which should be a comfort to the reader, even if it's a temporary annoyance to the author.

I know that feeling. Because when you detect something anomalous, you always then want to explain it. You want to have a hypothesis for why this is happening. A lot of words, a lot of pretty charts to tell you what you probably already know. It's still mid-May and for every May trend that sticks there, it doesn't quietly vanish into the internet archive forever.

So we'll see whether that turns out to be one of those. I find a lot of comfort in testing things and realizing, no, not something. I find that satisfying. I know that it's not always as interesting, right? It's the, the Padres or the Pope's favorite baseball team of hypothesis testing, right? It might be obvious, but being able to say this is, it means something or it doesn't is nice. You can like set it aside. It doesn't itch your brain after that, you know, like I suffer from brain itch.

I was going to bring up the other day that the A's were in second place in the AL West because was that not one of your bold predictions? Was that a bold prediction? I think my bold prediction was that they would finish over 500, if I remember. I feel so bad that my memory for our bold predictions is so poor because I'm so appreciative of the amount of work that goes into both grading them and also maintaining the database. But I think that it's too good. I think that what has happened is that the record keeping has become too good and I'm

able to just be like, well, the brain doesn't have to hold on to that anymore because there it is. Delegate. Yeah. It's going to be like the, the umpire, the plate up in the full ABS era where they're just not really paying attention anymore because the robots taking care of it. But if, but if I recall correctly, I think, I think my bold prediction is that they would finish over 500. Okay. Yeah, no, I think my bold prediction is that they would finish over 500. Okay, yeah, no. I was right. You were wrong about your own bold prediction. Yeah, it was apparently that the A's finished second in the AL West.

I remembered that because I gave you guff, I think, about the boldness. And then everyone kind of said, no, that is bold. But I had doubts about the boldness, I guess, because they had basically been a 500 team for at least half of last season. That's probably what you're conflating. That's what I, you're exactly right. That was my critique.

Yeah. Okay. Yeah, so I was thinking because they had been 500 for a good while there, and if anything seemed like they had improved and had actually spent some money, that it wasn't much of a stretch really to see them as a second place team in a division that didn't have a clear

and obvious super team. Seemed like it had a few teams that figured to be good, but not necessarily great, which I guess is the way it's worked out thus far. And so I was gonna bring this up to semi-gloat the other day, even though it's not really gloating because you're the one who predicted this. So you're gonna get credit.

Right, I was right for a while. Yeah, yeah, and they're, as we speak, a half game out of a tie for second place. So, you know, they're for all intents and purposes right there and they are one game over 500. So they've just kind of kept up what they were doing last year. And that's basically been enough for them to be second place, a JACE, if not actually in second place, because the Mariners are four games over 500 and they're leading the division right now.

So they're very much still in the running to do that. And it's been kind of fun because, I mean, they were kind of a dark horse. I don't know if they were even, if they could qualify as a dark horse, but I feel like maybe you called them feisty or something, or, were even, if they could qualify as a dark horse, but I feel like maybe you called them feisty or something or, you know, like they seemed like they could be an entertaining team.

They seemed like if everything went right, things could come together for them and not everything has gone right, but they're, you know, eighth best offense in the game right now. And, and I guess maybe there's some squishiness with park factors at Sutter health park, probably at this point in the season, but they've hit well is the point and, and they've kind of done it in an entertaining way. Granted, they've been outscored by 34 runs. So their base runs record is three wins worse than their actual record.

Only the guardians of course have exceeded their base runs record is three wins worse than their actual record. Only the Guardians, of course, have exceeded their base runs record by more, more than double seven wins in their case. So the A's are between the Pirates and the White Sox in run differential, which is not where you want to be, but still progress. And so I will meant that that ownership is impossible to root for because the team itself is quite fun. And so I'm enjoying the fact that they are respectable. They've at least returned to respectability. We'll see whether they've returned to contention, but we're just a couple of years removed now

from the A's being to 2023, what the White Sox were to last year and what the Rockies are to this year, they were that bad. They were plumbing the depths and here they are, pretty decent team. Right. Like, and you know, their pitching is pretty blah, but when you look at their qualified hitters, and you know, you're right, there might be some squishiness with like, perk factors and what have you, but like, Jacob Wilson has a 151 WRC plus. Like, Tyler Schotestrom has a 142 WRC plus and 10 home runs. Brent Rucker has 10 home runs. He has a

124 WRC plus. Like, I think that what I said and what was motivating me to feel confident that they could potentially fulfill my bowl prediction was that I think that this lineup is feisty and I think that they have good hitters and you know, they have guys who are still adjusting like Lawrence Butler is a little below league average from a WRC plus perspective, but like, I mean, he's had six bombs too, you know, so and he's just figuring it out. Like they've had guys who had maybe scuffled is probably too strong, but not yet realized their potential as rookies really take a step forward. We're seeing like this great season from Soderstrom.

You know, even Langley is like got a 120 to be 119, 119 WRC pluses we're recording right now. And like Wilson is just like really, he's such a whippy little thing. But so I think that if you're an athletics fan and boy, do I want to understand like studied feels dismissive and kind of yicky in a way I don't mean, but like I am fascinated by the psychology of the athletic fan at this juncture. But if you are one, whether a new one or a holdover, you got to be really excited about what some of these young guys have been able to do. And there are obvious holes on the team and there are obvious problems.

