Effectively Wild: A FanGraphs Baseball Podcast - Effectively Wild Episode 2335: The 70-Percent Podcast

Episode Date: June 14, 2025

Ben Lindbergh and Meg Rowley banter about Tarik Skubal dialing down his top-end fastball (and dominating nonetheless), Jazz Chisholm Jr.’s self-described 70 percent effort level, Ronald Acuña Jr. hitting more and running less, whether the Blue Jays are getting what they wanted out of Vladimir Guerrero Jr., the debut of Jacob Misiorowski, Aaron Civale’s trade […]

Upstarts, ads, and entry, they both mean a lot to me That's why I love baseball Special hits, history, series, pitching, and pure poetry That's why I love baseball Effectively wild Effectively wild Effectively Wild, a baseball podcast from FanGraphs presented by our Patreon supporters.

I am Ben Lindberg of The Ringer, joined by Meg Raleigh of FanGraphs. Hello Meg. Oh, hello. I am pleased to report that Tarek Scoobel is taking it a tad easier since I took him to task for shaking his fist in the face of the gods by throwing a pitch that was clocked at 102.7 miles per hour, at least according to Brooks Baseball. This was on May 25th.

And as you recall, when we talked about that, I said that he had entered the de Grom zone, which was when a pitcher is so good that I start worrying about him. But specifically when he's so good and he throws so hard that I start thinking no human can keep this up without breaking. And that particular pitch when he threw that 102.6 or 0.7,

depending on the source mile per hour fastball to Gabriel Arias, and this was the last pitch in that complete game shutout he threw against the Guardians. And that to me just seemed like the height of hubris to throw that particular pitch that hard. It was his last pitch of the day. Yeah. Didn't, didn't need to, wasn't a high leverage spot. Gabrielle Arias was batting for one thing. It was the ninth inning.

It was two outs. It was an O2 count. There was nobody on base. He had a five-nothing lead. He did not have to throw that pitch that hard. And yet he was feeling himself, I suppose, and he wanted to go out in style. And I understand the temptation.

If you can throw 102.7 miles per hour, I'd be tempted to throw that hard too, just to show that I could, but it just seemed unnecessary. And since then, he has made three starts and he has topped out at 99.6 miles per hour, which is still fast, but three miles per hour slower. And that one, when he hit 102.7,

that was the sixth consecutive start in which he had thrown at least a hundred his fastest pitch had touched triple digits and since then he has not done it once yeah unless you think he just blew out his top end somehow by throwing 102.7 I assume he could still throw triple digits if you wanted to but he hasn't wanted to in those three most recent starts. And I applaud him for that because he has continued to be untouchable just about.

So over that six start stretch where he was topping triple digits every time, he threw 40 innings and allowed 10 earned runs. He had a 2.25 ERA and a 1.28 FIP, which is ridiculous. Yeah. 63 strikeouts and two walks in 40 innings. And since then, in his three starts since that fast pitch, he's thrown 21.2 or 21 and two thirds innings pitched. He's allowed one run that is that is a 0.42 ERA with a 1.6 FIP. So this the FIP was slightly higher, only 19 strikeouts and two walks. So the strikeout to walk ratio, not quite as spectacular, but the run prevention has been even better. Point is, he didn't have to throw that hard.

He could just be throwing 99 and topping out at 99 points something and just as dominant. And so I think he should continue to do that. If you round up, he threw a couple of 99.6 mile per hour pitches in those starts, but I'm not, not rounding up for these purposes. Do you feel like personally responsible for that? Like, are you looking at this and going, wow, first of all, uncomfortable to a certain degree to learn that scuba listens to effectively

wild might have to tighten up a little bit in the face of that. But do you feel like you did it? You know, like it was you? Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say that he listened to it, but maybe someone else listened to it and told him. That's how far I would go to say. Yeah. Yeah. It couldn't be just a coincidence. It had to have stemmed from my pointing this out on the podcast. You know, maybe some Tigers baseball operations staffer heard it and then relayed that message to a coach who talked to Tarek and said, hey Tarek, you could be really good if you just threw 99 point something instead of 102 point something. And he said, okay, yeah, discretion is a better part of valor.

Maybe I should just take a tick or two off and continue to be by far the best pitcher in baseball but potentially preserve my arm a little longer. Yeah, I do wonder in moments like this, like I at times have, I don't want to say anybody's a doofus. I'm not trying to impugn any big leaguers, but like I have remarked on the human temptation to demonstrate an exceptional skill, even if it is to your eventual detriment. But now I'm going to do the opposite of that and say that like, you know, these

guys love pitching. They want to be good for a long time. They certainly want to avoid injuries. Scoobel knows what it is to have to go through that rehab process, right? I imagine he's quite keen to avoid having to do that again. And so, you know, despite the temptation to show I can do this, I bet that he is kind of receptive to the notion that if he does it a little less, but still in a superlative fashion, that he'll be able to do it for longer. He's no dope. We went to Seattle U. It's a good school. He's probably easily the best big leaguer to ever come out of Seattle University.

Only big leaguer? I don't know. But if we are giving credence to human frailty, as I am want to do, you could also say, hey, I did it. They know I can. I've shown I can. Let me do it a little bit differently, but just as good. Like that's a cool, that's a super cool thing to be able to do, to be versatile and just as good, my goodness. Yeah, or to say, I'm not even maxing out right now. I'm not even trying my hardest and you can't touch me. Isn't that even better in some ways? Right, not only not on gear, but also not, I don't know.

I find that terminology vexing. But yeah, I'm excited. Every time we have a guy like this, where adjustments are made, he emerges to have this amazing season, in the back of my mind, maybe this shows that I'm a pessimistic person on some level, I just assume that the next season is going to be worse. And not in the way that his season seemed seemed like it was obviously gonna be worse, even if it was very good, just because it was so good last year. But I'm like, it won't stick.

Like he'll get figured out. People so far, no. So far, no. Not at all. Just like really, really amazing. And it's just exciting to have a guy, you know, coming out of a smaller program, you know, not heavily recruited. Very cool. Very cool. Janssen junk was drafted out of Seattle youth.

Oh, that's right. It was Janssen junk. Ben, it was Janssen junk. You know, I think that it's gone a little better for Terrick. Yes. And to Terrick, not a junk baller, another great nominative determinism name for Janssen junk, to some extent. I don't know if it fits perfectly. To some extent, but not as much. Yeah. You know, and one has to ask this question with some degree of bizarre seriousness.

If he was more comfortable leaning into the nominative determinism, would his career be going better? Inquiring minds want to know. I do. Yeah. Is he throwing too many fastballs? I guess he's throwing fewer fastballs than he used to, just like most pitchers are, but yeah. Was he hesitant to do so because he wanted to avoid

the label of jump baller because it was too easy. He shied away from having his stuff, his repertoire, fit his name. Who knows? Who knows? Someone should ask him that. It would be kind of rude though. You know, you want to wait till it's going better. The results have been that of a junk baller to this point. He's been basically a replacement level pitcher. But Scoopal is amazing and I am heartened to think that maybe he's also entering the de grom zone of realizing that he doesn't have to have the meter in the red.

He doesn't have to put the pedal to the metal because he's just that good. That he can get by as it is. And yeah, when you win a Cy Young Award, as convincingly and deservedly as he did last season, I actually don't think you should aspire to be even better. I know that that's the default mindset of a professional athlete. Just, I gotta be better. I gotta... And you should, I guess, endeavor to be better just because hitters could catch up with you. And so you have to continually confuse them. But in terms of pure stuff, at least, when I read headlines like, he was already the Cy Young Award winner,

and now he's even better, he throws even harder. I think, no, no need, because you could just be the deserved Cy Young Award winner that you already were, and maybe you could continue to pitch and stay healthy for a little longer. But yeah, this is pure dominance here. And the Tigers did lose one of the games that he started in this recent three-star stretch

because they had won all six of the ones when he threw really hard and maybe more than that. But they lost one of the most recent three because they gave him no rent support and they lost one to nothing. It wasn't his fault though. He allowed zero. So he couldn't have been better than that unless he had pitched longer. So yeah, it'll play. I think it'll play. Do you think that Paul Skeens called him and was like, first time. Yeah, maybe. Welcome to the club. I know you came. Yeah.

Well, speaking of players, maybe taking a little off, just being more moderate in their approach to the game. Our attention was drawn to some recent quotes by Jazz Chisholm. This was a Patreon supporter, Open Wheel Fly Project, who wrote in to draw our attention to these quotes. Now it was a thing back in the Jeff Sullivan era where we delighted ourselves by finding the many increments

of percent effort that players said that they gave. Because 100% effort is not good enough. It's good enough. It's not enough. Yeah, it's eye wash. You have to show that you can go above and beyond 100% somehow and maybe that's the problem. Maybe that's what too many pitchers do.

It's a greater than 100% of the tolerance of their elbow ligament repeatedly. And then it's broings, But I forget how high we went because we were just Googling different percentages and it was like hundreds, thousands maybe. It just went up and up and up and up. Yes. Jess Chisholm, he's going the other direction.

Oh. He says he's giving 70% effort. Yeah, I applaud this. This is great. I don't know what effort Tarek Skupel is giving. Like what percentage of, I mean, if 99, I guess, is, you know, 97% of 102, but I don't know if that can be said to be 97% effort. But JusJus, yes, since he came back from the IL, he has been great.

It's not many games, but 30 played appearances. He has a 180 WRC plus and four steals. He's doing it all, occasionally making an error when he's miked up, but other than that, he's been fantastic. And he has attributed this to playing less hard. He says that his success since returning from the IL has been caused by limiting his intensity.

Just go at 70%. That's what's been working for me. This was Friday. Play at 70%, defense, offense, running everything. Stay healthy. You don't over swing. You don't swing and miss as much. And you're a great player at 70%.

