Effectively Wild: A FanGraphs Baseball Podcast - Effectively Wild Episode 2338: Tommy Can You Shear Me?

Episode Date: June 21, 2025

Ben Lindbergh and Meg Rowley banter about Tommy Kahnle’s postgame shaving ritual, Hunter Bigge’s close call and danger from foul balls, Padres vs. Dodgers as baseball’s best rivalry, and a lost opportunity for a Tarik Skubal vs. Paul Skenes matchup, then (58:23) answer listener emails about the most influential owner of the century, the definition […]

["Effectively Wild. I'm Meg Raulia Fangrass playing a road game and I'm joined by Ben Lindberg of The Ringer Ben. How are you? Well, maybe because you're on the road and playing without the home field advantage, you neglected to say that this is a Fangr baseball podcast. How will people know what effectively wild is there like what is this thing that I'm listening to? Is this a fan grass podcast? Is it a baseball podcast? I have no idea.

It's a fan grass podcast. It's a baseball podcast. Importantly, it's brought to you by our Patreon supporters who we are so thankful for. I can't say I'm a fan of East Coast weather, cause some long travel delays for me yesterday, but here we are, we're recording the pod. We are, we're bobbing and weaving, as they say, Ben. You know, unlike my, unlike my plane with the storm, which decided to neither bob nor weave, but simply to land in a different airport

than I was meant to land in. So. Yeah, well, my wife and daughter got soaked at a playground. Oh no. So that's what happened to us or to them. I was inside waiting with a towel and a change of clothes, but yeah. Smart.

Smart. That thunderstorm struck unexpectedly. So I was considering that I think we collectively as a country maybe know too much about Tommy Canely. I will also accept that there are ways in which we don't know enough because I do still have some questions. But Tommy Canely has come to our attention

and the attention of the larger baseball world for a few reasons really. I think the first was probably his, let's just say excessive caffeine consumption. So he used to be a five Red Bulls a day guy. And then I think he kind of kicked that habit, except not really because his current caffeine consumption is two C4 energy drinks.

I don't know exactly what the caffeine content of a C4 energy drink compared to a Red Bull is, but just based on the name, I'm guessing that it's fairly high. Plus two large cups of coffee. So that still sounds like a lot of caffeine. I don't know. Maybe it's less.

It sounds- I'm skeptical that it's less. I think that has to be of caffeine. I don't know. Maybe, maybe it's less. It's less. I think that has to be more caffeine. Yeah. C4. What are we, what are we doing with energy drinks, Ben? Because look, C4 is an explosive. It kills people, you know, like often, you know, don't handle at home kind of a situation. Release energy, I guess, but in a very destructive way in a way that one wouldn't want to channel probably. So, yeah, no, it doesn't make me want to consume it.

I am given to understand that the energy drink space can be a little fraught for big leaguers because who knows what's in there really. And I think that there are ones that they have, they being like the union in the league has sort of advised players not to consume lest they pop a drug test. I don't know. I don't know if the allegation is performance enhancing drugs or literally cocaine, but it seems feasible that it could be either of those.

But that seems like something a doctor would want to say, hey, so not the best. Was it Cainley's caffeine consumption that prompted Emma Batchelor to divulge that she in college had brewed coffee with Red Bull instead of water, a fact that still disturbs me. I don't remember if it was him, although it seems like it has to be given the rundown that we've just provided. But I want you to know, listeners, that that confession inspired the same kind of background check-in that someone getting bangs bangs can where you're like,

oh, that's such a funny story. And then you text them on the side. So, hey, Emma, you okay? Like, we need to talk about anything. You good? Because goodness me, what a wonderful thing to divulge. Yeah. Look, this is why no one should go to Duke. This is one of the reasons, I guess. So Tommy Cadenly, he's a man of extremes. We have discussed his changeup usage. The fact that he threw just dozens and dozens of changeups consecutively. He does not do anything in moderation, really.

And so another fact about him circulated. He came up actually when John Brebia was unaffectively wild because they had kind of bonded unsurprisingly, both just a couple of characters. I think that Brebia noted that Canely was the only other Android user on the Tigers, and so that had connected them. And that made me feel more sympathetic towards Canely, not that I have anything against the guy,

but you know, instant bonding when you find another Android person in the wild, especially in a baseball context. But what circulated this week, Evan Petzold, who covers the Tigers for the Free Press in Detroit, he wrote in a story about Canely that, well, I'll just quote it

because it was one tantalizing sentence in this larger profile. For example, Kainly shaves his entire body as a personal punishment when he allows a run. A tradition he started in the minor leagues and still follows today. What? Yeah, so this fun fact made the rounds

and people had questions and I can answer some of these questions because this is not new information. I mean, it's new to you, it's new to many. It may be new to Effectively Wild, but this has been previously reported and Evan was scooped on the total body shaving by Gary Phillips of the New York Daily News

who was our preview guest on the Yankees segment this spring. He reported this, I don't know if he was the first to report it, but he reported it in August of 2023, when Cain Lee was on the Yankees, in this larger story about just Cain Lee legends, just all, he's just one of these guys who just, if you know him, you have a dozen stories about him. And this was one of them. So I'll just read the subhead in Gary's original story,

Shaving in Shame. And then the story says, amid struggles and injuries, the Yankees sent Canely back to the minors in 2018. It was there at Triple H, Grant and Wilkes-Barre, that Michael King first met his future big league teammate. It's also where King was introduced to Canely's most bizarre habit. age, Granton Wilkes-Barre, that Michael King first met his future big league teammate. It's also where King was introduced to Kainlee's most bizarre habit.

Quote, I don't think this is bad. I think he'd be fine with this, King said before dropping the bomb. It's always good before you share a personal story about someone you know. He shaves his whole body when he doesn't do well in a game. Added Clark Schmidt, that is a true story. I've seen it in person. King made this unusual discovery after Kainly relieved the former starter in a game. Kainly allowed some runs that day in the minors.

Then the quote continues from King. So then the next day I walk in and I said, whole body. It's like from waist up, King said, correcting himself. He is covered in shaving cream, just shaved his whole body. I was like, what? He's like, it's a punishment, it's a punishment. You want to be hairy.

I was like, okay, sounds good, dude. And then Phillips goes to Canely and confirms that Canely still practices this shaving. And Canely and confirms that Canely still practices this shaving. And Canely then said, they love this, don't they? And he was referring to the fact that the Yankees at the time still had that grooming policy, no facial hair, right?

At least most facial hair. And so he was going above and beyond really, just shaving all the hair. I don't know who told you probably King, when asked if he really shaves his entire body, Cainly offered one caveat. We'll just say entire body, not the legs. He said, well, it's not entire body. I mean, that is a pretty important caveat. But also, okay. So I, you know, we're on, we're, we're both in Eastern time. It's early.

I am yet to consume a cup of coffee. I mean, it's not so early. Or a Red Bull or a C4. Yeah, I don't, I can't drink energy drinks that make my heart feel weird. You might be thinking, oh, did he shave his legs? That's not where I'm sadly wondering. Like, there is hair in other crevices of a man's body. So I'm wondering, were those left

undisturbed? It's such a, what a journey through his mind. Is there more to the quote? Am I interrupting? A little more. Okay, you continue and I'll formulate my thoughts. Kingly added that he does this whenever he allows a run, even if the pitcher before him earned it. So this answered a question that came to my mind immediately. Which is just, if it's an unearned run, if he just inherits a runner. I love that. Yeah, I mean, that's the thing.

Like, there are times when a reliever can kind of do his job while still allowing a run. I mean, maybe you come in, you have a few runs lead. Maybe you come in and it's bases loaded, no outs. And you strike someone out or you get a double play and then one run scores and then you strike someone out, you get out of the jam and you've done a good job there. Run expectancy wise.

I mean, you would go back to the dugout and probably get like glove taps and butt slaps, right? Like they'd say, Hey, nice job. You got out of a bases loaded, no outs jam, allowing only one run. Does he still shave in that situation though? If it's a tremendous question. Yeah.