And I still think that them playing in that ballpark is like, gonna be a thing we look back on and feel not great about. But I'm very happy for some of these guys have really started to round into form and their ownership group is not their fault. You know, so I'm, you know, I'm rooting for the individual players on the athletics even as I continue to find their owner deeply embarrassing for the sport as a whole. But again, that's not Jacob Wilson's fault. He didn't choose to get drafted by them. All he can do is play good baseball and do his best.

And he's doing that to the tune of almost a two-win season already in mid-May. That's cool. Yeah, Shay Langelieres, who will never not remind me of the Stephen King short story and TV miniseries, The Langelieres, even though it was spelled slightly differently, he is still leading the A's in Sprint Speed, which I love. I love The Catcher. Yeah, I think someone pointed this out. I think it may have been,

you may have missed the, what we missed episodes last year, or at least one of them, the year ending pods about things that we didn't talk about. And I think it may have come up then, I could be misremembering, but I know it was mentioned at some point that he had a faster sprint speed than their

center fielder or whatever it was. Cause JJ Bleday, not particularly speedy. Yeah, he's not a burner. Yeah. And Langelier is not just faster than Bleday. He's faster than every qualified athletic. I love the... That's so funny.

Yeah. We were talking about the catcher caddy as an archetype. Love the speedy catcher as an archetype too. Quite rare, but love the Jason Kendall type who's got some wheels at least until he suffers a horrific injury. Can I tell you two of my favorite baseball statistics for the 2025 season so far? Sorry to fixate on Jacob Wilson, but I'm going to. Jacob Wilson has a 4.1% walk rate

and a 5.2% strikeout rate. I love that. I don't, it's so, it's just, it just tells such a story. You know, it just tells such a story of this guy and what kind of guy he is. And I, that's so fun, you know? That's so fun. So know? That's so fun. So anyway, I'm loving that.

Regular Luisa Rice over here. Yeah, love it. Okay, so we had some fun in frivolity and baseball banter. And now the opposite of that for the rest of this episode. Everyone's just turning off this episode. Don't do it, no, keep listening. You can if you want to. But Pete Rose, I teased at the end of the previous pod

that we would get your thoughts on this, that we would return to this topic, because of course the news of Rose's reinstatement broke shortly after we stopped recording, which is just wonderful. Great when the thing that dominates the discourse for the couple days after you post a podcast is something you didn't know about

when you were recording that podcast. Anyway, I have written about it. Plenty of people have written about it or talked about it. And if you're all rosed out, I wouldn't blame you. I'll put a timestamp in the episode description if you've had your fill. But wanted to get your take on Rob Manfred reinstating Pete Rose, which theoretically at least

clears a path to induction. It's still a path that would have to wind its way around various obstacles. He will not even be eligible for the Classic Baseball Era Committee until December, 2027, assuming he gets on the ballot. And then it'll be up to the 16 members of that committee, which will be composed of veteran media members

and Hall of Famers and baseball executives, et cetera. And I could see that going either way, really, but he still has hurdles to clear to actually get enshrined. But the bigger news is that he is, well, not officially persona non grata, I guess in the way that he was in a permanently ineligible list way. And it's not just Rose, obviously,

it is also everyone who was on that list and deceased. And that includes all the Black Sox and Shoeless Joe Jackson, et cetera. But Pete Rose obviously seemed to be the impetus for this and has gotten the most attention. I think that that is a fair assessment. I think that Shoeless Joe and his brethren are, what's the opposite? We talked about the opposite of a home run robbery. What's the opposite of collateral damage?

Unintended beneficiaries of a windfall of obsequiousness. That's a little bit more of a mouthful even than calling it a Mary, Kate and Ashley, isn't it? I think it sucks is the short version. I have a couple of reactions to this. I have a policy reaction that maybe I'll start with, and then there's the feelings of it all. So just from a policy perspective, first of all, permanently ineligible doesn't mean the same thing as lifetime ban, so I'm annoyed that there's like a great consternation being raised on the part of the commissioner that like, well, they're dead now. And you know, sorry, this is going to make me sound like a real dick

and shatter the illusion of nice Meg. But like the good news is that Pete Rose is still dead. So there's that. But I don't really mean it. I kind of do. I don't know. This is maybe the feelings part leading. But I don't think that there was any real good reason, any real policy conundrum that required a ruling on the meaning of permanently ineligible as it pertains to individuals who are now deceased. That is a convenient sounding reason to take up this question. But the real answer seemingly is that Pete Rose's family petitioned for his reinstatement and then that Pete Rose's family petitioned for his reinstatement. And then the president of the United States, who should surely be concerned with other stuff, although maybe it's better for him to be distracted by dead

baseball players, decided that he needed to weigh in because he like loves Pete Rose or whatever. And so I imagine that the real impetus for this decision is that Major League Baseball as a business entity has, first of all, an antitrust exemption it's keen to maintain, and is looking down the road as it pertains to various media deals and realizes that they might need a friend in the Trump administration. And so rather than be antagonistic, they decided to become soft on a guy who violated the one rule that you really can't violate in deference to them needing to be able to like, I don't know, petition the FTC and the FCC at some point.