So he returned from this oblique injury and he has taken a little off the top and it's working out. And Aaron Boone said he's got so much talent and power, he doesn't have to go reach for it, that kind of wiry thing he's got inside him, he doesn't have to work too hard to generate it, so nice and easy is always good for jazz. The baseball player and the music, I suppose.

And this is great. Aaron Judge said, the adrenaline is going to be flowing. It's really just about slowing everything down and just take a nice, easy approach. I don't know what percent Aaron Judge has been employing, but this was evidently assistant hitting coach, Pat Ressler advised Jastism to slow down a bit and said, at 70%, you're one of the best out there.

At a hundred percent, I might be dog crap. So he goes on to say, I've really heard that all my life is that I need to tone down on the way I play because it's really over. It's electric, but you can be electric while being controlled at the same time. My 70% running is probably faster than a lot of guys in the league too. So a bit of bragging going on there, but probably justified also. So if it's 70%, I'm hitting balls, 108, 109 miles per hour, playing great defense and out running and having stolen bases, I

think that's where I should stay. So he's basically like at 70% I'm better at faster than anyone. So yeah. Yeah. And he said it's, it's challenging for him because the only thing he knew was how to go fast. Basically he was like Ricky Bobby growing up or I don't know. He was like Dr. Ian Malcolm or something, you know, just got to go fast. And now he's going a little slower. It's nice. I love that you're like, you know, the spectrum of going fast from Ricky Bobby to Ian Malcolm, one of which is like the mistaken idea that if you're not first, you're last and the other is must go faster, less to be eaten by a T-Rex. That's good.

Normally I'm the one with the movie metaphors. I admire this because anytime you can assert simultaneously that you are purposefully taking a little off while also being better than everyone else, that's like a fun little needle to try to thread. I also, jazz inspires takes in people. And I think that some of those takes from the grumpier amongst baseball fans, and this is not unique to Yankees fans, I think there were some of this when he was with Miami too, he's been accused of like a lack of seriousness at times.

And I don't think that that's largely been a fair accusation. You know, there have been times where it's like, hey, lock in a little bit, but he does a good player. And I think he knows his game and he does a good job with it. And I could imagine someone shying away from this assertion because you don't want to give like grist to the mill or whatever. But if you're confident and comfortable in yourself and don't worry about those things, I don't know, it's just like, I worry about what people think of me all the time. So I can't imagine it. So good for jazz, you know, like I just think that there's like a nice, it suggests like a degree of settledness in himself and his career and the organization that he's just like, yeah,

man, like, I want to stay and it's for a good reason, right? It's not like he's like, I have to take 70% off so the or to only do 70% so that the other people have any chance at all, you know, there's not like a there is like an assertion of confidence, but it's not quite braggadocious to me. I don't know. Anyway, I just like, I find how these guys evolve and think about presenting themselves to be really fascinating. And I like that this, I'm not trying to like give him a backhanded compliment.

I swear. Like I think that this suggests like a, he is arrived and sort of where he wants to be and is settled in it and it's going well. And like if you're feeling insecure in your position, or you're dealing with what he dealt with earlier in his career, that's not going to be the case, right? So it suggests a good, a good thing. It suggests that he's in a good spot. I like that. I like it when guys are like, trying to do the maintenance. And I imagine it's a hard thing to navigate, right? And negotiate with yourself because you want to expend the effort that is necessary to be the very best you can be on the field.

And you want to be on the field as much as you can. And sometimes those things are working across purposes with one another. And so having to figure out where you can do enough to still do what you need to while preserving your health. I imagine that that's a thing you learn with experience, both having dealt with injury but also just being a mature big leaker and knowing where you are, knowing your body well. And that seems like it would be really hard and I admire that because I have fallen out of chairs just sitting down. So the notion of understanding and having a good sense

of my own body is quite foreign to me. Yeah, well, what percentage effort are you giving to sitting in chairs? It's so good that you asked that question. No, I mean, like, here's a funny thing. When I was still a finance type, I had to take the series seven exam, even though I was not doing any transacting

that would actually require it. But in my role, I was not doing any transacting that would actually require it, but in my role, I was required to take the seven. And you have to, I assume that the scale, the grading is the same. You need a 70% to pass. And you know, as an achieving type, I remember talking about this with my manager and like, you got to pass, you know, they'll give you a do over, but like, it's quite important that you pass. If you don't, you kinda might not keep your job. And so I remember talking to Mike about it,

and he was like, you should aim for an 80. Because you want a little wiggle room, you know? But like- Getting into Jerry DePoto territory here. Well, but he was like, but other than that, it's kind of wasted effort, because you don't need this for your job, you just have to have it. You need wasted effort because you don't need this for your job. You just have to have it.

You need it, but you don't need it. So he's like, just shoot for an 80 and then move on. And I don't remember what I got, which is amazing because I still remember my SAT score. So I don't know. How do you gauge it? Does it change by circumstance? Does he let himself, might the answer change later if he feels like he's at a greater remove from injury, you know.

He seems like he's 100% from a health perspective, but like if things move around, I don't know, it's just a, it's interesting. It's interesting, Ben. Yeah. The fact that it's going well, I think is key to why he was willing to say this. And also, I guess, why he feels this way. If he weren't playing well, then maybe he would feel like I should not be at 70%.

I should ramp that up somewhat. And also even if he thought it was the way to go, maybe he wouldn't vocalize that because there's the risk that when he does inevitably slump at some point, the fans will throw that back in his face and say, well, why are you going 70% costing us here? But I think that there is some sense to it. And we just talked about this with Juan Soto and running out ground balls or not. And Robinson Cano versus Derek Jeter and how not sprinting all out on every single

batted ball is a good thing, much as it's a good thing not to throw 102.7 every time, even if you potentially can. And it's just, where do you set that line and how do you modulate that based on the leverage and the situation. Like if Tarek Schuepel is in the World Series this year, I give him permission to throw as hard as he can. Sometimes it's worth it

and you should run out that ground ball if it's super important, but other times you wanna stay available and maybe it's better to dial it down. I do question the math a little bit of the 70% because it can't really be 70%, right? Because, I mean, like, let's say that his max effort swing could produce a batted ball that's 115

or something. I didn't actually check to see what his max exit speed ever is. But let's say you have someone who can hit the ball 115 if they give you their A swing. Well 70% of that would be like 80 miles per hour, which is not, that's not good. Or let's say your sprint speed, your top speed is 29 feet per second, which would be a respectable number. 70% of that would be like 22, which would make you the slowest player in the majors.

So that's not good. So 70%, I don't know exactly how they think of that. I think we've talked about this before in the context of pictures when they're rehabbing and they say, like, I was throwing 80% or something and what would that equate to exactly? The math can't quite work that way. Sure. Mentally, like when they say that they're throwing 80%, if you actually take 80% of that, it would be too slow.

So it must be like there's a certain baseline level of effort and then everything beyond that is how they kind of calibrate the percentage effort level. So it's not quite one-to-one like that. Like Anthony Volpe is quoted in this piece too, asked about jazz and his 70%. And Volpe says in his mind, it might be 70%, but I think what everyone in the clubhouse loves

and respects about him is that it looks like every night he's playing with his hair on fire and over 100%. So it doesn't look like 70%, and it can't quite literally be 70%. I think that it's very funny that you are trying to introduce precision to a thing that I'm sure he... Yeah, he's trying to stat-less his effort level. Yeah, he's just like, you know, he's like, eh, he's putting it, laying his finger and putting it up for the breeze. And he's like, eh, about 70%. I doubt he's thinking about it that hard, because it's probably a feel thing more than

it is him trying to actually put a number on it. Are we taking this too seriously? It could be true. We might be vulnerable to that accusation, I suppose. Maybe, but I say normalize giving less than max effort at all times. Sure. I think it is actually beneficial and there's this strong cultural pressure

to pretend that you are always going all out at all times. Yeah. And that is actually counterproductive. That would be detrimental. And it's eye wash to insist that you are going 100%, let alone over 100%. So yeah, but there's like a, it's like an overclocking a computer or something. Like you can do it, but you're going to overheat and then you need some kind of cooling system

set up and it's just, it's going to shorten the lifespan of the hardware. This works with bodies and people and, and physiques as well. And so athletes, they have to pace themselves to some extent. I'm always saying that, you know? I'm just like always saying that. I'm glad you got to it first because normally I get to it, you know? What percent are we podcasting? That's the question. It really depends on the day, you know?

And I don't want to make anyone feel unspecial, but today? No, I give 106% every day, you know? Which is like, on some days, I feel like, yeah, really nailed it. And other days I'm like, wow, that was my best, you know, I'm not taking anything off. Was the episode as good? I'll leave that to the listeners to decide. I don't know, I'm not taking anything off. Was the episode as good? I'll leave that to the listeners to decide. I don't know, I like talking ball with you, so I get excited to do it. Yes. And there's such a thing as pressing and trying too hard. Right.

And even if you don't get hurt, you want to be controlled. Right. And you might have to, because it's like if you're trying to throw as hard as you possibly can with zero command or control, just like when you see someone at driveline or whatever and they're doing the pull down drill and they're throwing into a net or something and they're just trying to get that number up but not really aiming for anything specifically, then yeah, you could maybe have a higher number there, but you do have to dial it down just a tad to be in control

in a game. So yeah, I do. I do love the, I know they're not trying to throw a strike most of the time, but it is fun to watch those and be like, not a strike, not a strike, not a strike, not a strike, not a strike. Mr. Spat there. Mr. Spat. Yeah.

Yeah. Mr. Spat a lot sometimes. Yeah. Well, another player who might be dialing down the percentage slightly, though, as far as I know, he hasn't put a number on it, is Ronald Acuna Jr. at least when it comes to running, except that hasn't hurt him one bit because you know who the best hitter in baseball this year, minimum 70 plate appearances, or for that matter,

60 or 50 or 40 or 30, minimum 30 plate appearances. Wow, yeah. The second. Making the number smaller is definitely bolstering the case. Well, it kind of does, because the closer you are to the minimum, the cheaper it is, kind of.