And then it seems like, yeah, it seems like the answer is yes. He said that he started shaving in college at Lynn University. A starter back then, it was more of an everyday thing. See? Okay. So that suggests- Interesting. So if he's a starter, okay, so I guess he doesn't mean it's an everyday thing, like even when he's not starting,

I guess he just means like, if he's pitching and he's a starter, he's probably going to allow a run. And so he's going to shave automatically. No one taught Cain Lee the sacrifice, nor was it part of some hazing ritual. It's just a thing that he chooses to do. Quote, I do some weird stuff, man, he admitted. So.

Wow. Where to begin, Ben? Right. So the tantalizing single sentence in Evan's story shaves his entire body. Yeah. Clearly that's a bit of an exaggeration in that I don't think he shaves his head.

He's not shaving his eyebrows. Right. I'm not sure if he's shaving his arms. It sounds like it's mostly torso here. Okay. Or at least- Mostly torso. Not legs, which you, which if you have legs

is a pretty important part of your body, so I wouldn't really say whole body. I would just say upper body, maybe. Right, and learning to navigate one's knees and one's ankles. Yeah, it's still a lot of- A great passage for many a woman. Right, exactly.

Yeah, I mean, women are hearing this and saying, oh no, you had to shave your legs regularly. Gee, that sounds tough. I actually think that this is an area where there is, at least in the US, I cannot speak to other countries because I think that their comfort level with body hair is higher than ours. I think this is an area where you get sort of regardless

of gender, a fair amount of social pressure It for men though. It isn't a lower body social pressure for women. It's a lower body well for women The they want us to be dolphins or something. I don't know but but for men especially in the MCU era in the in the era of superhero movies in the MCU era, in the era of superhero movies, in the Glenn Powell era, I think that there is a good amount of social pressure toward upper body hairlessness for men or torso hairlessness for men. And I'm here to say, where is this generation's Burt Reynolds? You know, we need a her suit hero

yeah for for these for these gentlemen because Just whatever you comfortable with, you know And for the for the ladies too if you and like I come from Seattle So our relationship with body up there. Oh, I think of more variable than some than some quarters, right? Cuz it's like a bunch of Tech hippies. I don't know that just like find your Burt Reynolds, you know hold fast to him Yes, if you her suit guy, that's fine This you've been you've been sold a bill of goods and it's not Glenn Powell's fault

But I feel like he's not helping, you know, he's not Glenn Powell's fault, but I feel like he's not helping, you know? He's not helping. And I don't dislike Glenn Powell. I'm not... I'm just saying, like, it's not helping in this regard, you know? Yeah. And I don't know if Kainley has the incentive to shave to show off the definition that Glenn Powell might have. I'm not sure that he's built in quite the same way, though I have not seen him with his shirt off or his hair off or covered in. Can't speak to it.

Yeah, has he tried? Nair, I wonder, like does he always just do the, just foaming up, lathering up? And I wonder just how that happens exactly and what the shaving method is. But also another question that I had is like, what if he gives up runs in back to back outings? Like, what are you?

I don't know how her suit he is and how quickly the hair grows back. But really, like, what if he's, you know, like, OK, 20, 23, not long before that original story was written. He gave up a run on July 15th. It was unearned, but as we know, that doesn't make a difference. And then July 16th, he gave up three runs. And then July 19th, his next outing, he gave up a run.

And July 21st, his next outing, he gave up a run. So four consecutive outings, he gave up a run and July 21st is nice. Adding he gave up a run. So for consecutive outings, he gave up a run. And so as he's shaving four times in six days, including back to back days. And is there like a razor burn situation? Like your skin can only take so much. And what are you even shaving at that point? Is there any new growth?

Maybe is there, is there. A little, look,. Maybe, is there? A little, a little, babe. A little, look, so I do shave my legs, and I live in a hat place, and because I am more likely to wear a dress, or shorts, not really a shorts gal, Ben, you know? I don't know about shorts. I'm not really a shorts guy.

We've discussed my calf situation. Yeah, yeah, I know this is a sensitive subject for you. I, it's just not, I don't know if it's always my favorite, but you know, we're like a cropped pant where there's some portion of the leg that you're likely to see. That's more likely in the summer in Arizona, which isn't to say that one can't wear dresses

in the winter in Arizona. That's the reason you live there. But, you know, I'm like, at this time of year, I'm like a daily shaver. And there's just a little, you know, every night, it's like part of your transformation in the night that no one sees. You wake up and you're like, yeah, it's back again.

I have known men who've shaved their backs and stuff and like down to the, not just like trim it up, but like, you know, like with shaving cream and the grow back situation seems brutal. So I do wonder if like, you know, you kind of have to commit to it. Cause otherwise like you get, you know, you get a little ingrowns very, can be very unpleasant I think. Yeah, yeah.

And I like to be shaved to do some, some manscaping upstairs. Yeah, a little maintenance. Yeah, it's, you know, it's itchy, it's hot, it's sweaty. It's not great. Usually my laziness wins out. So I do not do it very regularly because it's a pain. But I just, I guess I don't have the same incentive

that Kainlee has here, but it's really like, it's like he's, it's like a medieval hair shirt sort of situation except the opposite essentially. It's, he's removing the hair as a form of self-punishment. And I just, I wonder whether this really helps psychologically because you don't want to allow a run as it is. That's just, it's bad.

It hurts your earning potential. It hurts your team. It hurts your earning potential. It hurts your team. It hurts your stats. It seems like there should be sufficient downside to allowing a run that one wouldn't need to pile onto that. Oh, I also have to shave after this. Right. Also, it's okay if he likes to shave, you know?

Like, is this a, I'm imagining him like, you know, shaving regularly, loudly proclaiming, ah, I gotta shave again. I love to be manly and hairy and here I go again, shaving my upper body, this sucks. It's okay to admit if you do want the Glenn Powell look, if you do wanna just shave, that is fine. You can do that.

It doesn't have to be self-punishment. It can be just comfort or aesthetics or whatever it is. So I hope that he is not looking for a way to- An excuse. Yeah, right. You don't need an excuse. You can just do it if you want to. And maybe he should explore some sort of waxing situation

if this is happening regularly. I don't know. I mean, he's probably seen the 40 year old virgin and was scared away from that forever. I don't know if he's as her suit as Steve Carell or Andy Steve Carell's character in that film. But yeah, it sounds like a lot of trouble to go to. Look like if he if that is the preferred aesthetic, you know, I'm out here encouraging the Hirsute Among Us to embrace her and her Burt Reynolds if they want to, only if you

want to, right? If you prefer to be like a dolphin, you know, like just like gliding, the water just gliding down you, then one should do that. I'm also, you know, I get a little worried and I don't want to psychoanalyze someone who I've never met Or anyone really because I'm you know, I'm not trained in that way, but the self-legal ation instinct I just I wonder if If if there's like a more sort of emotionally productive way that one could

Deal with that. It seems a touch extreme, but as we've noted, he might be living on that edge just all the time. Maybe this is the only, there's only one gear in Tommy Hanley and it's to the max. Glenn Powell would approve of that, I feel. Probably, yeah. He's bringing back the weird amped up reliever. I like that archetype. I like the part of this that is, as much as I am not an advocate for self-legalization, I do like the part of this that is seemingly very self-directed because we had nominees for the weird amped up reliever.