So I think that's the real motivation for it. And I know that the commissioner, I'm sure, would deny that, but that's my read on the situation. And other folks have sort of come to the same conclusion, because it's an obvious one when you're like, I gotta call him while he's in Saudi Arabia. Like, you can't wait. Yes, exactly.

Yeah, the timeline here makes that implication pretty clear. And that was the part of the press release that reeked of BS the most, the part where he tried to make it seem as if this was imperative that he reach a ruling or this ruling. And it said it was incumbent upon the office of the commissioner

to reach a policy decision on this unprecedented issue in the modern era, just like qualifiers in here. Yeah, it's like, I don't know, Shoeless Joe's been dead for a while. Right. What are we talking about? As Mr. Rose is the first person banned after the tenure of, this is like a fun fact construction

for a very unfun track. Yeah. The first person banned after the tenure of Commissioner Kenesaw Mountain Landis to die while still on the ineligible lists, which sure. Yeah, he may have been the first person banned in more modern times to die while he was on the list,

but what makes it incumbent upon Manfrost to take action because of that? Right, when he hadn't taken that action for the dead guys who've been on the list forever. Like it's been half a century since the last surviving Black Sox player died and he wasn't thinking to himself, gosh, I have to do something about this.

I have to settle this. The fact that Rose died more recently doesn't really make the matter more pressing. So that just didn't hold up for me at all. Like it would have been even more believable to me if he had just been like, well, I changed my mind. Or I reevaluated my stance than to say like, gosh, I really had to, it was just so pressing

that I rule here. And to be fair, like his thinking or MLB stance on this evidently has sort of shifted over time, just not in a formal public way. And I think the fact that they did formalize it and publicize it now is for exactly the reasons that you've identified, but there was at least some creep toward this, like in 2020 ESPN reported that this actually was MLB's policy, but like secretly, it was kind of weird. It was like, you know, Don Vanatta Jr. had senior anonymous sources saying,

yeah, this is how we think of it. Like this is actually the league's policy currently that when you die, you're no longer on the permanently ineligible list, but we're not going to say so. And no one's going to comment on it, which was weird. They didn't want to cause a whole to do, but now they do want it to do because Trump made it into a to do already and everything surrounding Rose. It's always going to become controversial, obviously, but John

Thorne, the official historian of MLB had suggested this even before that 2016, 2019, he had written about the fact that in his view, at least, you know, like it, it makes sense on some level to say that when you die, there's no need for you to be on the permanently ineligible lists. you die, there's no need for you to be on the permanently ineligible list because the purpose of that list largely is to say, hey, these guys can't be hired. Yeah, they can't work in the game. They can't have any business ties to the game.

And thus, if they are dead, they are already rendered ineligible in most practical purposes. And so you could say it's kind of redundant to keep someone on the list post-mortem. But... Right, I think that there is a not... There is a universe where there is a non-Rose-related impetus for this change, where I sit back and say,

impetus for this change where I sit back and say, sure, like for the, for the narrow purposes of the rule largely functioning from a practical standpoint as a way of saying to clubs, Hey, you can't hire this guy. This person, they're all men, but this person, you're not allowed to hire this person, they're all men, but this person, you're not allowed to hire this person. CB Yeah. Women can be permanently to that, but this is like, I sound like a bad first-year law student. This is like figure the poisonous tree sh** though. Like that's not the world we're living in. The world we're living in is that the president decided that he wanted to like throw his hat in the ring with Rose again. I think that this

has actually been like a weird persistent preference of his. He has so few. Oh yeah. This predates his first presidency. In fact, he was tweeting about this in 2014. Yeah. Yes. Gosh, man, the things that he's cared about for a long time don't make him any better of a person. So anyway, again, like there is a world where this is just I want to clarify what this means. And there's confusion around it. And here's how we what we understand the purpose of the rule to be. But that's not the world that we're living in. And even if it were, I do think it's incumbent upon the league to say, Yeah, yeah, yeah, that's all fine. Except if you violate the most important rule in the game, you get no, you're in

permanent ineligibility purgatory, right? I don't care how much your ghost comes back to haunt the commissioner's office. You're just in limbo on this for the rest of the games days, not yours. Um, because I'm going to sound so stod days, not yours. Because I'm going to sound so stodgy, I suppose. I was really surprised, sorry, just to have a tangent for a second. And we don't have to talk about some of the specific coverage, but I was very surprised by some of the non-baseball presses' reaction to this.

I really was because I saw it in like, not really not good Wetzel column at ESPN, but like even the around the horn folks and like that includes Mina, who I agree with on most things. Like they're like, yeah, put them in the hall. It's a museum. And I'm like, he's in the museum. Yeah, over the museum. Yeah. The museum is lousy with P Rose. What are you talking about? Like, So I'm going to round around to my point here. I was surprised by the reaction of some non-baseball media to this because the threat that players, coaches, folks affiliated with a sports league betting on that sport poses to the competitive integrity of sport is not limited to baseball.