Sure. So if you've managed to surpass that minimum and you're still at the top, then that's a little more impressive. But even 70 is still a fairly low number of played appearances. But the second best hitter in baseball is Ronald Acuna. After Aaron Judge with his 245 WRC+, which just never seems to dip very far.

He just, it's always there when I look somehow. He's maintaining that pace. That's just how good a hitter he is. But Ronald Cunha Jr. in his first 18 games back has a 199 WRC plus. He's hitting 353, 436, 647. He's hit six home runs. But I bring this up because Ben Clemens noted in his Friday piece about five things that he likes. One of them was that Ronald Acuna's back and he's playing really well. But Ben noted that he has not stolen a base yet.

And I hadn't noticed that he had yet to swipe a bag. And I was wondering, is this the end of Ronald Acuna, base dealer? And maybe it is, but this is not actually unprecedented. I looked up at baseball reference on the stat head tool, the longest game streaks of Ronald Acuna's career without a stolen base. And 18 is not his high, He has had three longer stretches.

So in 2019, he went 26 games without a steal. In 2018, he went 26 games without a steal. And last year, before he got hurt, he went 19 games without a steal. So this is something to monitor the next week or so of Ronald Acuna's games. If he steals a bag, then he'll be off this list. But if he doesn't, then he he may be in danger of having his longest stretch of

games ever without a stolen base. But his sprint speed is down also. And I don't know how much of that is multiple knee surgeries and he just doesn't quite have the wheels that he once had or he's just taking it a little bit easier which I would support because you just, you don't really need a Cunha to steal those bags.

And it was something that I was sort of surprised that he stole 73 in 2023, not only because it's hard when anyone steals 73, but cause he hit 41 home runs that year. And that was at the time, the greatest power speed season of all time until at least according to the power speed stat being surpassed by Otani last year. But often when you're that kind of power hitter, you just decide it's not really worth it to you to run that much because you might get hurt even if you can.

And sometimes by the time you guys develop that kind of power, they've slowed down a little, but also you don't want to take yourself out of games because your bat is too valuable. And it has been for Acuna. He's been one of the best hitters in baseball, so you don't want him to slide awkwardly and hurt himself. He could get hurt some other way, but you might as well minimize the risk because you really want him in there.

And he's, he's been playing good defense and Ben highlighted his arm and that hasn't seemed to lose anything. He's still got a gun out there. So I kind of will miss the power speed version of Acuna if he is gone, but I will also accept it. And I figured that was going to come at some point and he he's 27 now, his scoobles 28. It's all about maturing a little. Your prefrontal cortex is fully mature and you learn that,

okay, maybe I don't have to play at a hundred percent at all times. Jastism, he's 27 too. They've all reached a level of maturity. Maybe that's why that's a baseball player's prime often is 27-ish because you're still more or less at your physical peak, but maybe you've learned a little. Maybe you're a little wiser in addition to being a little older. It's such an obvious trade-off to make, right?

Because I don't want to diminish the value that stolen bases bring to the game. Like they have their entertainment value. They have also like real baseball value, to be clear. But they have their value, but they have very obvious risk that comes with them. And his bat is so valuable and his availability has been so inconsistent. It just seems like an obvious place to be like, look, do the base running stuff, right? It's not like stolen bases are the only way to add value on the base paths. But they are a way for you to like have a bang bang play that goes badly to slide into the bag in a funky way, you know, like do that. That's just an obvious place to be like, nah.

And again, it might be the sort of situation where the game state, but particularly the place you are in the season is gonna dictate some of this. Now, you know, the Braves fortunes are not particularly great at the moment and their odds of making the playoffs are dramatically diminished from what they were on opening day, even with the return of Acuna. But you know, if it was a playoff game, and it's going to make the difference between you winning or losing, we'll sure try to steal. But during the regular season,

particularly in a year that might end up just getting written off as sort of a lost campaign for the organization, like, keep yourself healthy, dude. Seems very straightforward. Yeah, because the first ACL tear happened on a defensive play. He made a leap. But the second one, last year's one, was on a stolen base attempt. So what that costs him and Atlanta to have him out for so long and all the arduous rehab

that he had to go through to get to this point, if I were him, I would certainly say, well, not going to do that so much anymore because I don't want to cost myself all that playing time and, and hurt my team potentially too. Yeah. I think that he's making the exact right calculus. So. Which is sad nonetheless, because, you know, it was exciting when, when he

showed off the wheels like that. It doesn't have to be a permanent posture though, right? Like, you know, if he is further away from the injury, depending on like, I'm sure that they are going to assess these things on a going forward basis. If the team is in a different spot, it just makes so little sense with them in fourth place in the division in a national league that's going to have a very hotly contested wild card. It's not like there's no shot, but like their

odds are long, you know, definitely don't get hurt now. Like, no, no, no, no. Definitely not. Yeah. Okay. Here's a question about an even younger player, Vladimir Grigorievich Jr. Yes. Briefly brought him up yesterday in the context of his former stance on not wanting to play for the Yankees, but that's not a question anymore because he's playing for the Blue Jays for a very long time. Forever Blue Jays, yeah. Yeah, so he signed the 14 year contract, 500 million.

This was just about two months ago in early April, have the returns thus far, and I'm not saying that we should judge the contracts based on a couple months of a 14 year contract. Oh boy. Just saying, do you think this is what the Blue Jays wanted out of him or would they be content if this is all they get out of him? So on the whole, this season, he's been, I

think, the 59th most valuable qualified hitter. And since the day he signed the contract, he's been the 45th most valuable qualified hitter. He has a 129 WRC plus on the season, 137 since the day the extension was announced. He's been good, I guess. He's been pretty good. But is there buyer's remorse or would there be buyer's remorse if this is just who he is? If he's just like a solidly above average hitter as a 26 year old when you figure it's probably not going to get better from here. Yeah, it would be disappointing. Like we can, we can be honest about these things. I, I would hazard a guess that they are not sort of making that assessment at this juncture, I'm sure that if you're doing the pie chart of potential Vladdy outcomes,

a 130 WRC plus season is definitely on that list. They know what that season looks like. It looks like his 2022. I will say that a difference between that year and this year is that there does seem like there is some underperformance on his part relative to what his expected Wobble would be, for instance. He's not hitting a ton of ground balls. His rate has dipped a little bit.

His average launch angle has come down. So is he optimizing his contact? I would suggest maybe not so much. So I think there's room to improve there in an obvious past to like tightening up that gap. Right. But no, like being the guy, a lot of money and he's producing well, but not like, you know, someone to rival, I don't know, Juan Soto or anything like that.

I think the problem is that, like, we talked about this when we were trying to assess, like, what is the... what is the best possible contract for this guy? Like, what should he be expecting? How realistic is it for him to be insisting on more than what the initial extension offer sounded like? And, like, the reality is that he's a first baseman. So you gotta hit more and he's not hitting poorly. He's just not hitting, I don't know that he's hitting $500 million worth,

but also like it's been two months. So I'm not like trying to really. It's been two months, but also it's been last season and it's been other you know, other seasons. So I guess, sure. I mean, last season he had a 165 to be RC+, right? Yes, it's true. Yeah. So yeah, he's been kind of inconsistent, I guess I would say. Yes, there's been a wax and Wayne to his career thus far. And some of that is like, one of those seasons was the pandemic year, but also, you know, we've seen...

Peter T. Lennox He was playing in a lot. Katie Farris Sure. Right. There's been a lot of, there's been a surprising amount of tumult for a guy who like we've just had a really good sense of in terms of his profile for a long time. So, and some of that stuff's out of his control. And some of it suggests like a need for adjustment. If I'm the Blue Jays, am I stoked that like his ISO is at a 143 compared to the 221 he ran last year? I would probably hazard you less than stoked, but I do wonder like when did

they start to go, ooh, but like his profile, his batting ball profile right now is interesting, right? Like he's maxing higher than he was, but he's like down a degree of launch angle. He's barreling a little more than he did last year. He's hard hit rates down. You know, it's just like, I don't know. Yeah. I don't know. It's never really been an optimal batted ball profile.

And, and that's the problem. That's the thing that would give me pause is that like he's pulled 12.7% of his batted balls in the year. And last year it was 12% too. And it's generally been quite low. And that is, I know people probably don't know offhand what a good percentage is, but like just on baseball savant, if I set some minimum, I have 336 qualifiers and Vladoito is 293rd of the 336 in terms of polled air ball percentage. And that's not good because those are the best kinds of batted balls.

I mean, just in terms of your ROI on those, like you're hitting the most power, you're getting the most bang for your buck, you're doing the most damage on that type of batted ball. And he just has never really hit them that well. And sometimes he's just pounding the ball into the ground or other times he's just it's not really elevating in that direction. And if that is going to continue to be the case, then it sort of lowers his offensive ceiling. And his ceiling has been quite high in stretches before, but it's just maybe that's just the hitter he is for the most part. And maybe as time goes on and he gets older, the highs are a little lower, the lows are a little lower. I don't know.

It's just, I don't know that the profile supports him being one of the best hitters in baseball consistently, which is kind of what you're paying him to be as a first baseman and not a fast guy. Obviously someone who's not helping you on the bases and is, well, it depends on the season. Maybe he's not a terrible first baseman, but I wouldn't say he's great over there.