But then James Karenczak seems like he's just kind of a weird jerk. And so it's like, I don't know that we need to valorize this behavior. It doesn't seem like it's the best thing to have floating around a clubhouse or broadcast that children can see. So I like the part of it that is just him grappling with his own failures as a man in a professional setting. But yeah, it's like, I would be fascinated to know more about his diet, you know, away from the energy drink thing. Like, this strikes me as the profile of a man who does not have like diverse culinary days. I think that what we need is like Tommy Canley

and Mark Canada have a like a show together where they travel the world trying food. And like they could sell it to Tommy as like, you're gonna, you're gonna eat the hottest food, you know, like you're an extreme guy. C4, but for food. But, but secretly the sub-claw- Go on Hot Ones or something, but- Oh my God, put Tommy Haley on Hot Ones. You know, here's the thing. I'm not the first

to remark upon it, but skills interviewer that guy, you know, he's the thing, I'm not the first to remark up on it, but skills interviewer, that guy, you know, he does a good job. Under adverse circumstances by design. I do not know him. He I'm sure is being observed by many people who care about him. Hopefully one of them is a doctor. I worry about his guts, you know, I worry about his guts every time I watch that show. Because there are plenty of places in the world where people eat very spicy food and they eat it

regularly and their guts are maybe fine. But I, one time, the circumstances under which I did this don't matter, I ordered one of the hot ones, like seasoned packs. Well, mostly there were a bunch of hot sauces in there that people seem to consistently like. And then there was the queso one that they didn't. But anyway, so I ordered it. And when you get it, they send you an alternative bomb. They don't send you the bomb, the bomb. You know, do you think that the C4 energy drink people are like, ah, we wanted to call it the va, but we can't. They won't sell it to you. They sell you like an alternative. And it's manufactured by the same company, but it's like street safe or

something. I don't know, man. So anyway, I'm just saying that that guy's doing damage to his guts and I worry about him. But the subplot of the Mark Hanna, Tommy Canley culinary show could be Mark Hanna working, because he's a foodie, you know, he's like a food guy. When Alison Roman threw out a first pitch at a Mets game, she threw it to Mark Hanna. How nice, you know, synergy food. But it could be Mark Canna, a food guy, helping Tommy Canley diversify and expand his palette away from the extreme and toward a whole host of things, you know? I think that that would be good watching, you know? Someone get on that. I'd watch it.

Yeah. Canna and Canley. Canley and Canna. Yeah. There's like, you couldely. Canely and Cana. Yeah. There's like, you could do a fun little with the name. Sean Evans doesn't have to be involved, but if he, Sean Evans is the hot one. So it's for those of you who are trying to understand where all those memes you use come

from. But maybe he could be, you know, maybe there could be a first we feast tie in. Yeah. Well, no one's getting hurt by Canely's behavior here, except him possibly depending on his a first we feast tie in. Yeah. Well, no one's getting hurt by Canely's behavior here except him, possibly depending on his shaving effectiveness. And the good news is that if he actually doesn't like to do this, then he hasn't had to do it much often because he's pitched quite well.

And he has a 1.41 ERA this year, going back to the start of last season, minimum 70 innings pitched. He has the fifth lowest ERA of any pitcher. I guess RA really is more relevant to this conversation. It doesn't matter whether it's earned or not. But the point is that he's not allowing a lot of runs and thus he hasn't had to shave all that much.

So good work, I guess, Tommy Canely. And I see now that when Emma made that public revelation about her coffee brewing with Red Bull, she was, quote, tweeting a Lindsay Adler tweet that I can no longer see because Lindsay has deleted her Twitter account. But I'm guessing because Lindsay was covering the Yankees, maybe that that was about it was about Canely,

but you'll have to check with the group chats on that one. I guess. I'm going to have to, I'm going to have to send a message to the group chat. See, Hey Emma, remember when we remember one of the times we were very worried about you anyway. Love you, Emma. All right. Well, now you all know maybe more than you cared to about Tommy Kainley. I'm thrilled, Ben. I'm so happy that you brought it. I guess, as self-flagellation goes, he's not hurting even himself.

Maybe you worry about razor burn and young groans. And let me tell you, sometimes that's like, that defines your whole day, you know, and has the potential. But it's not, you know, like, he's not doing any weird, like, disordered, like eating or drinking. I mean, he is to be clear, potentially brushing up against some of that, but, but not for this. You know, it's, There are worse things.

I do wonder if there are parts of the body he reserves as special punishment shaving. But we don't need to ask him about that because I'm not gonna be the one that does it. I'm not gonna say to Matt Martell, hey Matt, go ask Tom Haley about his junk and shaving. Not gonna do it. That feels like an inappropriate workplace request.

You know? Probably, yeah. Probably. Okay. Well, we have established that he has not injured himself, most likely with this behavior. However, there was an injury which did look like it might be serious at first, and I refer to Hunter Biggie, the raise pitcher,

who is, he's actually on the IL already, but he was with the team as is typical when players are injured. And he was hit by a foul ball as he was standing at the railing. And it was, it was a bad scene for a little while there. He was hit in the face, the side of the face by this foul ball that was lined into the dugout by Adley Rutchman, I believe, hit the ball hard and just turned all the way around on it and directed it right into the raised dugout. And they had to carry him out on a stretcher or a backboard. And he never actually lost consciousness and he was talking. And then and then he gave the traditional thumbs up

that you want to see an athlete give in that situation as he was being taken to an ambulance, which then took him to a hospital to get tests. And so it seems like he's OK, but he has added injury to injury, getting hit in the head by a foul ball in addition to the lat strain. And this is not the first time that a player has been hit while standing on the top step or at the railing, because I know this happened to Willie Adamis a couple years ago, I believe that was one, and he missed some time with that.

He got hit by a foul in the head also in the dugout and he missed a couple of weeks. Like this happens sometimes even though there's a railing there, which is, there wasn't always a railing there, but. It's wild. What do you lean on if there's no railing? Apart from anything else, what are you leaning on?

Yeah, and I think it's good that generally there's just more protection of people in the dugout of people in the stands with the screens and the rest. But because this is not a unique event, I wonder whether I would worry about standing on the top step because it's a nice place to stand. It's just, you know, you look supportive and you are supported by the railing and you wanna be part of the team and you wanna stand up there and you don't wanna seem as if you're afraid of the ball. That's not a good attribute

for a professional baseball player, I guess. For a pitcher, it's less costly than for a hitter. But, you know, for a pitcher, I guess you're taking on some risk of getting hit by a ball that is traveling really fast every time you step on the fields because pitchers, they seem resistant to having some sort of head gear. And so they do take that risk,

but it's just, there's not a lot of reaction time and you're not expecting that foul ball to come at that angle. And you just sometimes guys just get nailed. And so I don't know if I would want to stand up there, but I wouldn't, I would want to be supportive and I wouldn't want to be cowering in the bottom of the dugout. But also sometimes that can be pretty painful. That can be, it can be quite deleterious to one's health. Yeah. I don't know of a great solution, right? Unless you have like a little, you extend the netting and then you have like a little, little net gate, you know, that you like open up. Yeah. And then, and then it's like, you're a beekeeper, but the thing you're trying to keep out is

balls and not... Yeah. But yeah, like it... I guess it's kind of... My main takeaway from this, other than hoping that Biggie is okay, is it's kind of shocking it doesn't happen more. Yeah. You know?

Because like guys are always standing there. There's always someone leaning, you know, and it's not just balls, like it's bats. Sometimes the bats will fly that way or yeah. Cause like sometimes guys just say like go whoot, you know, that's their bat. It makes that sound whoot. But yeah, it's sort of remarkable

that it doesn't happen more often. And mostly guys are, they're paying attention when they're standing on the, I'm not saying that to blame, to be clear. I mentioned that because it's clear that they are like habituated to the risk where they're like, Oh, I gotta, I gotta pay attention. But sometimes, you know, they're deep in conversation, they're goofing around, they're jashing. And it is interesting because it's often, often the guys who are there are the guys who are on the IL for one reason or another. Not always, but it's like, it's pitchers, it's guys on the IL, often pitchers and like

whatever position player isn't in the line up that night or isn't close to needing to worry about batting. I always think of this especially with batters in the on deck circle. I would feel very unprotected there. This is maybe one of the many reasons why I'm not a professional baseball player, but like you're kind of in the line of fire

and every now and then guys do get hit. If I just Googled hitter hit by foul ball in on deck circle and several videos came up up like it does happen. I don't know that it's usually not so serious, but still I would feel kind of, you are unprotected in that situation. You don't even have a railing to duck behind. You're just out there.

And there are a lot of hitters who will creep over to get a more direct view of the pitcher. And I don't know whether that actually makes it more or less likely that they will get hit by a foul ball. It's hard to check the foul ball trajectories. But sometimes if you foul one more or less straight back, those could be the hardest. Like sometimes when a guy gets hit in the on-deck circle, it's kind of like a check swing or an excuse me sort of thing.