This is something that I think sports people should be universally on board for. This has to be a death sentence to your participation in whatever game it is and in the honorifics that are potentially associated with that sport. It just has to be. And that doesn't mean that we can't have compassion for individuals who maybe come to engage in that activity through some addiction. It doesn't mean that I don't hate how much gambling has seeped into sports in other contexts. And even though I think it is perfectly logically consistent to say sports betting is legal

for your average Joe and Jane, and it is strictly forbidden for people affiliated with the game, I understand that you're not taking quite as high a moral position as the league if you were like, you can't do this, but also we have an official sports betting partner. I acknowledge that there's a little tension there, but you can't bet on the sport. This man, not only did he bet on the sport while he was a player, while he was a manager, he lied about it for decades and the only reason he was ever finally truthful about it was because he wanted to sell a book and because reporting demonstrated that he had in fact bet on the sport while he was a player. This was not a repentant person.

This was not a man who threw himself on the mercy of the sport and said, I made a horrible mistake. I'm so, no, that was not his posture. No, not at all. And in fact, Manfred had rejected a previous appeal by Rose when he was alive in 2015 on the grounds that basically he has not reformed or repented at all. Like he's still the same guy.

Even in 2015, Menford concluded, if we let him back in now, he's still a threat to the integrity of the game because he still has all these bad habits and he still is not quite truthful about what he did and he still is not really accepting responsibility or understanding what was so bad about it. And so even then, even late in his life, yeah, there was no like

youthful mistakes or something like that. Or gosh, I've, I've mended my ways and I'm now going to become an advocate for not doing the thing that I did. It definitely, it wasn't that he portrayed himself as a victim. He made money off it. It was just never really like he turned over a new leaf in any kind of convincing or lasting way. And yeah, when Manfred said, he said one purpose of this permanently ineligible list is to keep people out of the game and not

have them hold jobs in baseball. And another was to create a deterrent effect that reduces the likelihood of future violations by others, which is sort of what we're saying. Now, Manfred said, in my view, once an individual has passed away, the purposes of rule 21 have been served. Obviously a person no longer with us cannot represent a threat to the integrity of the game. Moreover, it is hard to conceive of a penalty that has more deterrent effect than one that lasts a lifetime with no reprieve.

And I think he's right in the sense that, yeah, you can't represent a direct threat to the game, as I wrote in my piece, dead men play snow bats on baseball. He's not actually going to be betting on baseball. And I guess it's probably true that someone who's considering betting on baseball, if they know it's merely a lifetime ban and not a ban that extends beyond their lifetime,

is that significantly going to change the calculus for them? Maybe not, if you're even having that much premeditation. But I think there is something to just the stigma that was perpetuated, that was bolstered by the black socks and by Rose continuing to be on that list. And just everyone knowing, man, they messed up so bad that even though they're dead, they're still on this list. Like that's how bad it was. And that constantly resurfacing and people talking about it and just how notorious they all were. I think that helped cut through in a way that maybe just seeing that sign when you go into

the clubhouse wouldn't potentially. So even though I'm with you and I'm with Manfred and how often do we get to say that, that we're all, all three of us on the same page about something, but I'm with you and I'm with Manfred and how often do we get to say that? That we're all all three of us on the same page about something But I'm with him about there not being anything hypocritical about just different standards for participants versus spectators But both the participants and the spectators are alike are exposed to the marketing and the messaging and just inundated by all of this and to the marketing and the messaging and just inundated by all of this. And some of the players are going to be susceptible to that. They're going to have a problem that potentially Rose did and others have.

And so I do think that there's something to just, let's not lower the guardrails at all here. At all. Because what's the downside really of preserving this, except for the fact that Trump is going to be tweeting at me. That's kind of it. Like this was the way it always was. And other than every now and then being petitioned

and having to think about revisiting it or looking at some old documents, there were times when they didn't even issue a ruling. Like Bud Selig, he just sat on it. Like Rose petitioned him. He vetoed it. Right, exactly. And nothing came of that.

He met with him and then he just never issued a ruling and that was that. And Manfred in 2015, he did the same thing with Shoeless Joe where he basically just said like, there's not enough for me to overturn here. He didn't at that time say, and it is therefore incumbent upon me because he is dead, I must no longer have him classified this way, right?

And so he didn't have to rule on this either way really. And he could have just said, yeah, I defer to what happened before, or I talked about this a decade ago, and here's what I said, and he's dead now, but really nothing has changed about what he actually did. But he didn't do that, and he actually said explicitly, I'm not going to pocket veto this. And so he must have been motivated by some other desire and some other pressure, and I wonder what it could have been.

Okay, so a couple of things about that. First of all, it was our dear friend, Lindsay Adler, who noted that this appears by saying that he can't harm the game anymore. This appears to be Manfred coming out against the notion of ghosts and them not existing, which was very funny and made me laugh on surprising from Lindsay. Yeah. There is something sort of metaphysical about this whole thing, like he's ruling on what is permanence. Exactly.

Right. Yes. And I would be so delighted by that conversation if it was about literally anyone else under literally any other circumstances, right? So I also think that the League and the Hall of Fame, and we should maybe transition to the Hall of Fame piece of it now. And then I will talk about my feelings. The League and the Hall of Fame, and we should maybe transition to the Hall of Fame piece of it now, and then I will talk about my feelings. The League and the Hall of Fame are separate entities. Obviously, they work in close collaboration a lot of the time, but they get to set their own rules,

and the Hall feels a way about things, and sometimes that is inconvenient to the League, or not quite the way the League would do it. But when Manfred's talking about like, what is the harm? He's dead. He can't enact any more harm. And he doesn't get to, sort of implicit in all of this is like a, he doesn't get to enjoy the pop in circumstance of the Hall of Fame because he's not around to see it.