So yeah, I don't know. It's just, it's sort of unspectacular. I guess he hasn't changed my outlook on him that much in the two months since he signed this extension, but my outlook was already, hmm, I don't know. You know, he's been he's been out ward by Ernie Clement this season and also Alejandro Kirk, who signed an extension of his own. But yeah, you're kind of paying him to be sure. But Alejandro Kirk's a catcher. So yes, of course. Yeah. And Alejandro Kirk is great. I was, I don't know if I was leading the charge, but I was one of the people like imploring

people to chill about whether Alejandro Kirk was going to be okay. Like I have confidence in Alejandro Kirk, but you just have like a big, you get a big lift from that positional adjustment and he's a good defender. So you know, he lifts, he lifts himself. Yes. But also you get a big lift from that positional adjustment, and he's a good defender, so he lifts himself. Yes. But also, you get a lift. Anyway, I'm pulling for him. I enjoy, even if he's not pulling often enough,

I'd like to see him do that because- Zynga. Yeah, it's not that I want the Bujays to get their money's worth, I just want to enjoy Good Vlad. And Good Vlad has been just sort of a sporadic site. Precious when we see it. But yeah, I just, I don't know. If like maybe, he's almost 4,000 plate appearances

into his career. Like this maybe is just who he is, which is like a solidly above average bat who's not giving you much else and probably will decline in other phases of his game as time goes on. So it's like, you signed someone for that long, for that much money,

you kind of want them to be at a high enough point when that happens that they can descend from that mountaintop and still be valuable for a long time and have a long tail of productivity. And I don't know that you could necessarily forecast that for him right now. So I don't know, it's kind of concerning, but also Rogers has a lot of money and he likes being there and people like having him there and they didn't have a whole lot of other people under contract long-term. So I don't know what I'm fretting about. I guess it's just mostly that I'd like him to be a bit better.

I don't care so much about the margins for Roger's communications. Yeah. I think the takeaway for everyone here is that you are a Vlad Truther and you think he sucks. No, I'm kidding. I think that that's fair. We don't want to overreact, but we also don't want to like underreact to a resume that is rounding into a fullness.

I've waited a really long time in our episode to ask you this, but did you watch Jacob Mizarowski's debut? Ooh, yeah. Yeah. Did you feel a little silly for not calling him Jacob Mizarowski the first time that you said his name?

I did. Yeah. I was taking my cue from a broadcaster who had it wrong, but nonetheless. No, they got it wrong. They got it wrong. Yes. It is definitely Mizarowski. He's such a beanpole.

He's a beanpole, yeah. He's so like Mr. Stretch. He's Mr. Fantastic. He is Stretch Armstrong. He's so tall and thin. He's quite tall. And yet he's so, he's so, he's so, he's so, he's so, he's so, he's so, he's so, he's so, he's so, he's so, he's so, he's so, he's so, he's so, he's so, he's so, he's so, he's

so, he's so, he's so, he's so, he's so, he's so, he's so, he's so, he's so, he's so, he's so, he's so, he's so, he's so, he's so, he's so, he's so, he's so, he's so, he's so, he's so, he's so, he's so, he's so, he's so, he's so, he's so, he's so, he's so, he's so, he's so, he's so, he's so, he's so, he's so, he's so, he's so, he's so, he's so, he's so, he's so, he's so, he's so, he's so, he's so, he's so, he's so, he's so, he's so, he's so, he's so like Mr. Stretch. He's Mr. Fantastic. He is a stretch Armstrong. He's so tall and thin. And yet he's firing it in there, triple digits very consistently, unlike Derek Schubel. And it worked. I don't know whether you'd say he was effectively wild in that first start,

but he walked four and struck out five and obviously didn't allow a hit before he rolled his ankle a little and was removed. But yeah, it was pretty dominant. Yep. It was pretty impressive. I was briefly terrified by Craig Goldstein who, um, messaged me and said,

Oh no, Ms. And I was like, he blew out. God damn it. But no, it was just the ankle. It wasn't Craig's fault. He was led astray by a concerned post on Blue Sky. It was great. It was so fascinating because you watch him and you're like, oh, I see where the fastball shape

isn't always optimal. And then sometimes it's just like, it doesn't matter. Did you see the t-shirts that his family was wearing? No. They were wearing t-shirts, was wearing, his family was wearing t-shirts that his family was wearing? No. They were wearing t-shirts, was wearing, his family was wearing t-shirts his family was wearing. No, that's right, was wearing his family. His family were wearing his family was...

T-shirts, the subject verb agreement, I guess should be the t-shirts. But they weren't wearing themselves. The family was the one wearing them. The family was. Oh boy. Editors. Anyway. Talking about subject-verb agreement live on a podcast.

Their shirts said, here for the Ms. which I thought was delightful. And then I came to find out, is that a wrestling thing, Ben? Is that a wrestling reference? It is. I don't like that. Yeah. I'm not a... I love how I was like so careful about my banana ball take and then I'm just out here being like wrestling sucks, let us pretend. If you like it

it's fine. I don't and I don't understand it either and I'm not asking for an explanation. Evidence has been presented, arguments have been, and I haven't found any of them compelling to this juncture in my life, and I'm gonna be 39 so soon. So you don't have to write in to say that, but I wish that they had been about The Wiz, you know? And they're not, they're not about the musical The Wiz, which is a delight. Who's the wrestler?

Is he called The Miz? Is it short for, but it's not short for Mizorowski. No, it's not. But it's, I really like, I guess there's some similarities between musicals and wrestling, maybe. Right, except one acknowledges the pretend nature of the thing and the other is a little bit more defensive about it, you know?

Yeah. I'm just saying, some of you, you can like your stories, just admit it's a story. It's fine. I mean, most people do. It depends on whether you're a mark or a smark, which is a smart mark, which is you're aware that it's scripted. It's all a work, but you're okay with it. You can't be a smart mark. If you're a mark, you're inherently unow- It's fine. Everyone gets to have their little vernacular, their little vocabulary for their story. Yeah, I appreciate wrestling. It balances out.

It's fine. You can like it. I think it's not for me. You know, that's what I'll say about wrestling. It's not for me. The wrestling Ms is also a surname. It's just a shortening of that as well. So same idea. What's that person's name? It's, I don't know how you pronounce it because I never hear him say it, but it's Mizanin, Mizanin, Mizanin probably. Mizanin. Mizanin. M-I-Z-A-N-I-N. Well, good for him.

Probably Miz because he shortened it to Miz and not the Miz. So the brewer's Miz, he occupied a spot in the brewer's rotation that perhaps formerly belonged to Aaron Savalli and Aaron Aaron Savali requested a trade. He didn't demand a trade, which I think it's a distinction worth pointing out because demanding, I mean, it sounds so presumptuous. It sounds so insistent. He just requested, he politely asked the brewers to trade him because the brewer's rotation was full up and he was shifted to the bullpen

and he didn't want to be a reliever. I guess he liked starting and also he is going to be a free agent at the end of the season, didn't want to hurt his market. And I was surprised by a number of things when I saw this headline that Aaron Savalli had requested a trade. Number one was that Aaron Savalli was on the brewers,

which had slipped my mind at least for the moment. I know that that happened last year and they traded for him. So I probably was aware of it at some point, but had forgotten he was injured for most of the season and then came back. So that was number one. And then number two thing that sort of surprised me was that the Brewers would have so much

starting pitching depth that they would be demoting him or that he would not see a way to get back into their rotation because that wasn't the case a couple months ago when they had a bunch of guys hurt, including Savalli and we were talking about the Brewers' rotation weakness and it wasn't a strength of theirs exactly last season either, but it it seemed quite thin and then since then They have gotten a bunch of guys Including the Miz and suddenly yeah, actually they do have a pretty solid rotation and they have just managed to Create that out of thin air seemingly at least to me

So they are now 15th and starting pitcher war to date this season. And also they are 20th in projected, which doesn't sound so great, but like they traded for Quinn Priester in April because they were kind of in dire straits from a rotation perspective. And so now they've had Priester who's been good for them,

Chad Patrick, who is a rookie of the year had Priester who's been good for them, Chad Patrick, who is a rookie of the year contender, he's been good. And then Peralta is always solid. And Quintana has been a good pickup for them. And now The Miz has arrived and Brandon Woodruff and Nestor Cortez are coming back in theory, sometime soonish. And so they actually have rotation depth and Logan Henderson was good for a while. And then he got sent down, like they didn't have room for him either. Like suddenly they've just rebuilt a rotation

after uncharacteristically not really having one. It was weird. It was like they were powered more by the bats than the rotation. It was just not what I was used to seeing from Milwaukee. And now suddenly they've got a decent rotation at least because I don't know if I'd say saying the praises but at least acknowledge that the White Sox rotation

isn't terrible recently. Sure. And they're not, they're 21st in starting pitcher war this year, which is a victory for them, although 28th in projected rest of season war, even with Aaron Savalli now. So I guess this was a good move for Aaron Savalli is what I'm saying, but I'm surprised and impressed

by how quickly the Brewers have developed rotation depth and redundancy. So like on the one hand, you're right. It is a good move because he gets to start. Yeah. It doesn't feel, I don't want to ascribe motivation, right? I'm not trying to say anything. I mean, I am, this is a podcast, but like kind of sucks, right?

So I'm leaving on the white socks. To go from a contender to the white socks, I guess. Yeah, like. It does suggest what your priorities are. Like, I guess you can't claim that your number one goal is winning a ring, is being with a winner, making the playoffs. Well, yeah. Not, which is okay.

I think, you know, look out for number one. I get it. To my knowledge, maybe I'm wrong, there hasn't been any supporting to suggest that he said, please trade me to the White Sox, right? He just said, please trade me. And they were like, you be careful. What do you wish for? Meanwhile, what a day for Andrew Vaughn. You know, you're just like, wow, look at me. I'm over here now. I'm over here doing this.