And maybe it's not propelled at full speed. And if one goes like directly back or close to directly back and you're creeping over there, then that could be bad too. I would just, I would feel sort of exposed in that context. It's just, you know, baseball fields, it's a less dangerous environment than a football fields. I mean, baseball fields, it's a less dangerous environment than football fields. I mean, the fields themselves are the same. They're just fields, but what happens on them

is more dangerous than football. And you know, like it's just, you forget about that sometimes unless there's the occasional tragedy that reminds you. Right, yeah. Oh, right. Baseballs are being propelled at high speeds here. And this is sort of unsafe and this is why Sam did something for his sub stack recently

about helmet wearing on baseball fields and how he contends that it doesn't really correlate to the level of danger or your distance from the batter's box and your potential to get hit by a ball, whether you are actually wearing a helmet or not. And he said, well, maybe it has something to do with whether you have collective bargaining power, whether you can get out of wearing a helmet, because often people will if they can, even if it's dangerous, they're willing to accept that risk in exchange for greater comfort or visibility. But yeah, there are a lot of people on a baseball field, they can't all be paying attention at all times.

And there are baseballs flying very fast every which way. Yeah. And the bats, you know? And the bats. And the bats. And occasionally the shards of the bats. I am still somewhat surprised and maybe I shouldn't be. Maybe the physics of the thing and the actual sharpness of the shard makes the likelihood of a shard-based

impaling of some kind lower than I'm appreciating. Maybe I should allow for that. But it does strike me as kind of remarkable that we haven't had anybody like kind of Monty Python style being like, Oh, yeah, it's within my leg. You know, it's like, totally flesh wound. And sometimes, you know, so there's the there's the on deck circle. And then there's where they actually stand. You know, that's the other thing about it. It's like, we have we've talked about this before, but we have a good amount of on deck

circle creep in the majors these days. And the degree to which you notice it is highly dependent on the exact angle of the center field camera. But there are times and look, I will not cast stones at others in my glass house. Randy Rosa Reyna wants to be like freaking behind the umpire. You know, given his druthers, he'd just be crouching back there like, oh, I got to see how the pitch comes in. And you understand why guys want to do it.

They want to try to see how the pitches are moving. You know, it makes an amount of sense. That's not where they're supposed to stand. It is weird that they are not bothered about it more often. And I know that there are famous examples, you know, who among us will ever forget Adrian Beltre moving the on deck circle. Although his, if I remember the circumstances of that incident correctly, it was not even that he was standing oh so close.

He was just not standing quite where he was supposed to and somebody was grumpy at work that day. But yeah, it's risky out there, you know? There was a moment, I don't remember who they were playing, they were at home though. I remember that part. The Mariners were playing someone at home. They were at home. This was recent. And you know, famously this year, a good bit of their rotation is hurt and has been hurt simultaneously. And Jen Mueller was doing a stand up down by the dugout at home and giving an update on some of the guys and the progress they were making with their rehab start.

And then you just, you know, panned out to the dugout and there's George Kirby and there's Bryce Miller. And I think Logan Gilbert was not there because probably Jen was giving an update on Logan Gilbert's rehab. He has since returned, struck out 10, didn't win. It's going to be fine. But anyway, like there, you know, there's here are these guys and they're all like standing right there. I mean, I guess Kirby probably wasn't heard at that juncture either. The timeline I'm inviting here, perhaps confusing. Here's what I know, they were at home,

but they're all standing there. And I was like, this would be a really inopportune moment for a foul ball to find its way in the dugout. Cause it's like this rotation already so injured. And then here they are, like, you know, like they're at a carnival game shooting like, you know, like they're at a carnival game shooting gallery, you know, ducks on the pond as it were. I don't really miss the on field bullpen, which is going away in baseball generally,

but I do like the practice of the designated pitcher protector who has to stand there because they're facing the field. Someone has to stand there because they're facing the field. Someone has to stand there facing the field to watch out for wayward balls. Because the catcher, especially if they're warming up a pitcher, they're not facing the field. And granted, they have some sort of gear on. But yeah, there's usually someone stationed there to protect the battery that's warming up. Because they're warming up on the field, which just seems like it was kind of a bad idea from the start, though I guess I understand why

that was the typical practice, but it's a nice little courtesy. They make the ball boys wear helmets the whole game. The bad boys have to do it. And then whoever is manning the foul territory for balls. I often, like in Seattle, it's often a young woman because they like go get softball players to do it, which is cool because like that's nice. And then in Arizona, it's always retirees.

And I'm like, is that the best thing? They call them golden glovers. That's nice. Yeah, golden glovers. I think that they were, that's good. Yeah, Golden Glovers. I think that they were like, look, we've got this great name. So what else are we gonna do? We got it.

They're not the only team that I think. It's nice that there's a diversity, but I'm just like, it would be really upsetting to watch grandpa take one to the face if it has a bad hop is all I'm saying. That's all I'm saying. Speaking of people getting hit by baseballs, that happened a lot in the Padres Dodgers series

that just concluded. Yeah. Not the most notable discord involving the Dodgers that is taking place in Los Angeles these days, but there was just a lot of bad blood in that series. And I'm kind of into it to an extent. I don't want anyone to get seriously injured, but the fact that these guys

just do not seem to like each other. Yes. I've always just been in favor of that. I know that. Yes. I think I've even talked about like, you know, players fraternizing, being buddy buddy with the opposition. It's silly on the one hand to be against that

because look, they're all in the same game. They're all in the same fraternity. They're all in the same literal union. And you know, they move around and they play with each other and all the rest. And so it's fine that players fraternize now more than they used to, whether it's during the game or before or after.

But there is something to just keeping up appearances. It's just like, hey, we have a rivalry here. And maybe that's because I was just steeped in Yankees red socks as a kid when they just didn't really like each other and tensions would boil over. And that's really happening with the Padres and the Dodgers these days. So, I mean, they had seven hit by pitches, I think, at least in the three game series and just a lot of jawing. And then in the ninth inning of the series finale,

the Padres were up five nothing. And Jack Little, who made his major league debut, just thrown into the line of fire here in this series, he threw a fastball that was kind of high and tight on Fernando Tatis Jr., hit him in the right hand. Mike Schilt came out to check on Tatis, but was just yelling into the Dodgers dugout the entire time.

And then Dave Roberts went out and started returning fire, yelling at Schilt. And then they they bumped and the benches cleared and the bullpens empty. Then there was some some shoving. This was, I think, in the top of the ninth. And then the bottom of the ninth, Robert Suarez hit Shohei. And, you know, you had Shohei, the Dodgers are gonna be protective of him particularly. And that could have really set things off in this powder keg situation.

But Otani, of course, diffused the situation, deescalated because he waved everyone back to his own dugout because people were starting to like maybe leap over the aforementioned railing and he waved them back and he said, no, it's, it's not worth it essentially, which was just nice, very on brand for Otani and, and maybe just thinking at the time he wasn't seriously hurt and the Dodgers, they're shorthanded. They've got so many injuries like you don't want someone else to get hurt or suspended. And so he said, no, not on my behalf.

You don't have to run out here and defend my honor or anything. And so it didn't quite boil over as much as it could have. But man, these two teams, it's always when they get together these days. And Manny Machado said after the game that the Dodgers need to set up a little candle for Tattis tomorrow and hope that everything comes back negative. Yeah. So like the Dodgers need to be praying for Fernando because if he's hurt, then there will be consequences. Right. And these two teams meet up again in August. And so this is the sort of thing that carries over

between series if there's as much history as there is between these two teams. So I'm enjoying it as a spectator. As long as no one gets seriously injured, I want this. I want there to be grudges between the division rivals. And this really is the best rivalry in baseball these days. And I like when it gets a little gnarly at times. Yes. I think Mark Normandon was talking about this on Blue Sky earlier today. And it's like

the, you know, the venom in the Red Sox Yankees rivalry, it gets talked about a lot, but you're not seeing it on the field in the same way, right? Like, you know, misunderstandings about your dad's draft history aside, like it's not, it doesn't have the venom. And I, I look, I don't want to insult those franchises, but I'm going to, they're too corporate now, you know, it can't, it can't have the same level of a thing, you know? It's not, and I think a distinction needs to be drawn. There are plenty of fans of franchises that maintain lifelong, bitter, in your bones kind of hatreds for other franchises. I don't think that there's been any slack in the way that, say, Yankees fans feel about the Red Sox and vice versa.