So maybe he's just, maybe he is like deeply anti-ghost. He's like, what do you can't tell? But here's the thing part, I think it fundamentally misunderstands, at least a part of the appeal of becoming a Hall of Famer. Because some of the comfort that that brings to guys part of why I think that being inducted is, you know, deeply moving to players when it happens is that it is about you persisting long after you're dead. It is about your offspring getting to point at that plaque and say, that was my dad, that was my grandpa. You know, your name has a place in the game's history, not just in the museum, but in a

room where we say these are the best guys that we've ever had. And we can talk about how accurate that has been over the years, right? And we, you know, there are plenty of guys in there who, if we had our druthers, we would say you're not a Hall of Famer because you weren't a good enough player, or you're not a Hall of Famer because you were literal segregationist, right? But the purpose of that room is to say, these are the best guys. And it is about you persisting in the game's understanding of itself long after you're dead. And so for him to say, itself long after you're dead. And so for him to say, well, he can't hurt the game anymore, I think misunderstands the hall and like them making this decision has obvious knock on

consequences for the Hall of Fame, as you mentioned, as many have written about, and what the notion of harm can mean. Because now, if he is inducted, and I don't know if he will be, you know, it's going to depend so much on who is on that committee, you know, and I don't know if we have a clear, a really good understanding of what the Hall of Fame's preference would be in all of this. And what their preference is, is going gonna matter a lot because as Jay Jaffe has written several times, both within the context of Rose and with some of the era committees,

like they stack those committees to make sure that PED guys don't get in and to make sure particular players do, right? They give friendly panels to some and unfriendly panels to others. So I don't know if Rose will get in or not. Once we know the composition of the committee, I think that we will be able to maybe guess at that with a little more precision, although, you

know, it's not quite as the conversation around Rose and his worthiness and the gambling piece. And I swear we are going to get to his many off-field indiscretions, or at least the most notable one in a second when I talk about my feelings. But I don't know what the general vibe of that is. You know, the Athletic ran a piece where they went and talked to a bunch of living Hall of Famers about how would you feel about Rose being in the hall. And, you know, there were plenty of guys who were like, yeah, let them in. And then there were some who were like a little more circumspect. And you could tell that they were like being a little political.

But like if you read between the lines, it seemed like, you know, I don't say this very often, but like, got to hand it to Tony LaRusse, because he seemed like not positive on the idea. At least that was my read of his politicking. None of them just came right out and said no, though. They, they had them odds. And yeah and said, no, though. Right. They had them haughts. And yeah, maybe you could read between the lines.

But no one felt comfortable even just saying, no, absolutely not. And then there were enthusiastic endorsements. If Mike Schmitz on that committee, we're cooked. He's getting in. So all of that to say, I don't know for sure that he'll be inducted. I don't really know. But if he is, you paved the way for the sport to tether itself to this man in perpetuity with all of his flaws, the ones that are baseball crimes and the ones that appear to be real in the world crimes. And so I think he's just fundamentally miscalculating the notion of or understanding the notion of harm here.

I really do. Yeah. And and yeah, it's it's kind of like, OK, he had to know that this is going to lead to a sequence of events where Rose is probably going to be on a ballot. lead to a sequence of events where Rose is probably going to be on a ballot. On the other hand, he's not directly responsible for that. The hall of fame is sort of a separate entity and they can decide to do what they want to do. And, and that's why he was ineligible for the hall in the first place. It's because the hall came out and decided if you're on the permanently ineligible list, then you don't get to be eligible for the hall of fame. And that was something that happened not until 1991, when

Rose was going to be on the BBWAA ballot, even after he had been banned, and then the Hall figured, uh-oh, they might actually put him in. Like, I think writers may well have voted him in at that point. And so the Hall decided, nope. And this is how we will justify it. Oh, he's on the permanently ineligible list because Shoeless Joe even had been on ballots years and years and years earlier even though he was on the permanently ineligible list because

there was no rule at that point. There was no rule. Yeah, he couldn't also be up for induction and he got next to no support at that point. Yeah, very little support. And I guess there was a big backlog that was the beginning of the Hall of Fame, etc. Anyway, there's a possibility that he might just get rejected now. And that's okay, I think, because we've talked about this. We don't need MLB to be the arbiters of history. MLB is not all of baseball. And so I'm perfectly comfortable in the abstract with Rob Manfred saying,

okay, this is up to the historians now and we'll see how he's remembered. And it's not our job necessarily to pass judgment once someone's gone, once they don't pose a direct personal threat to the game, we can sign you to the annals of history and everyone can decide what that guy's legacy will be. And if the hall wants to continue to make him ineligible, it can, and it's really up to them. And in the abstract, I'm kind of okay with that stance, I suppose. It's just that, yeah, you know what the end game is going to be here. And we're already seeing sort of this outpouring of praise. The Reds had a Pete Rose night on Wednesday, which

evidently was, it was pre-scheduled. Yeah, it was on the calendar already. Which is quite the timing there, that that happened to be the day after. I don't know if that was, yeah, I'm not sure if that was coincidental or not. I mean, maybe they timed the announcement for that. I'm not sure if that was coincidental or not. I mean, maybe they timed the announcement for that. I'm not sure.