Wow. I will be upset if he takes playing time from my minor league free agent draftee, Jake Bowers, who has been quite capable. But Vaughn, who was already in the minors with the White Sox, he's still in the minors, at least for now. He's with Nashville for Milwaukee. So I selfishly don't want him to cut into Bowers' playing time. And I'm not sure that he's better than Bowers or Hoskins. Maybe it's- I'm not sure that he's better than Bowers or Hoskins. I don't think that he is. No, maybe it's insurance because he'll be under contract next year and Hoskins won't. Won't be.

Is it really insurance if it's Andrew Vaughn though? I mean, he has a... Don't you need insurance for Andrew Vaughn? I know that the batted ball stats were better than the surface stats at the start of the season, but we have a track record here. We know who Andrew Vaughn is, right? And it's like, Andrew Vaughn's over here like, Oh God, I wish I had Vladdy's freaking stats. I mean, Vladdy's stats aren't bad and Andrew Vaughn's are.

Man, it's, I don't care for that. It know? It's not for me, that profile, it's never been for me. The good news for Aaron Savalli is one, he got his wish. It's always nice to get what you want, even if it's tinged with a little bit of, huh. I guess I am a white sock now. You get to stay in the Midwest, so the move is easier. And also here's the thing, if Aaron Savalli is good, he's not going to

be a white sock for very long. Yeah. Maybe not even for more than a month and a half. Right. It could just be a real short stint. Real, real short stint. And we don't know, you know, what the vibe was like for him. I, again, I don't want to like attribute, I don't want to say that the brewer's like, fine, we'll trade you. Get out of here. You get to go be a white sock. No, it seems to have been civil. It happened civilly for Savalli. Yeah. I also think that it's like, you're Aaron Savalli. You probably know what you

are. It's been a minute since like, since 2023. Been multiple years, both in a literal sense, but also in terms of like the distance from your last reasonably good season. You know, he was like a two and a half win player in 120 or so innings. He had like, you know, he had a FIP and an ERA in the mid threes. Like, oh, that's a, that's a useful big leader. Everybody wants that guy on their staff, you know, and they want, they want that guy on their stuff and in their rotation. And lately it's been like, you're pitching like a lung reliever, you know, and they want, they want that guy on their stuff and in their rotation. And lately it's been like,

you're pitching like a lung reliever, you know? Yeah, exactly. And I think I would look at things this way too. I think if it came down to, hey, I have a free agent windfall waiting for me, relatively speaking. I mean- Or just I wanna pitch more.

I just want more playing time. I think if I were a player, I would prioritize the job security over the team. Success. I don't know what that says about me and my priorities, but it's like when Miguel Vargas went to the White Sox last year and there was the photo of sad Miguel Vargas. And then he looked so sad then he looked so sad and then he didn't play well, but now he's playing well and he has himself a job. And if he'd stayed with the Dodgers, who knows if he would have had to fight for playing time

and how he would have had to just scratch and claw to get exposure. And so I'd say, look, if you can establish yourself as a good player, you'll have the option to pick a destination later. Right. Now, I don't know if Aaron Savalli is at the point where, well, he'll have a chance to pick a destination as soon as this off season at the very latest. And so I say, go establish your value,

become a better player, and then hopefully down the road, either things just happen to line up so that you can win or you can prioritize that at some point. Maybe it's late in your career and you say, I haven't won yet. I want to win, but I've made my money. I've made my mark. And now I can go get a ring or at least try to chase one. I think that is how I would approach it. Like if I had to choose, especially if I were a youngish player, I have Savalli's what, 30? I mean, he's not old.

Or if I were Miguel Vargas, I guess Savalli actually, I guess he requested the trade on his birthday because he just turned 30 on Thursday. So happy birthday, Savalli. You got your rotation spot back with the white socks, but still. so I don't think it's quite a monkey's paw curling. I think this is what he wanted. He must have known that, well, he's Aaron Savalee. He wasn't going to get a rotation spot with a great team probably.

Then again, the Dodgers would probably take him at this point. It depends on the great team and the state of your rotation. But yeah, I would- However, they and the state of your rotation. But yeah, I would say they have no longer low leverage Ben. Yes, right. But earlier in my career, I would say, let me establish myself and get mine. And then hopefully I can go get a ring and play with a winner later in my career. Sure. I think the tricky thing about that line of thinking, which I think is the right one, is that like the reason he had an opportunity to be sort of indispensable to the Brewers and he just didn't pitch that way, right?

Like the reason that he is in the spot he's in is in part because sure, their rotation has sort of rounded into a form and is more robust than we anticipated coming into the season. And part of it is also that like, you know, he's pitched to like any area in the fours and he has a fit in the fives and like, you know, there's there's that but maybe with more run, he can do something else, you know, and you're still even if you're a kind of mid starter, not a miss starter, that, you know, a miss starter, that gets you more than Andrew on. Should be better than mid. Yeah.

But you know, even a mid starter has value in a big league rotation. He hasn't quite been that he's been worse than that a little bit worse than that, and certainly worse than their available options. So, you know, but yeah, it's like, happy birthday, all the way back. Yeah. What do you call a trade like that? It's a trade like a one for one

with some money involved, cash also, but like, what do you call that? Because it's not really a challenge trade. No, it's not. I mean, both of these guys have not been that great. It's more like a change of scenery trade, like a mutual change of scenery trade. Yes. That's a nicer way to put it because what people used to call trades like this is like, your trash for my garbage. But that's so rude because like they're not playing well,

either of them and Andravan isn't even in the majors. But like, he's a human person with feelings. And also, you know, they've been big leaguers are not like, they have the value both in their profession and as humans. So we've tried to move away from that. I like the mutual challenge trade is like a good mutual change of scenery trade is like a good that's nice That's um, and it tells you what you what you need to know, right? It's not dishonest. It's just graceful Yeah Well, we've talked about a few players here who have batted ball stats that seem better than their actual stats And that's actually the case league wide to this point. The league wide

expected weighted on base average is 326. The actual is 314. That may be because it's still the first half of the season and sometimes they recenter the expected stats model either at mid season or at the end of the season, because it's a different year and conditions are a little different. And so it could be that or it could be just the models based on a full season and early in the season, the weather's not quite as warm and the ball doesn't fly quite as far, et cetera. But it could also be that the ball is slightly differently. Now, I almost brought this up on our previous pod, except that I knew I had to save some time

for stat blasting, so I tabled it. But I was going to basically bring up the fact that the ball seems to be behaving a little bit differently, but no one really cares, including me, frankly. But it turns out that someone cares. Evan Drellick and you know, Sarah's care differently, but no one really cares, including me, frankly. But it turns out that someone cares. Evan Drelik and Inosaris Care, they wrote about this for the Athletic on Friday. And they were not the first to note this.

I've seen it floating around. I think Joshian wrote about this earlier this season, but everyone can just eyeball the drag on the baseball because there is a public baseball savant page now that you can go to that just shows the day by day drag on average and goes back to 2015 or 2016 or whatever. And so it was clear that this year, the drag has been a bit higher and not just higher on average, but also like even the lower

drag days would have been a high drag day last year. It certainly seems as if the baseline has shifted there. And so, you know, and Evan wrote about this and essentially fly balls are flying And essentially, fly balls are flying three to four feet shorter, given equivalent launch characteristics and everything. They're not carrying quite as well. And this holds, Alan Nathan, the physics of baseball expert, is quoted in the piece. And even if you adjust for the weather and all of that, it's still maybe three feet short of where it was last year. And I don't care.

And I guess I don't care. Maybe it's just a little bit of fatigue with this story because we've been through this a bunch. Not so much in the past few seasons where it's been fairly stable, at least the drag has been. Of course, baseball MLB did intentionally deaden the baseball and sent a memo saying that they were doing that and it was reported and we knew and that happened. But the drag at least, as opposed to the coefficient of restitution, the bounciness of the ball. The drag has been fairly stable now since

2020 or so. And that's different from when, you know, 2016 and then it was down in 2017, and then it was way down in 2019, and then it was back up again in 2020. And this correlated with the extreme home run rates of 2017 and 2019, especially. And sometimes it seemed to fluctuate within seasons or from the regular season to the playoffs. And it was just very jarring and we never knew how far balls were going to carry. And it was frustrating. And MLB, why can't you get a handle

on the most important piece of equipment here? And then of course, MLB kind of denied that anything had changed for years. And then finally they acknowledged that, okay, the seams changed. And they do acknowledge in this article that what the stats suggest is true. They're not denying that fly balls are carrying

a little less far this year. They say they don't know why, they say everything's within specs, they haven't intentionally changed anything, could be another seam height or width subtle difference. And it's just manifesting itself in shorter flies. Yeah. There's a quote in, you know, an Evans article

from friend of the show, Brent Rooker, who says, I've definitely hit some balls that I thought we're going to have a chance. And they've been caught against the wall. Maybe the extra drag is why my expected slugging percentage is a hundred points higher than my actual slugging percentage. It was just a very Brent Rooker kind of quotes. Yeah. Not surprised that he is paying attention to that, but I don't know. I'm just,

I'm not as interested in this story anymore. Maybe it's just that we've been through variations of it too many times. Yeah. I think that the thing is, you know, we spend our whole lives trying to know ourselves. I suppose the ball is the same, but at a certain point it's like, don't you feel like you're rounding into form here? I'm anthropomorphizing the ball. I'm making it a person with a personality.

We've discussed that hypothetical in the past. I know. The living baseball. I still feel so bad for those balls. I guess I remain interested in the story because it seems important to have an eye on sort of how the ball is behaving. I remain interested in the story insofar as it indicates like an ability to exercise control and consistency over a manufacturing process

that the league has never had more input into because they own Rawlings. But beyond that, I think I am only ever really curious if it's a really big swing year to year, right? Part of what made the prior what kind of ball are we getting story so interesting is that it resulted in quite significant changes to the offensive environment. And it feels like we're kind of within the range of what I would consider acceptable and normal year to year variation, right? Because it is it's a hand stitch thing.