But as Mark pointed out, this is a different thing. These are the guys on the team hating each other. Like just having a visceral in- body reaction to the notion of the other club. And I don't want to see anybody get hurt either. You know, I worry about extolling the virtues of this kind of rivalry too much because like you give them an in, you open the door a little bit and you're to, you know, prayer candles and retaliatory

plunkings. But I think it's good. And you want, you want both, you know, I think that part of what makes something like this really resonate is that so often you will see guys just have obvious affection and respect for each other, right? And it involves the other team and you can see it, you can see it when they take the field to warm up. You know, you'll see guys who have been on a club previously come and say hi. You'll see guys who, you know, like you might see like when I went to watch D-Backs Mariners in person, you know, like there were,

there were a bunch of Dominican players on both teams and you know, they all came out pregame, took a moment during their warmups to check in and say hi. Like it's just, it's so nice and convivial, but you need to have that one team that you wanna fight. You know, and I'm not saying they should fight. I don't think that that's a productive way of doing this. I suppose I'm a bit of a hypocrite because what do you expect but for it to at some point

boil over? It almost has to. You need two teams that just freakingicking hate each other's guts. It's often a division rival almost always. It doesn't have to be though. I think there's unexplored potential in the intra division or even intra league hatred. You get former world series opponents who really don't care for each other. That happens. Or you'll get teams

that you know, like everyone, everyone got to take the piss out of the Astros for a while, right? Right. Because cheating. And, and then, but then, you know, it can harden into this, like, you know, like Mariners and Astros, they hate each other. They are firmly opposed. So it's just, it's a fascinating, it's a fascinating thing. I think it adds a little something. And particularly when it's two really good teams, you know, they have on-field reason

to dislike each other. They're in each other's way in a very literal sense. But yeah, prayer handles, as an aside, hell of a line, you know? Like just a great, that's a good line for Manny. Jared Ranere Like sometimes it's player specific also, like the Yankees and the Royals have something going on with Michael Garcia because he's had a couple run ins like Jazz Chisholm has been upset by Michael Garcia tagging players hard, like the hard tag. This happened with Anthony Volpe and then it happened with Jazz and it dates back to last year but there have been a few incidents this year and Chisholm was caught on camera seemingly saying after he was tagged by Garcia just a couple of weeks ago, I'm

going to tell you one more time. If he tags me like that one more time, I'm going to smack the bleep out of him. I'll save Shane the trouble. So, you know, that can be kind of fun. That's not necessarily team wide. That's more just a grudge against a guy. And then you're kind of obligated to protect your guy and rally around your teammate. And then it can blow up into a larger thing. But I've talked before about how I just, I like as a fan to see that sports enmity mirrored in the players because it is sort of silly how fan bases will feud and fans will take things too seriously and too far at times.

But even just the regular ribbing and grudges and trolling and all of that, that's part of what makes sports entertaining is that it does have emotional stakes for us, even if it's kind of irrational. And so I like when you see that in the players. It almost, it justifies, it legitimizes, it rewards your own investment in it.

Because if you're like living and dying with this team's success, and to be clear, I don't think you should take it that far, but if your mood is affected by whether this team does well against that other team, and then it looks like the players themselves mood, not sufficiently affected, then it kind of, it saps some of your enthusiasm

or maybe it even makes you feel sort of silly because it's like, why am I so invested in this? I'm not even directly involved and here I am getting worked up about this and these guys are just slapping each other's backs or whatever. And so I like, again, it's kind of like the K-Fabe. I know I don't want to invoke wrestling. I don't want to upset you, but it's just, it's like maintaining the fiction that there is actual enmity here, except that in some cases it's not pure fiction and it doesn't appear to be in the Patres Dodgers case.

And I think it does. And look, the Dodgers have been the dominant ones in this rivalry to this point. The Patres, they've eliminated the Dodgers from the playoffs and everything, but in the regular season in the division race, it has been mostly Dodgers all the way, even when it's looked like, oh boy, the Padres might, they might actually take this away from the Dodgers. This might be evenly matched. And then the Dodgers just run away with it anyway.

And it's been a closer race than anticipated this season, though the Dodgers have put a little daylight between themselves and the Padres and Giants recently. But I think it does require close competition. You mentioned the Yankees Red Sox rivalry subsiding. Maybe it is just a kind of corporateness, but I think it's also that they have not really been direct rivals recently. The last time that they finished first and second in the AL East in either order was 2018. And that was the year when the Red Sox won 108 games. And even though the Yankees won 100 games, they were not close to the Red Sox that year.

So you have to go back to 2017, I guess, when the Red Sox beat the Yankees by two games. So not since then have those two teams really come down to the wire, at least in the division race. And that's a prerequisite, I think, like, you know, if one team is a nominal rival, but isn't really giving their rival a run for their money, then these tensions are not going to build up.

Like you have to be kind of a credible threat for a team to actually hold a grudge really. And so that's the situation. And Yankees, Red Sox, that's always going to be the best and most storied rivalry, historically speaking, in baseball or maybe just in sports period. But Dodgers-Padres takes the cake, absolutely, for the past several seasons. I think it is clearly number one now. I can't think of anything that seems to have the same level of vitriol. And I'm sure that there are fans of other teams that are like, no, you're discounting how much we hate brah.

And some of it is like these happen to be two good clubs with a lot of national exposure. But you know, they're two good clubs with a lot of national exposure that freaking hate each other, man. Yeah. So there you go. There's an incident, I forget the details at the moment, but the one we talked about not that long ago when it was like, what is it, like a pitcher got upset at a teammate because the teammates was too buddy buddy on the field with an opposing player, it was like, you know, they were high-fiving or whatever

at second base or chatting in a friendly way while the game was going on and a teammate didn't like that their own teammate was kind of cozying up to an opponent while they were trying to get this team out. So I do understand that sentiment to some extent. Anyway, glad we have Padres Dodgers to entertain us. It's quite a show these days. Last bit of banter.

So we had an opportunity for a Scoobal-Skeens matchup, which would have been great because the pirates were playing the tigers and there was a rain out on Wednesday. And so there was a double header on Thursday and the tigers had Scoobal Thursday and the Tigers had scuba going and the Pirates had skeins going, but in different ends of the double header. And so never the twain shall meet. And that was disappointing because, you know, we're probably not going

to get a Tigers Pirates World Series matchup. It's not the Tigers fault. They might be there. The Pirates, the Pirates, unlikely to hold up their end of that bargain in the short term. And so this was an opportunity to see arguably the best pitchers in baseball, the two of the best in their respective leagues going head to head. And you could have done that because it's the same game.

It doesn't really screw up the rotation order. It's just a matter of hours there. I don't know that that would make much of a difference in terms of recovery. And if you let the pitchers know on Wednesday, hey, okay, we're gonna flip-flop you guys here. Then I doubt that would make much of a difference to anyone's preparation, but they didn't do that.

They pitched separate ends of the double header. And I think that was probably the right call. It was just kind of disappointing because that would have been a heck of a spectator experience. But this reminded me of the situation that sometimes arises in playoff series. Yeah.

When there's like a tactical, okay, do we want our ace to face their ace or do we actually not want that? Do we want to sort of stagger their appearances because you're semi conceding the game that their ace is starting. And so you want to maximize your chances of winning. It's a whole debate that I'm sure has been explored in fan grass posts in the past. Like what's the optimal? Do you want to really contend that game and put your ace up against their ace so that you have a better shot of winning that game that otherwise you're going to be the

underdog in? Or do you want to not match that firepower with firepower and just, you know, kind of mutually agree, okay, like you can start your race that game and you can win that one maybe. And then we'll take this other one. And that's kind of the way it worked out in this double header because Scubal and Skeens were not at their best, but they both pitched well. And they each allowed a couple of runs, I think. And the pirates won the Skeens start game though, of course Skeens did not get the win

because the universe conspired against him yet again. And I think he left with a lead, but there was a blown save and Pirates ultimately won 8-4, but he was not credited with that win. And then Scoobble was credited with the win, and the Tigers won that one. That was 9- two, not very close with Andrew Heaney having a rare bad day this season.