Anyway, it was just a whole hearted, full throated celebration of Rose. And, you know, the Athletic did another article that was talking to managers, former players, pretty much all saying, yeah, this is great. He should be in. So, you know, and even Jeff Passon was like, yeah, he should be in, right?

And Jeff doesn't even vote in the Hall of Fame anymore. But I was sort of- Maybe that's why he endorsed an article that was confused about whether they have a museum. He's just not familiar with the building. Sorry, Jeff, love you, but what was that, man? I was sort of surprised, yeah, about the people who were pro this. And this just, it seemed like it should be a

upright line and yet to get to the other stuff, the statutory rape allegations from, from one woman in particular who said that this occurred in the seventies. And then also John Dowd, the counsel for MLB that investigated Rose, who said that his understanding what he heard or was told was that this was routine for Rose, that this was just happening, that he had sexual relationships with underage girls. The age of consent in Ohio was 16 then and he was in his mid thirties and married with two kids. And if this happened once, that would be worse than any of the other stuff.

Right. And what often tends to happen with these Cooperstown candidates who have really egregious off the field track records, that gets kind of buried because we focus on the baseball and I guess I get why that happens is we're talking about a baseball context. And the most pertinent thing is if you bet on baseball, if you cheated, that's top of mind. But then there's all this other stuff that's arguably even more disqualifying as long as you do have a character clause and you're saying that you're not just judging based on the stats, like a NFL Hall of Fame,

pro football Hall of Fame sort of situation. So that alone, I mean, you know, I don't think that's going to be the thing that keeps him out. It will be the betting or nothing, but add it to the pile. Katie Svigel And I think that's where, and now I am going to talk about my feelings a little bit, I think that's where I find the whole thing just to be so exhausting because him being an accused statutory rapist, him then being like a world-class creep in a professional setting to Alex Coffee when she deigned to ask him about that. I love the word babe and I hate it when it's used in a way that's clearly meant to be a substitute for other words. I want that stuff to matter. And we spend, I think, as both an industry and as

observers and fans of the sport, I think that we have come a long way in being able to reckon with and force ourselves to reckon with what happens when these guys fail as people in a way that has incredibly harmful effects for the people around them. But we still have to do all this work to get that stuff in the conversation, elevated to the point that it matters, not dismissed as either fabricated or irrelevant to our assessment of these guys. And I was just so, I feel like I got got Ben, because I said on this podcast, like, I don't think he'll do it. I don't think he'll let him in. And I, I part of why I felt that way was because, you know,

and I don't say only to minimize it, but like, if the if the black mark on Rose's record was off the field stuff, I had no confidence that that would preclude his induction into the hall. If the gambling didn't exist and what had happened was all of this, it wouldn't have stood in the way of his induction, particularly when he was eligible. But it's not like they would have stopped inviting him back, you know, every summer, like he'd just be sitting up there. That would have happened. And that would have sucked because this is like a really, you know, we don't want to put these things like do weights and measures on them, right? But like a really awful crime, really awful crime, illegal at the time. As an aside, this was, this is part of what, sorry,

we're just gonna be a little freeform here, but this is part of what made me feel a little cuckoo in some of the commentary I saw where they're like the social mores have changed and it's like this was illegal when he did it. Yeah, right. The reason he wasn't charged was because the statute of limitations had run out, but it was illegal at the time he did it. This wasn't like us looking back on half the music from the 50s and being like, sure, weird that you guys sing about 16 year olds so much. No, it was illegal at the time. At the time, contemporaneously illegal. Right. And by the way, he did not even deny that this happened. He just said, I thought she was 16, which if you're 34 and that's your defense, that's bad enough. But also, even if he did think she was 16, if she wasn't, that is not a defense

according to the law at the time. Even if you're like, oopsie. That's no. So yeah. So like put a pin in that, but I'm like, no, this is like, you don't get to recontextualize this. We can have a conversation about how the sexual social mores of that time were different, because they obviously were. But that doesn't have any bearing on whether or not what he did was illegal. It was illegal at the time for him to have a sexual relationship with someone who was under the age of 16. And that is what this woman's for in an affidavit. And to your point, he did not deny it. He just said that he didn't know. So, so all of that, right. But I thought I didn't even have to make that case. I want that stuff to matter. I think it should. But I was like,

I don't even have to do that. Cause he did the undoable thing. He did the unforgivable thing. He committed the capital baseball crime. He did baseball crimes. We just get to be done with this man. No, ghosts are real. He's haunting us from beyond the freaking grave. So like, it's just exhausting

because he should not be in the hall of Fame because he bet on sports, he bet on baseball while he was a player and while he was a manager. That's it. That's all we need to know. I don't even have to make people care about the fact that he was, you know, that he was a statutory rapist. They should care. I wish they did, but I don't even have to have that conversation because he did baseball crimes, but I don't even have to have that conversation because he did baseball crimes, except I guess I do because we're just letting him be up for consideration for the Hall of Fame.