It's gonna be you know what I mean? Like this doesn't strike me as like, I think I don't mean to diminish the story. I think it's useful for us to, again, to have our sort of finger on the pulse here and, and doing that work is necessary. But I don't feel fussed. There have been times in the past where I have felt fussed, right? Where it's like, what kind of, you know, because like it matters in terms of pitchers expectations, it matters in terms of pitchers' expectations. It matters in terms of roster construction.

These things can have an outsized impact on the general run squaring environment. And I prefer for the forces at play there to be driven by the players and not by the equipment. So I think it's a relevant and important thing to keep hold of. But this seems fine, right? Yeah, it's a relevant and important thing to keep hold of, but this seems

fine, right? Yeah, it's not that big a difference. I think the number one reason why I care less about this than I have in the past, and this is acknowledged in the story and MLB says this in the story also, is that the results haven't really changed. League-wide offense is essentially the same as it was last year. I mean, accounting for the seasonality and the fact that we're not even halfway through the season, the runs per game essentially the same, the home runs per game essentially the same,

slugging percentage essentially the same. Everything is basically the same. And I guess it's kind of interesting, okay, if the ball is not carrying quite as well, why is everything the same. And I guess it's kind of interesting, okay, if the ball is not carrying quite as well, why is everything the same nonetheless? And maybe it's just that batters are hitting the ball a little harder, and there could be other things that have changed so that this all is just kind of a wash.

But ultimately, nothing has actually changed about the league's offensive profile, like, scoring, everything is essentially the same. And so, this kind of fluctuation, I would imagine, has happened throughout history. And we just didn't know it because we couldn't track the exact precise distance of fly balls hit with certain launch characteristics. I'm sure that this is not historically anomalous for the fly balls to travel three or four feet shorter one season.

Like if we had this data for every season in major league history, there'd probably be a lot of fluctuations of this size. It's just that now we have the stats and we have this public drag leaderboard. And so we tend to hyper fixate on these things. But if ultimately it's not actually causing some huge uptick in home runs or scoring or anything really,

like you wouldn't know that there was any difference just based on looking at the league average slash line or run scoring, then it's just kind of a yawn for me. Right, yeah. But the only way we know those things is if we look. Yeah, and I'm glad that this information is out there. I'm glad that MLB put that drag graphic up on its website. I think it's good to have some level of transparency there

because that's not a stat that we could easily discern otherwise. And so it's nice that it's just right out there in public and that we could pick up on this change because of an MLB-sponsored run site. And they're not trying to deny what their very own numbers and graphics show here. But yeah, it's just overall, just not that big a difference. So having publicized this, maybe next time you see a ball that dies at the wall or next time you see Denzel Clark make an incredible catch, you might say to yourself, oh, that would have been out of even Denzel Clark's reach last season.

Maybe, maybe that is true, but on the whole, it just, it hasn't made enough of a difference for me to get exercised about it. But it is good to monitor and to figure out why it changed because if you don't know why some subtle change happened, well, maybe some less subtle change could happen again. And there's precedent for that. And you know, if the seams height or width changed

this season unpredictably and uncontrollably, well, you want to try to get a handle on that so that it doesn't change in a way that is much more noticeable and that does really cause you to question the integrity of the game. And, of course, MLB, I'm sure, is concerned about its betting partners and

how they feel about equipment unpredictably changing. It is a weird, I don't want to say benefit, but side effects of the whole thing of the whole thing where they feel a greater, more pressing need to have predictability and transparency around this stuff because even if other parties, other interested parties, players, front offices, fans, aren't compelling enough, they don't want to get a weird call from MGM. They don't want to be, I don't want to say that MGM is a mob owned business. That seems unlikely, but doesn't some part of you always wonder like, is there a guy on the other end of the phone who knows a guy? Now, I'm going to, and I were having a debate the other day, debate is too strong conversation

about what branch of the mob would be most afraid of. I asserted that I'm more concerned about Midwestern mobsters than East Coast mobsters because the winter hardens them, you know? It introduces a different kind of dynamic to the whole situation. This was in the context of a very different conversation, but you know, it was a recent one, so it's top of mind. Jared Ranere I saw Fargo season two, my favorite season in Fargo. So two, my favorite season. Sure. So yeah, I get it. I haven't watched that yet.

Yeah. Did I tell you I officially gave up on the last of us? It's official. You can spoil the end. I don't care. Well, I won't, but you're not alone. I don't think. Yeah.

I was just like, I know what happened to Joel and now it can be done. I agree with you that it is a, it is a refreshing posture on the league's part because one of the things that was sort of the most maddening about that whole discourse was that the league was just so weird and squirrely about it, you know? And I think the gambling part of it might have been part of why they were weird and squirrely about it. But it was just very frustrating. You felt like you were being gaslit by the commissioner because it's like, so hey, like I know what you're saying, but also like D strange Gordon is hitting home runs and like not just the one. So what are you talking about buddy? Like what do you

mean the balls? That's a friend. But look at this string being of a man with like nine homers or whatever. Like, so having to not be told, um told that nothing is happening when indeed something is very obviously happening, those nice, you know, it's a good, it's a good change. Now I'm sure there's some out there who are like, are they telling the truth? But others can sort of back calculate that stuff. So I imagine they have incentive to play it straight. Yeah. Okay. Well, it is time for our weekly hypothetical, sponsored by our partners at

What If Sports, who have created a special landing page just for us and for you Effectively Wild listeners, whatifsports.com slash Effectively Wild. Would love to hear from anyone who has taken What If Sports up on this offer. We have heard from some long time existing What If Sports players, but if you have explored What If Sports for the first time as a result of this sponsorship and if you have found that rewarding, please let us know. Be happy to hear it. But if you do go to whatifsports.com slash effectively wild. You can sign up for one single American dollar,

which has less and less purchasing power all the time. And yet the $1 deal is still the same, unchanged from the start of this sponsorship. You get $1 for your first season of What If Sports Hardball Dynasty or What If Sports Sim League Baseball. And you can do a full franchise mode and manage your team for multiple seasons. You can create a melange of players from different eras and different teams and

pit them against each other and have them play with each other and see what happens in the vein of many a classic, effectively wild, hypothetical, make it real with What If Sports. That's not a bad tagline. I just came up with that on the spot. They can have it for free if they want, but whatifsports.com slash effectively wild link in the show page as usual.

Okay, so this week's What If comes to us from listener Ryan, who writes, had a quick hypothetical for you related to the MLB draft, which is coming quite soon. Take any draft class. Now you have the ability to add one player to this class. For this one player, you can guarantee with exact accuracy how much career war they will accrue.

What do you think the minimum war for this player would have to be to get them drafted one-one, first overall? Note that there isn't any guarantee that the war will come for the drafting team or how many seasons that war will be spread across in case of injury. It's a pretty easy task to find the average amount of war for a number one overall pick,

but would something just above that average be enough to get the team picking first to pass over someone of possibly higher potential? And Ryan or Ryan D as he notes, yeah, it's not hard to look up the overall record here of number one picks. And basically 20 war is what you're going to get historically out of a number one overall pick.

That's the mean. It's a little lower if you go with the median. If we look at every draft since 1965, then we get a total of 1183 war produced by number one picks. And that's over, I think, 60 drafts. And if you just do the division, then you get 19.7. But that'll go up a little bit because Travis Bazzana, he hasn't even made his major league debut yet. Paul Skeen's Jackson Holiday,

they're gonna add to their war total. Henry Davis, well, I don't know. Henry Davis catching strays for no reason. Many of those active players from recent years, they're going to add to those totals and bring up the average a bit. But if we just look from the first draft, 1965 through 2008, when Tim Beckham was the number one overall pick or the year before that was David Price. So so that's you know, we can draw the line there because those players are are done already. Then 952 total war over I think 44 drafts. It's like 21.6 war is the average outcome or expectation for a number one pick.

And obviously there have been a few guys who just didn't make the majors at all. So they're not adding to that cumulative total. And, you know, if you include some zeros for them, then that drags down the average slightly. So, you know, 20, 20-ish. It's a good career. It's a good career. It's a solid player, but it's not what you hope for from a number one overall pick. It's not the dream.

And so how high does that number have to go when you're dreaming of a Brace Harper or a Joe Mauer or an Alex Rodriguez or a Ken Griffey Jr. or a Chipper Jones, the best Rodriguez or a Ken Griffey Jr. or a Chipper Jones, the best of the best number one overall picks. And maybe teams are getting better at this on the whole over time. But how high would you have to set that number for a team to bite and pass up the best case scenario to settle for that guaranteed war. Yeah.

It's tricky because like the draft, so we ascribe all this potential to the first overall pick and, and there are definitely a lot of years where that is true and like, that's the best guy, right? Like, but then there are some years where like, that's a guy who's willing to cut an under slot deal so that you can do other stuff in the draft. And so it's like not, it's not a perfect indicator. Although like I don't want to overstate the case, right. But you did mention Henry Davis.

So like, he's a prime example, right? Yeah. Overall, I think number one picks have been not quite twice as valuable as number two overall picks, but close. It's like 20-war to 13-ish war, something like that. It's a big drop off, bigger than the drop off between any other two picks. So it falls off quickly once you get out of the top 10, let's say. But number one, it is in a class of its own.

And some of this too is going to be determined, the answer might change year to year, right? So like not every draft class is created equal. And often the places that that difference is manifesting, it might not be who's the consensus number one. Like maybe even in a weaker class, you have a consensus number one pick where it's like, no, that's the dude and he's a dude. But that's not always true, right?