So I guess it worked out the way that they both would have wanted it to, which is that they won the game that their ace was starting. And if they had gone head to head, then that would not have been possible because of the way that sports works and the nature of competition. But we were the losers. The spectators were the losers because we missed out on a skein

scubal showdown. Yeah, it's a funny thing because it's like, on the one hand, particularly from the pirates end of things, I understand saying, Hey, we're not going to be able to do anything against scubal in all likelihood. Let's put skeins in the other game and, you know, put our best foot forward. Let's do, you know, we're trying to win. But also like if that were the animating principle of franchise, you would think that other decisions would be made at other junctures. So it's like how much credit do you really want to give them? But you want to give them some, right? That does seem like the best way for them to sort of

manage a distribution of talent across two games, given what the other team is likely to throw at them. So I don't know. I get people being a little annoyed, but I also am like, well, I think this was probably the right decision on their end, even if it didn't quite work out in the final reckoning. But yeah, and I know that the concept of a starting pitcher matchup is sort of silly because they don't actually face each other. Right. Right. Used to in the past, if the Tigers had been playing the Pirates, I mean, in the distant

past that would not have been possible. But if you had an interleague matchup between those two teams in the pre-universal DH era and it was in Pittsburgh, then they actually would have faced each other. But now they don't. And so what do you really lose? I guess the fact that they're not going head to head, especially these days because pitchers don't just finish what they started. They're not pitching complete games. So it's, it's going to be only partially skein scoobled to begin with, though.

Those are two of the guys who you could expect to go deep into games by modern starting pitcher standards, but it does enhance the matchup, even though they're not literally facing each other. Yeah. It raises the stakes. It's, it's not only nice, cause look, you still got to see Skeen's pitch and you still got to see Scoobal pitch on that day.

Totally. Yeah. So maybe it's all the same, but there's something to be said for, like neither of those games ended up being all that close and maybe your odds of a close game are higher when they're going head to head and it just, it changes the run environment just in that game on that

day, like you're aware that runs are probably at a premium. And so it just sort of raises the stakes on both sides because it's like, oh, we, we got to scratch some runs across because, uh, we're not going to get many. But then again, maybe our guy doesn't need that many today. It's just, it adds to the drama when they are actually facing each other, even though they are not actually facing each other. Yeah. Yeah. It would be nice, but that's why we can't have at least that nice thing. All right. Not right now anyway. No. Let's answer a few emails including our what-if sports what-if of the week. I guess I'll start with some non-what-ifs and we'll work our way up

to it. Okay, here's a question from Jacob and there is a video that accompanies the question, so I will link you to that and also the listeners on the show page. Both teams a bit clean defensively. Here we go. Well, whoa, what happened there? That was the biggest slip I've ever seen. Jacob says, I was watching the Rockies three to one win

over the Nationals on Wednesday. While in the process of getting the save, Seth Halverson threw a pitch to Alex Call that would make 50 cent feel like he could make it in the big leagues as it was nowhere close to the zone. In fact, it was like 15 feet behind the right-handed batting call. I of course said the classic Bob Euker quote

just a bit outside and my friend attempted to correct me by saying that it was inside. And then we got in a dumb argument about what an inside versus outside pitch is. He contends that a pitch is inside if it's anywhere on the side of the plate that the batter is standing on. Wait a minute. What? And an outside pitch would be anything on the opposite side of the plate from the batter. I say that an inside pitch is anything inside in the area between the batter

and the plate and that anything outside that area is outside. I just feel it's kind of ridiculous to say that if a right-handed pitcher somehow lost his grip and threw a pitch directly at the third base coach, we'd call it inside just because the batter is also a righty. Just wondering where the two of you come down on this so that maybe we can get a somewhat credentialed ruling on this silly argument. Okay, well, my reaction probably betrays my allegiance in this particular argument.

No, like it has to be, it has to be, no, no. It can't be, this is not an inside pitch. This is a pitch that looks like it was caught by the wind and carried away. This is a pitch that looks like there were, and it looks less like that when you watch the full replay because they give you a vantage of it from behind home plate. But like when you're looking at the center field camera,

it really does look like it like caught a weird Eddie in the wind and then zoomed the other direction. Like it is- Rarely have I seen a pitch like this because usually you hang on to it too long and you yank it kind of. Or you maybe you spike it into the ground or something. But this trajectory is quite uncommon

for a pitch from a right-handed pitcher to go well behind a right-handed batter like that. And I love that the little- I don't know if I've ever seen quite the- Yeah, the little pitch location dot is there, superimposed on the screen, but it's like way behind the batter. That's excellent.

Oh yeah. But- Oh my gosh. Yeah. I, is it really thrown at 102 miles an hour? Maybe, maybe, maybe that was the problem here. I don't know. Yeah.

I don't know. I understand, I guess, Jacob's friend's resistance to calling it outside because it is, it's unusual to have, well, it's unusual to have a pitch in that location just in general, but I am accustomed to saying outside would be away from the batter and this is behind the batter. And so it's away from him, but not in the typical direction.

So I guess I almost, I don't know that I would even call it inside or outside. Yeah, I don't know that I would even call it inside or outside. Yeah. I don't know that that would be the relevant terminology to me. You know, this is in a different physical plane than those concepts entirely. Right. Yeah. I think that the, the relation of the, it's not just the, the ball in relation to the batter, it's also the ball in relation to the, it's not just the, the ball in relation to the batter. It's also the ball in relation to the batter in relation to the plate. Like that is an important, you know,

way of triangulating inside versus outside. And so, I mean, like in a joking way, right? Like just a bit outside is, it's funny. Yeah. You know, that's a funny, that's funny. Um, but if you were giving a dispassionate analysis of the pitch, you wouldn't talk about it being inside or outside at all. But if you were to do that, the notion that this is inside, no, it's not. It's in a different county. It can't be inside. It's not in a building.

It's in a different part of the world. Yes. Yeah. No. Right. It just, it breaks the, the usual inside to outside spectrum, but I would say that it is more outside than it is inside. It's certainly outside of the normal bounds

of where you throw a pitch. It's, I think this was actually Jacob Young batting by the way, which not that that makes a difference anyway. Yeah. More more outside than inside. That is our ruling. And yeah, aside from making the joke, I would not describe it as either of those things. I would say I'd probably just say behind the batter.

I think through it behind and and by a lot. I think that would be just more descriptive than inside or outside in this case. Yeah, I think that that's right. Hey, just to go back to Padres, Dodgers for a second, I'm seeing like a new angle on this fight. I think that like Mike Schult was ready to punch Dave Roberts. Yeah. I think that, I think that he was going to deck him. I think that he was going to deck him up. I think he was ready to actually put hands on him. Wow, yeah, they really went at him. Yeah, they did.

Oh God. All right. I know for sure it was okay. Nick, Patreon supporter says, with the news that Stuart Sternberg might be selling the raise, it got me thinking, is he the most important owner of the last 25 years?

Thinking about him hiring Andrew Friedman and the reverberations from that, the way he's continued to give his front office the freedom to try new strategies, has dramatically influenced the game we are watching. If it's not him, who would you say it is? And at first, when this email came in, I thought, Stu Sternberg, most influential owner of the past quarter

century of this millennium. I don't know that he's the first who would have come to mind. He's not like the most prominent or best known owner, probably. But Nick does have a case in the sense that Ray's style management really has just swept the league. It's just, there are people from the Andrew Friedman front office tree just everywhere. I mean, what was it when we had, it was like the playoffs, what a few years ago was just like all teams run by X-Ray's executives who had migrated to other teams because, you know, like there are a lot of X-Rays people in the Brewers front office and Heim Blum was with

the Red Sox and it's just so many people have gone from the Rays everywhere else. And so just by hiring Andrew Friedman and, you know, like fellow finance Wall Street type of guy, not that he was, I guess, the first from that background to, to be running a baseball team, but that certainly has been influential. So that's one of the ways that an owner can be influential, not just signing big checks, which Sternberg hasn't done, but just empowering certain people over others and hiring well, I guess. And, you know, Joe Madden, Andrew Friedman, maybe Madden is a Friedman decision after, after Friedman is hired, but just the racy way to run a team, which I

guess in some ways has been forced by Sternberg's lack of investment in the payroll is just, well, this is the way that we have to win if we're going to win because we're not going to sign the big for agent and we're going to ship players out when they start to get expensive. That is an approach that a lot of other franchises have emulated or tried to emulate even if they have higher payrolls. So there is a legitimate case for Sternberg, I suppose. Yeah, I mean, he's definitely, I don't know if I would say he's like the most important, but he's in a small group, right?