And I'm glad that like people who are meant to be on this round of balloting are not getting bumped, but I almost wish that they would just get it the hell over with, because now we get to keep talking about him. Poor Jay has to write about this guy again. He's going to have to write about him again in two years. Yeah.

The one silver lining, I guess, is that he's not around. And I don't even mean that in a spiteful, like, at least he didn't get to enjoy this way. I just mean, like like giving him a platform and giving him a mic never went well, really. It sure didn't. And I wonder if that actually could have something to do with why this happened now.

It's like he's not around to remind everyone who he actually was as a man and not just this idea of Pete Rose as the hit King and Charlie Hussle and all of that. And look, I wrote this in my obit last year. I think if you saw Pete Rose play, it seems to be very hard for people to let go

of that image of him and that joy that he conjured in people and I'm not totally trying to take that away from people. Like if you have fond memories of watching Pete Rose be great at baseball, that's okay, I think, as long as you don't just sweep all the other stuff under the rug or act like because he was good at baseball, he was also a good guy,

or that being a bad guy doesn't matter because he was good at baseball. If you just take the whole of the man and are clear-eyed about all that and say, I mean, I'm not disputing that he was excellent at baseball, that he's a qualified Hall of Famer, if that was all it was. But it's really when it comes down to the,

and the thrust of my piece was basically like, just because you can honor Pete Rose in this way now doesn't mean that you should. And his status has changed, but nothing else has changed. His history hasn't changed. Everything that he did or didn't do hasn't changed. And so all the reasons that he was banned before are still bad, still just as bad. Nothing has actually changed. He's reinstated, he's not, or shouldn't be rehabilitated. So that's basically my stance on this. That's like, it just, it shouldn't change

how we think of him and we should think of him pretty poorly, at least when we're talking about the non-playing aspects. I have over the years, I think gone back and forth on like how I would, and it's not going to be put to me because I, you know, I don't have a ballot yet, but like how I would grapple with the PED stuff and then how this I'm sadly confident I will have to deal with at some point in my tenure as a Hall of Fame voter, how I will deal with domestic violence and players who have DV allegations, convictions, whichever category it ends up

falling into on their resume. And I feel like I have maybe said on this podcast that I have a bit of hesitation around excluding from the hall, some of the PED guys, because like baseball happened when we were kids, you know, baseball existed when we were young people and these guys were in it. And the, the Rose stuff has really kind of solidified for me why I was making the Wetzel mistake when I said that, right? Because there's a whole museum there. We have all kinds of space to endeavor to grapple with these guys in their totality, in their totality as people as well as players, right? And I think that it is incumbent upon the hall, and they have done this, to have Pete Rose in there,

in the museum, you know, and to try to talk about it in a way that is edifying for future generations of fans and that really contextualizes both his transcendence as a player and his, you know, being down in the muck as a person and what the gambling means. And a museum, a well-done exhibit is, I think, a really powerful place to deal with that. His plaque isn't. And that room needs to be about honoring guys. And it doesn't mean that they all have to be perfect. The ones who are in there aren't. And the ones who will be inducted in there aren't necessarily going to be either. But I think it's okay for us to say, no, some of this behavior puts you beyond the pale. And again, you don't have to really even look to his off the field behavior to do that.

The gambling is enough for him to just be disqualified from that room. But I think that we have an obligation. I know, you know, you've made a decision to not participate in Hall of Fame voting and it's not the one I'm going to make. I understand why you're doing it. I think it's a principled stance. I get it. But like watching guys react to being inducted, learning they're going to be inducted, particularly in the last couple of years where we've had, you know, we've had guys get in on their last ballot and it wasn't certain and they did it. It means so much to them. When I'm a voter, I'm preemptively anxious about it because I want to take that responsibility really seriously. You can't do goofy ballots.

You can't be doing that. This is too important to these guys. And it doesn't mean everybody gets in, but I think that we owe it to them to really honor the contributions they've made to the game, and that means taking their cases seriously. But it also means that withholding a vote from anyone can be really powerful. And I think that there are guys for whom it is worth us drawing a line and saying,

if you do this, you just don't get to be in that room. You can be in these other rooms, but you don't get to be in there with those guys. And you're right that like in the moment, is that going to be the difference for a player who is, you know, about to bet on baseball? I don't know. For some of them, I think it is. For a lot of them, you know, maybe the fact that they're doing it at all suggests that like the impulse control piece of doing it at all suggests that the impulse control piece of it is just frayed to the point of not being salvageable. But I think it's worth saying, these are our standards.

And there are plenty of folks who have come through here who have met them. And not all the ones who are in that room have. This was the other part of the, sorry to keep harping on this Wetzel piece, but that was part of the other thing. He's like, there are people in the plaque room who upheld the color line and that was more damaging to the sport than gambling. And I was like, what am I meant to do with that logic? If you're telling me that I have the opportunity to jettison Landis for maintaining the color barrier, don't threaten me with a good time. Let's go.

Like, you're not gonna, I'm not gonna lose any sleep over getting the, that guy out of there. But also like, are we bound to just continue to make really compromised, wormy bad choices because people who are themselves dead and not haunting me did at one point? No. We get to evolve as an electorate, as a society. So, I find myself quite disappointed. I feel like I got got. I really do.