Sometimes like you will acknowledge even at the top that you have a down year relative to others. So you know, in a down year, maybe the answer is like, you said it's 20 wars, the average, right? Yeah, roughly 20. So like maybe in a down year, you take a little bit of a haircut on that. You take it under even, because if it's guaranteed,

you're like, well, this is a bad class. So like, that's very exciting. But I think it would sit right around the average. Don't you think? I think you'd probably have to sweeten the offer a little just to get teams to give up on the dream, the ceiling, the potential of the superstar, because that's what you want. Unless it is a case where you are saving some money

so that you can spend on someone later down in this slot era, then you're always dreaming of the franchise cornerstone that you're going to, you know? And so to pass up that potential entirely, you save yourself the downside risk, which is, it's good. I mean, it's bad to get nothing out of that pick and it's, it's bad for the team. It's bad for you, whoever's doing that draft, the pro scouting coordinator, the GM, that is something that

can come back to haunt you if you completely squander a number one pick. So you're sort of preserving your job security to some extent. But I don't know, it's like when you have that number one pick, there's like a loss aversion that comes into play there, I think, where you just, you feel the pain of the loss more than you feel the pleasure of an equivalent gain. And so, you know, people hate losing money more than they like gaining the same amount of money. And so you take away the upside. That hurts, I think, maybe more than also taking away the downside. At least I think that's how a lot of teams would look at it, rationally or not. It's like the

median number one overall pick in terms of career wars, like, I don't know, Jeff Burroughs, Bob Horner, Jeff King, Ben MacDonald, Phil Nevin, Pat Burrill, Pat the Bat. Like that's, that's the standard expectation, but that's, that's not what anyone's thinking when they're calling that name on draft day. They're not thinking, ah, you know, maybe he'll turn out to be Pat the Bat Burrill. Like they're, they're dreaming on Chipper. They're dreaming on A-Rod. They're dreaming on chipper. They're dreaming on a rod. They're dreaming on skins.

So I think, I think you'd have to go up to at least like 30, you know, like Garrett Cole was the number one pick. Carlos Correa. Yeah. Also Mark Appel, also Brady Aiken. It's just, yeah, it's, it's tough it's tough, but I think if you could guarantee 30, but as Ryan said, of that 30, you're getting maybe six guaranteed

if you wanna keep that guy once he's under team control, but that might mean that you're forgoing half of that war, if not more, if it turns out to be a pretty good player with a long career. So you're not actually walking away with that lump sum. You're just getting a portion of that lump sum. It's like after taxes, the lump sum significantly diminished. So it's sort of similar. So lottery tickets so unreliable.

Yeah, it does depend on the class and just how highly touted the number one pick is, but I think you'd have to guarantee at least 30 to get someone to bite. And even then people might say, ah, roll the dice, you know? Don't play it super safe with your number one pick. Have conviction. with your number one pick. Cause, cause, cause getting a 30 war guy even, right. That that's not going to be the foundation of a great team on his own. I mean, that's, that's a good supporting player, I guess.

Like if you have a few of those guys, that's good. You don't necessarily have to have a hall of fame or maybe, but if you have a few of those guys who were kind of Hall of very good range, then that's sufficient. But getting one of those guys, that's not transformative. And you're dreaming of truly transformative, even if you're kind of alighting the downside. It's so funny to look at some of these like year to year career swings into your point like you know some of these careers are in process still and others aren't but it's like you go you have Mauer right in 2001 and This piece that I'm looking at on MLB.com is using BRF4 so like that's yeah, it's something to keep in mind

But it's like yeah 55.2 and then the next year is But it's like, yeah, fifty five point two. And then the next year is Brian Bollington and then Delman Young and then Matt Bush. And like the reason that these careers went off the rails are like they differ. Right. But yeah, it's just like some of these, I don't know, it would be interesting to to see how in the hypothetical universe where we are, we are executing this, I would want to time travel within our hypothetical to every different year and see how the answers would change. Because the other thing that is going to impact the answer a team gives is not just what does the depth look like, what is the quality of the class, it's not just like, oh, am I able

to save by taking this deal and maybe working other stuff further down in the class because It's not just like, oh, am I able to save by like taking this deal and maybe working other stuff further down in the class because it could go under slot. It's not just that stuff. It's also like, what is the confidence you have in your eval? You know, like what is the and what information is available to you? And how certain do you feel about it? And I think that that would probably change too, because like we've never known more about these guys, especially the college guys. And increasingly, that's who we're seeing, right? Like more and more every year, just like this, this trend toward college. And that's been true at the top for a while. But like, it's, you know, I think just you have

so much more information about the player, not only because of track record, but because of like, the kind of competition they're facing. How many times are just in front of a track man, right? Like it's it's not like there's no mystery in the draft and it's not like there aren't bad picks in the draft and it's not like it's a fully figured out exercise and maybe they'll let them trade picks and then the whole thing is going to shift around. But as it's currently constituted, we've just like never known more about these

guys than we do right now and that I can imagine Leading to much better choices, but I can also imagine that introducing hubris like maybe you're overconfident in your email maybe you're not willing to take a flyer on a guy who you look back and go like well, I should have I Should have been focusing more on projection than I should have been focusing on like track record. Like it's just, it's still, it's so fascinating. So I would love to know like, does a farm director, does an amateur director in, you know, 96 answer that question differently? I'm just picking a year at random.

I'm not trying to like say anything about that particular year's draft class, but like, did they say something different than someone in 2006, then in 2016, then they will next year? Like, it's just, it's fascinating. It's a good question, I like it. It is, yeah. Okay, here's one about a player who did not get drafted first overall, famously, infamously. Subject line, the best Mike.

I knew exactly what email this was gonna be when you said that. Yeah, this comes to us from Lauren, who says, I had a sad realization when looking at the list of players with the most war after their age 25 season. I was trying to convince a friend that Juan Soto is destined for Cooperstown and I saw at the very top Mike Trout with over 55 war at that age. That got me thinking about his injuries and what had stolen from us as baseball aficionados, and I came to realization, not only will Trout not challenge Babe Ruth for the all-time war record, at this point, I don't think he'll even have the all-time war record for players named Mike.

Mike Schmitz, 106.5, being the top. Am I giving up hope too soon? Or is the former best baseball player ever no longer even the best player with his name? Wow. Yeah. Ah, well. Oh, Lauren, why? Why did you force us to contemplate this? Wow.

I selected the question, so I'm culpable too. It's really quite rude, you know, when you think about it, when you're trying to. Yeah. I will say that even if Mike Trout ended up with a career war below Mike Schmitz, that doesn't preclude Mike Trout being the best Mike. I think there's something to peak value versus career.

And the fact that Trout was off to such a spectacular start and had such a long period of being by far the best player in baseball and the best player ever through that age. And so that carries some weight too, if they ended up with, with close enough career wars that you could maybe give Trout the edge just for his superlative play before the injury is set in. So I don't think that we determine best Mike solely by who ends up with the higher career war, though. So it's a factor.

And I think, look, I want to be careful what I say about this because I'm not asserting anything specific here, right? But I also think obviously Mike Schmidt was a quite good hitter, very good hitter, right? He also is driving a good bit of value from his defense, which was also quite good, but like maybe there's maybe there's squishiness, you know, maybe there's like a little like we shouldn't be like so overconfident, you know, because like, you know, some of his defense, but it wasn't

yeah, it wasn't like it was all that. And also, like, it wasn't like it's not like anyone's out here being like sucked actually in the field, you know, people aren't saying that in the booth. here being like sucked actually in the field, you know, people aren't saying that in the booth. Well, that's, yes, there probably be many mics in that conversation. Not at the top of that particular leaderboard for me, let's put it that way. But man, what a player he was though. Great player. Yeah. Well, I think the good sign for Trout would be that through the same age, he's ahead of Schmidt's pace. Sure.

Yes. Schmidt through age 33, he had 80.8 war and Mike Trout has 85.9 and his age 33 season is ongoing. So he could add to that total. So that's the good news. He's ahead of Schmidt's pace. If you're rooting for trout in this race, the bad news would be that Mike Schmidt

had himself some fantastic seasons immediately after that. So he was seven war guy the next year, and then a five war guy, and then a six war guy, and then a six war guy. And in fact, from ages 34 to 37, he produced about 24 war, which was the eighth highest total of all time for hitters between those ages.

It's Ruth Bonds, Wagner, Mays, Aaron, Speaker, Anson, Schmidt. So he had himself an all-time mid to late 30s, and I'm not nearly so confident that Mike Trout will do that, especially because Schmidt, like he started later than Trout. He came up later and really entered his prime later. It wasn't until he was 24

that he had his first really full excellent season, whereas Trout did that at age 20. And so Schmidt was kind of playing catch-up there, or, you know, he preceded Trout, so I guess not. But his pace was slower because of that. And so entering his mid-30s, like when he was age 33, he had a seven-war season, and then he had a seven war season the year before that, and an eight war season the year before that,

and a nine war season before that, whereas Trout's war accumulation was much more front-loaded. And, you know, his age 31 and 32 seasons weren't so hot either. So the trajectory is not encouraging. Ah... Yeah, it's not. Yeah, if you look at Trout's Zip's projections for the rest of the season, and then the next two seasons, he has projected over those two and a half-ish seasons

to produce a mere 6.4 war, which would take his total up to, oh, 91, 92 or so, and he'd still be double digits behind Schmidt. So, I don't know. Schmidt was very productive through age 37, and then that was that for him. But, yeah, I don't know. I'm not feeling optimistic about it, particularly at this point.

I'm not either. I'm kind of resentful of the question. No, I'm kidding. But I came in and I went, uh, and then you brought it to the pod and now I've had to deal with it again. So maybe I'm resentful of you, honestly. No, I'm kidding.