Because his stewardship of the team and the resulting- The pun intended, Stuart. You won't. I didn't, I wasn't trying to do that. His, and I would say like under his ownership, like the resulting approach of that front office has been defining for certainly for the raise, but also, you know, as one of the like, it is, it established one of the archetypes of front office approach, right? Like you have the, the Dodgers, Yankees now Mets of the world, right? And they are, they are doing one thing where it, and again,

now the Mets, now the Mets, now the Mets, not previously the Mets, but now the Mets, where it's like you're coupling the principles of moneyball, quote unquote, with very large payrolls and a willingness to throw your money around as a resource, right? And then you have like the super miserly approach where you are to a certain and important degree indifferent to the quality of the play on the field, the fortunes of the franchise from a win loss perspective and you are content to like basically engage in run seeking behavior from your fellow owners, right?

We'll call that the nutting approach. And then you have, you know, you have the, uh, the nutting approach is distinct in some ways from like the John Fisher's of the world where you are, like just an out and out embarrassment playing in a, uh, minor league park. We don't need to re litigate the athletics, but right, like Fisher is sort of his own bad case. You have the, uh, we play on the moon, we spend money in a weird ass way. We are a strange ass organization. Also please, um, allow me to introduce the various members of my family to senior leadership, even though like industry people do have nice things to say about his kid, right?

That's the, the's the Monfort approach. I'm not going to name all the kinds, but these are like relevant types, right? And then you have the Rays. And I think that the Rays are a team that we certainly have pointed to in a please spend some money, but also admiring the ways in which they are deploying resources for non-field personnel, right? The way that they are clearly committed to a notion of winning and want to be a competitive franchise even though they're doing so on a pittance of their division rivals. They also are the next iteration of the, or a particular iteration of like the extreme efficiency model where you have churn as a big part of your roster construction and that can aid in the wanting to win, but

also results in anonymity in your player base relative to your fans. And it can feel impersonal and potentially exploitative, particularly on the pitching side. So I don't know if he's the most important, but they are a particular way of running a team that is an interesting mix of hyper competitive and non competitive attributes. And I don't know that there's another club that typifies that quite like they do, you know? So and I think that when people who are not familiar with the modern baseball landscape

talk about moneyball, they are thinking back to that East team, right? Like that's the touchstone that they have. But the club that they mean now might be Tampa, which isn't to say that they're the only club that has embraced analytics and that like, clearly other clubs are in that they're all on that spectrum now of, of analytical, but they're all at least a little analytical. But I think that the plucky under financially resourced underdog team, they are Moneyball 2.0 now. That's who I'd put in that conversation. So he's certainly, in terms of his influence on the game, punching above his financial weight, which seems fitting, you know, for the race. Yeah.

Now they're not, his ownership has not been the most momentous in terms of the competitive landscape of the league in terms of titles. I mean, the Rays have not won a world series. And so like John Henry, you'd probably put John Henry in there because he came in and kind of moneyballed Boston and broke the curse and won four World Series. And for all of the goodwill that he has squandered

in the past several years, that was, I mean, that's maybe one of the more notable storylines just about baseball in this century is the Red Sox winning all those titles and, and completely changing their results compared to the past. And so I think that deserves some consideration. I think you could even put, even though he's not quite as long tenured, Mark Walter in that conversation, proud new owner of the Lakers because man, he, he turned the Dodgers into a powerhouse. Like he comes in, Frank McCourt was an embarrassment and

an embarrassment for baseball and embarrassment for the Dod, and had, you know, kind of tanked their results in a relative sense. They weren't that bad, but they had missed the playoffs for a few years in a row, the horror, you know, and their payroll had sunk because he couldn't afford anything. And then he comes in and they haven't missed the playoffs since, and they've won two titles, and they're kind of the model organization in terms of like, you know, combining smarts and spending. And so I guess Friedman still deserves some credit for that. And thus we could lay that at Sternberg's door, put put that on his ledger because he got plucked away from the Rays. Right.

But that's a pretty big change in terms of the Dodgers being the most dominant team of modern baseball and kind of era adjusted. One of the most dominant teams ever. That that might not happen without Walter relieving us all of Frank McCourt. So those would be the arguments for someone based more on winning championships and really even more routinely than the Rays contending and spending and putting pressure on everyone else. But the Rays approach, even the Red Sox tried to get a Rays guy, the Dodgers tried to get a Rays guy. I mean, they got Rays guys and the Dodgers have gotten

essentially someone who could combine raise style player development and analytics use because he pioneered that there with the payrolls that Walter has enabled. And the Red Sox tried to do that with Heim Blum with not quite as rosy immediate returns, though that's paying dividends down the road. So even that though, you could say,

well, those two franchises I just named, they wanted to embrace the Rays model too. So yeah, I think the Rays have a decent case. You could also say Jim Crane potentially, as the Astros have been another dominant team for a long stretch and also a team that became a blight on baseball and sort of brought dishonor to the sport or to themselves at least and the people he empowered in that front office, that casts a pretty long shadow too.

So yeah, those might be my leading candidates and, and Fisher just, you know, I mean, moving the A's in the disgraceful way that he did and that franchise still sort of twisting in the wind for now. That's all on him. And so, yeah. Are there any shovels in the ground in the greater Las Vegas area that I haven't, that I've missed some now? I don't think so. They're about to be in a fake way where they're just kind of moving dirt from one place to another in a ostensible groundbreaking ceremony, but they're still a billion short of having that ballpark funded. So, yeah, it's just sort of symbolic of if anything. So,

we've talked about this before and I don't want to take a raised question and make it about the A's too, too much, but like Ben, it's so hot at home right now. It's just like so hot at home right now and it's going to be so hot for a while and it's hot in Vegas too. And I look, if it were a question today Do you put a MLB team a major league team in the desert? I think you're not breaking ground on it I don't know. I mean like I think you'd be like, yeah, we got the complexes. That's enough here. We have it So we're keeping it tough cookies, but we don't have to make a new bad choice We could make other better choices.

Yeah. Okay. Well, I think we've list the leading candidates there and then there's nutting and other owners in that vein who really do exemplify the recent behavior of, of not investing in your team and just kind of pocketing revenue sharing money and broadcasting money and not Contending not being aggressive. I don't know that that's new There have always been cheap penny pitching owners going back to the beginning

So that's just the latest manifestation of that Maybe that doesn't count and I don't know if nutting really was a trailblazer in that respect or whether he just kind of perfected that approach. He's the modern go-to, but no, I would probably say he's not unique in the annals of baseball history. He's simply the most extreme example of it in our current game. I'm gonna say John Henry, I just,

I think championships have to count for something and the Red Sox winning being as big a story as it was. I think that probably transcends Ray's style mindsets, just becoming the dominant mode in baseball. But Sternberg, he's top two, top three. He's, he's right there if he's not number one. Yeah. Yeah. And you know, we're seeing with, with the current iteration of that Red Sox team that like your, your fortunes can vary depending on the broader context, right?

Yeah. Okay. Here is one from, who specifies in his subject line, maybe a dumb question, but that should never let you, that should never stop you from- Yeah, don't let that deter you. Yeah, so Jason says, "'A question that's been nagging at me. On a full count with two outs, it's almost guaranteed that men on base will be running.

So why does the defense never, or extremely rarely, attempt to pick off play here? The other night, the Mets were down by four. With two outs, full count, and the bases loaded, Pete Alonso was at bat. He ultimately struck out, but in the moment, I was thinking, why not just pick off the guy at first, end the inning, and then have Pete come up again

with nobody on the next inning. Hope this question has been asked before. Also hope I'm not missing something super obvious here. I guess the semi-obvious reason why this doesn't happen more often is that you are not running from first move in that situation typically. You're, it's a delayed run.