And I let my guard down. I was like, whew. I don't have to make someone care about character. And then it turns out I should have been making one guy care about character, and maybe it was his own. Yeah. And as I've said before, if they at some point want to say, all the standards are out the window, character clause gone, this is purely who were the best baseball players.

I'm kind of conflicted on whether I think that's better or worse, but it would be consistent. And if they did that, then I could get on board with that and just, Hey, we're not making any promises here about these people as people. This is just, these were the best baseball players. That's all that would be kind of okay for me too. It's just this kind of caught in between situation that we're in now. And really, I think one reason why this was so exhausting and tiring, and I mentioned this in my piece

and other people did too, it's just that it feels like this is happening in so many arenas where the Pete Roses of the world just- Triumphing. There are no consequences for anything. It's just pardons, appointments, promotions, anything that would have been disqualifying or disgraceful in the past is not an obstacle now. In some cases, it's an advantage seemingly.

And that's just kind of exhausting. And Pete Rose is one of the least consequential probably of those kinds of cases that I'm talking about here. You know, we're talking about insurrection and corruption and all the rest, right? Like the real life effects of Pete Rose being reinstated will probably be pretty small compared to some of that stuff. But it just felt like, again, not that baseball

is ever separate from any other sphere, but here we go again. This is just those tendrils reaching into and the same person being implicated and responsible perhaps or pulling the strings. That's just part of why this was so, here we go again. Yeah. One of the many reasons it would have been nice if things had gone differently. So we gotta just stop thinking about that guy so much because I think about him so much of the time, spend so much of our time doing it.

And yeah, it feels like that could apply to Trump or Pete Rose. Yeah. And it's just, yeah, to your point, it feels like a, I don't know, it feels like a fraying of a social order that was probably more fragile than I may be appreciated or was willing to admit, but it just, it feels very bad. And it comes, you're right, it's like in every facet of our lives. And we are not stick to sports people. And I can be tedious even with my insistence that we not, but it just feels like, get out of my, leave us alone over here. And we're gonna see, right?

Because it is not guaranteed that he will be inducted. I suppose it's not even guaranteed that he'll be on the ballot, although I suspect that if they, the way for the Halt sort of guarantee that would have been to clarify or issue new guidance about, you know, you might have been removed from the permanently ineligible list, but surprise, if you bet on the sport, you're still, you know, ineligible per our terms like who, you know, who knows, maybe. Yeah. If they kind of, yeah, if they kind of pocket veto him, that that would be worse, maybe that would cause a greater uproar, at least if they were just trying to hide him, if they didn't make some sort of ruling on why he continues to be ineligible.

Otherwise, I'd rather see him just be defeated and be eligible. What do they decide to do? Because if they stack the panel with anti-Rose folks, well then we're going to get a bunch of truth social posts about that, right? You know, great. Another we get to do another stolen election round of discourse. And this time with Pete Rose, we might be in hell. I just, you know, it's like I said, I'm blue sky. I only really believe in God damnation when Rod Manfred's being annoying and obsequious. But yeah, I don't know, I don't

know what will happen. I don't know if we really have to worry that he'll be inducted. But I think I'm just going to operate from the baseline of assuming he will be, if only to guard against future disappointment. I really thought Manfred would hold the line on this one. I really did. So shame on me, I guess, but I really thought he would be like, no. Keep your expectations low.

All right, Pete Rose is really something. You can talk about him for quite a while and not even mention the filing false tax returns that actually got him sent to prison. Just quite a tendency to view his life through rose colored glasses. See, there I go, making the obvious joke. But yeah, the tax crimes were bad too.

You know, it's not bad. In fact, I might even venture to say it's good. Supporting the podcast on Patreon, which you can do by going to patreon.com slash effectively wild. And thanks to a recent court case decision, if you are an iOS user and you use the Patreon app to sign up, you now no longer have to pay that app store 30% surcharge. So if you're an Apple person, it's less expensive for you to sign up now, just in case you were on the fence. But the following five listeners are not on the fence. They have already come down on the subscribing side and they have signed up to pledge some monthly

or yearly amount to help keep the podcast going, help us stay almost ad free, and get themselves access to some perks. Jeremy, Kieran Scandret, Andrew Hunt, Thomas Whale, and Edward Camp. Thanks to all of you. Patreon perks include access to the Effectively Wild Discord group for patrons only, monthly bonus episodes, playoff live streams, discounts on merch and ad-free FanGraphs memberships, and so much more. Did I mention personalized messages, autographed books? 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 fangraphs.com. You can rate, review and subscribe to Effectively Wild on iTunes and Spotify and other podcast platforms.

You can join our Facebook group at facebook.com slash group slash Effectively Wild. You can rate, review and subscribe to Effectively Wild on iTunes and Spotify and other podcast platforms. You can find the Effectively Wild subreddit at r slash Effectively Wild. And you can check the show notes at fan graphs or the episode description in your podcast app for links to the stories and stats we cited today.

Thanks to Shane McKeon for his editing and production assistance. We'll be back with one more episode before the end of the week, which means we will talk to you soon. analytics and stats with Ben and Meg from Femgrass. Effective rewind. Effective rewind. Effective rewind.