Yeah, it's partly my fault too. Yeah. Entirely, no. Man, what a bummer, you know? The odds are against him catching up, I think at this point, but I don't know. I might still give him best Mike honors if he can tack on at least a little bit. Sure, I mean like

Guess we got to see what he does in the booth. We can use that as a tiebreaker Maybe he'll tell us about the weather. Maybe you should yeah, you're extolling the virtues of weather You know well he could definitely be a weather forecaster that kind of weather channel anchor He's pretty moonlighted as that before I don't know does the data exist like to try I'd like Mike to well. Yeah, that's true Can we as a country collectively forecast weather anymore? That is a good question. No one knows Yeah Okay Is there any West depressing question? Yeah

Say something more about the Miz Did you know that and Andre Muñoz travels with his cat? Yes, I learned that from the bandwagon this week. I did not know that previously, but yeah, cats don't seem that portable in my experience, but evidently his is. So you know, every cat is different, a different sort of beautiful spirit. I don't know Munoz's cat specifically, he and his wife are both very passionate about animal welfare, particularly cats. They love this cat that's very nice, what a good charity.

But apparently he travels with the cat. He travels with the cat constantly. It's always in hotels. And again, each one a beautiful flowering spirit of its own. I would like endure a great amount of pain. Financial have already done and otherwise for our little guys, but can't think of anything I'd rather do less than travel consistently with them. And so I have so many questions about this cat, its disposition, his routine with it. Like is he having to gabapentin the cat all the time in order for it to travel? Or is it just like super chill? How do they feel about it on the charter?

And then like there are all of these pictures and they're so cute of him and his wife with the cat at the ballpark. But I'm like, again, the cat at the ballpark. Two experiences seem uniquely bad to me in terms of them happening at a ballpark. One, being a cat or near one and two, having a migraine. So I can't even contemplate it. And so I guess what I'm asking is for Munoz or his wife to like tell us their secrets. But I don't understand how it's remotely possible. So there you go. Must be a special cat, great cat makeup. Okay. Last one then from Jason, who is the scoring director for the British Baseball Federation.

And he asks, I was discussing with a buddy earlier, what makes something impressive? Is it just the event itself being spectacular or is it the ability to do something really good repeatedly? Is it more impressive that Bartol Colon hit that one home run without ever really training to or is it more impressive that Aaron Judge has honed those skills to the point where he can do it over and over again. The context around this was a Kevin Pilar Spider-Man catch from 2015, where he climbs the wall in Toronto, versus the Denzel Clark home run robbery from a few days ago. The Pilar catch, we imagine,

as people who'd struggled to get off the ground with a trampoline, is a more repeatable skill. There was less instinct or fluke involved. He got into position extremely impressively, but then made a relatively routine catch once he got up there with full view of the ball. But the Clark catch was way more visually impactful. The climbing the wall, readjusting position, reaching out, not really able to see or track the ball, and coming up with the catch,

in our opinion, it's way less likely that will ever be repeated in the same way. The conversation eventually boiled down to one central debate is something that looks amazing, but you could never do again, more impressive to have done than something a bit less cool that you could do repeatedly, though not routinely, doing the thing is still cool in and of itself.

Would be interested to hear your thoughts. Oh, what a question. Yeah. Is it cheap to say they're all cool, but in different ways? Not necessarily, elaborate. Things can be spectacular and only happen one time. I think the difference is like, there can be a spectacular event that only occurs once.

And then a player can demonstrate a spectacular skill. And what makes it spectacular is not only the event, but the repeatability. But then it's about the guy less than the thing, right? Does that distinction make any sense? Does that make sense? Yeah, yeah, maybe so. Like the, well, the Bartol Cologne example, impressive is not the first adjective that would come Yeah, maybe so. Well, the Bartolo Colon example, impressive is not the first adjective that would come to mind.

It is impressive. It's impressive on some level to make contact with any majorly pitched, let alone hit a home run. And so, yeah, it's impressive in the grand scheme of things that you could make contact even solidly one time. But there was such an aspect of flukiness to that. That was a clear element there. It was like, oh, this will never happen again.

It's improbable that this happened. Sometimes improbability can make something more impressive, I guess, just the less likely it is, the more impressive it is maybe when it does actually happen. But it was certainly spectacular. It was sensational. But I would say Aaron Judge just routinely hitting better than anyone has ever hit. That is more impressive to me than Bartol Collone somehow getting a hold of one.

And so I think that when it comes to Denzel Clark, now Denzel Clark is clearly a great defensively gifted outfielder. So even if... Right, there are going to be more of these, even if it's not quite the same. Yeah. Yeah, he's made multiple catches that were impressive this season. That may have not even been the most impressive one, arguably, but that, there was certainly an element of luck to it and randomness, and he could have easily made that effort and just missed,

or the ball could have carried a few feet farther, as we were just saying, but he has the skills. He's got the gift. And so that's not quite equivalent to Cologne. Like that would be, I don't know, if Nick Castellanos made that catch or something, it'd be like, wow, didn't know that he had that in him. Right.

Yes. You're starting from a different baseline. And so the adjective is a different one. Like I can't believe he did that to your point. Oh my gosh, that was amazing versus like that was awesome or spectacular. But you could also say that. Yeah. Clarkson's amazing. Yeah. You could say impressive about both of these things and I wouldn't say that it was wrong.

I think if it's equivalently hard to do, if you're doing something regularly, that is really hard to do, then that's more impressive than doing something equivalently difficult one time, obviously, like if it's repeatable, if you can keep doing it, it's less surprising because we might expect that you could do that, but it's more impressive that you can keep doing it and that it's not a fluke. So, I guess it comes down to, yeah, if we're talking about, like,

the fundamental mechanics of the catch, like, making a catch that is hard, but you made it look easy. And maybe you'd say it's less impressive, just off the cuff until you maybe see, oh, wow, what a great jump he got. And he was well positioned or he wasn't well positioned. And somehow he made up all that ground

and look how fast he was. And it didn't seem that impressive, but actually when I dig a little deeper into this, it was impressive. I guess I'm more inclined to say the repeated demonstration of that skill is more impressive than the singular demonstration, even if the singular demonstration

is itself sensational and spectacular. Yeah, I think that that's a good way to put it, yeah. Okay. All right, and also I have to issue a correction sensational and spectacular. Yeah, I think that that's a good way to put it. Yeah. Okay. All right. And also I have to issue a correction about the berries. You do. So one of the stat blasts last time

was about players being overshadowed in their debuts and someone making their major league debut in the same game as a superior player who sort of stole their thunder by debuting on the same day. And the greatest mismatch of all in terms of a career war of the players who debuted in the same game was Barry Jones versus Barry Bonds, who both debuted for the 1986 Pirates, seemingly in the same game, but not actually in the same game.

Yeah. Oh, did they? Yeah. And listener Daniel wrote in about this, surprisingly the only person who has written in about this thus far. Yeah. I thought this might be another deluge, but not yet. Famous last words anyway.

It's the calm before the storm. But yeah, we just got another head tap ejection email. So sometimes they surprise you. Yeah, Daniel notes that the debut, the game that is recorded as the debut for Barry Jones and Barry Bonds was not actually either player's debut. That game was played at Wrigley Field

before lights were installed. It was suspended before the start of the 14th inning due to darkness and resumed on August 11th when Bonds and Jones both played in it. Bonds' first game was May 30th and Jones' July 18th. So this was a Juan Soto situation where he homered before he made his major league debut, that kind of thing, like the, the confusing suspended game stuff. Yes. And so if you look at Barry Bonds or Barry Jones's game logs, this game will be listed

first. Yeah. And that's the way that it showed up in the data in the query, but it was not actually the first major league game that each of them played in. And in fact, their first major league game, they were different games. So Barry Jones got to have his day independent of Barry Bonds also debuting on that day. And only in retrospect does it appear

that they played in a game which is listed as April 20th, but was completed long after. How about that? Well, evidently Jacob Misurawski, who wore number 33 in his major league debut, has since switched to 32, which was Aaron Savalli's number. Not only did he take his rotation spot, he took his number too. I guess the Brewers won't be retiring Aaron Savalli's number.

Ronald Acuna stole his first base of the season on Friday because of course he did. The steeless streak is over, the drought is done. Nice to know he still has it in him. Regardless of who ends up being the best Mike, I'll be happy as long as my Mike, Mike Messina, is the best pitcher named Mike. Not a lot of close competition there. In fact, I think fellow Oriole Mike Botticker might be the next best moundsman Mike.

Mike Messina was a first round pick, but not a first overall pick. Speaking of those though, baseball reference posted on Friday that when Paul Skeens pitched to Dansby Swanson in Friday's day game with Henry Davis, the aforementioned Henry Davis catching, it was the third time in MLB history that the pitcher, catcher, and hitter were former number one overall picks. And the other two times were also this season, both involving Skeens and Davis, one involving Swanson, and the other involving Bryce Harper.

That will do it for today and for this week. We appreciate those of you who make this podcast your number one pick, though really, we're just happy to be somewhere on your draft board or on your podcast preflist. Thanks as always for listening, and special thanks to those of you who support the podcast on Patreon, which you can do by going to patreon.com slash effectively

wild and signing up to pledge some monthly or yearly amount to help keep the podcast going, podcast on Patreon, which you can do by going to patreon.com slash effectively wild and signing up to pledge some monthly or yearly amount to help keep the podcast going, help us stay almost ad free and get yourself access to some perks. As have the following five listeners, Max Likens, Maggie, Matthew Fieri, Jin Ah Kim and Austin Kluwen, thanks to all of you.

Patreon perks include access to the Effectively Wild Discord group for patrons only, monthly bonus episodes, playoff live streams, prioritized email answers, personalized messages, autographed books, discounts on merch and ad-free FanGrafts memberships, and so much more. Check out all the offerings at patreon.com slash effectively wild.

If you are a Patreon supporter, you can message us through the Patreon site. If not, never fear. You can contact us via email instead, send your questions, your comments, your 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 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 hope you have a wonderful weekend and we will be back to talk to you early next week. Bobby Shands, Bobby Shands, Unfactively Wild! It's the Zombie Runner, Bobby Shands, Bobby Shands, Bobby Shands, Unfactively Wild!