I mean, runners are in motion, but they are at least in theory, waiting to make sure that the pitcher does make his move to the plate. So they're not just taken off, just obliviously without looking. So that's the real reason, I guess. Now, are there cases where a runner

is a little less vigilant in that situation? Because they know that they're going to be running maybe, then again, maybe they're more vigilant because they know they're going to be running, the pitcher knows that they're going to be running, they know that they know, like everyone knows that they're going to be off. And so you don't want to start too soon or a pitcher maybe would do what Jason is recommending. Yeah. So yeah, I think that that's right.

And you know, like of all the guys who are going to try to like test it and push the boundary there, like you're probably not going to get it with a guy like Alonzo who isn't so fleet of foot. But yeah, I think you're right that everyone's just like knows the procedure there is so well established. The stakes are high too. Um, so you, you really don't want to be a doofus and have it end and you getting picked off like that would feel bad. Wait, was Alonzo the batter? Did I goof that? Oh, my apologies. Who was it first? Well, imagine Pete Alonso's at first base. He'd be like, oh, I'm not fleet of foot.

But yeah, I think everyone just, the sort of procedure there is so well understood by both sides that you're just waiting to try to be on the move as the pitcher goes home so that you can maximize your returns on the base paths in the event that it does fall in for a hit. Okay, Matt says trouble in oven mitt paradise. I just finished watching tonight, now this was a week ago's electric Red Sox Yankees game,

cinema truly, maybe the Red Sox Yankees rivalry is back, who knows, But when Carlos Narayes threw out Anthony Volpe trying to steal third in the top of the 10th, Lou Merloney opined that without the oven mitt, Volpe's fingers would have touched the base before the tag was applied. He may be right, and it got me thinking, is sacrificing dexterity and body control in favor of a sliding mitt a legitimate disadvantage to base runners trying to sneak past a tag? Personally, and the league-wide pervasiveness of the mitt seems to back me up here, I'd

prefer the reduced injury risk and the extra quarter inch of reach afforded by the gear. Curious to hear your thoughts on whether this is something. So are you sacrificing some maneuverability, maybe, by wearing the oven mitt, and you'd be better off just fingers free? I think that you are absolutely sacrificing something in the way of maneuverability, although I think more often than not, just having the length is a greater advantage.

And even if it weren't, I still think that preventing the jam would be worth it. We just seen too many guys who like they end up out for a while, they got their dumb little fingies broken. And then like they're not the same when they come back. Their dumb little fingies are so tender. back. They're dumb little fingies. It's so tender. You know, you got all those dumb little bird bones. So you're missing dexterity.

But I also think that the moments, the moments in which you would deploy that dexterity are probably the moments when you were the most vulnerable, right? Like you're, you're blunting dexterity, but that's kind of on purpose so that when you're trying to get your finger in around a tag or mostly a spike that you're, you're able to do it with protection, right? And, and of course just the general slide into the bag. But yeah, like, you know, maybe you'd be able to like twist your, I also am skeptical that you'd be like, I'm going to twist my fingers in this funny little way. I'm like envisioning like a, you're like Indiana Jones having to do some tricks so that you don't

get crushed by a rock. But I don't know that in a moment like that where it's bang bang, it's so fast that sure there are guys who are good at like executing the swim move and getting around and like staying on the bag, but I don't think that the skill is necessarily extending down to like, I have engaged in a minute series of finger movements and thus I am safe because my, you know, my, my pinky is here and I was able to move it around. Well, you have limited, you have dexterity certainly, but it's not like you can like detach your pinky finger and have it like, now you're a monster. You're a monster, Indiana Jones,

and your finger can like go around, you know? Do you know what I'm trying to say? Yeah, no, it doesn't like, right. You wanna be able to move your hand, but moving individual fingers to avoid the tag, that's not really something. I'm watching this play and it doesn't really look to me like, oh, if only he hadn't been wearing the oven mitt.

It seems like the extra length was helpful, if anything. And you can still do a swim move. You can still do some fancy sliding move. Like your arms and hands can still move independently with the oven mitt. It's just, I guess it's like a slightly larger target potentially for the tag to be applied on or yeah. No, it seems to me like the circumstances

where you would be safe without it, just but out with it, are limited. I think that that's right. I think that you definitely want the protection. So even if there were some like special, you know, finger dexterity that would get you in there, it wouldn't be worth it. And I'm skeptical that that's like a real thing anyhow, you know? Yeah, I guess maybe the point Marlone was making,

like Volpi lifts his hand slightly. Like if he had just jammed his fingers straight into the bag, then maybe he could have been safe before the tag was applied. He was actually called safe initially, and then replay was overturned. And the tag did get him, I guess, because he kind of elevated his hand such that he actually made contact with the base on his palm, essentially.

And so it took an extra fraction of a second to make contact. But if he had just jammed his fingers straight right in there, I mean, first of all, I think he could have done that just as easily with the oven mitt as with his fingers. And in fact, maybe more easily. He chose not to, and maybe it was good for safety sake. It seems like with the oven mitt though, that would give you greater latitude to just sort of slide

with your palm down and your fingers fully extended because there's a little less risk maybe that you're going to jam them in a way that's going to hurt them. So maybe the slide, the way he made contact with the base wasn't ideal, but I don't know that it was because of the oven mitt. Right. Yeah. I think I, yeah, I agree. I think you're right. Okay. We're still generally thinking that the oven mitt helps, even if we're worried about oven mitt length creep potentially. I mean, I maintain that there is just, they get a little bit bigger every year, a little bit bigger every year. It is possible. Okay. Let's do our, our what if sports, what if of the week, as always,

uh, sponsored by what if sports, I guess, not really as always, we've been doing what ifs and hypotheticals since basically the beginning of this podcast, but it hasn't always been called the what if sports, what if of the week. So it has always been sponsored by what if sports when we have called it that. Glad I straightened that out in my head. But What If Sports has been our partner for the last little while, and you can find the fun little landing page

that they've whipped up on their website specifically for Effectively Wild and Effectively Wild listeners, which is at whatifsports.com slash effectively wild. It includes a special offer, which says that it ends soon and I believe them. I think that threat, they could make good on that. They could take this away at any time.

And so you gotta go to whatifsports.com slash Effectively Wild and spend a single dollar for your first season of either hard ball dynasty or sim league baseball. Two different ways to experience what if sports one where you can just take control of a franchise top down soup to nuts. You can make all the decisions you can draft players, you can set lineups, you can micromanage, you can make all the decisions, you can draft players, you can set lineups, you can micromanage, you can meddle to your heart's content. And Sim League Baseball is the mode where you can just slap together a bunch of different players from all different eras, put them on the same team, draft that team,

see how they do, see how the players compare across eras. So what if sports.com slash effectively wild. So our what if sports hypothetical of the week, or at least one of them comes to us from Jacob who says, what if there were a reliever who shaved his body every time he allowed a run? No, that's not true. What if there were a reliever who downed five Red Bulls every day before he pitched? Those are not hypotheticals. Those have actually happened thanks to Tommy. But what if Jacob says, what if MLB used fantasy baseball scoring? So Jacob says the recent appearance of your Patreon guest who got into

effectively wild through fantasy baseball made me think about what if MLB adopted fantasy baseball scoring where a team's record was determined by head-to-head performance across several statistical categories, like hits, strikeouts, and home runs, as opposed to just being determined by runs scored and allowed. So yeah, in a sense, I guess MLB already does use

fantasy baseball scoring. It's just one category and that category is runs, which would probably be kind of a boring fantasy league, but that is essentially how baseball works. So what if it weren't that though? What if it were things other than runs? And I think we've entertained the hypothetical before about like what if it were Cumulative over a full series still with runs though if it was like run differential based

So it wasn't you win individual games But it's it's more of a all together and you know, how does that change your incentives in your approach? But in this case, it's not even about runs necessarily. It's just about categories. And so you'd be highly dependent on which categories, but if we said it was standard five by five rotisserie style scoring categories, or, you know, you could get a little more elaborate with it if you want. I mean, if it's just five by five,

I mean, that's for anyone who's not familiar. It's Runs, Homer's, RBI, Stolen Bases batting average, and then on the pitching side, wins, saves, strikeouts, ERA, whip. Now, some of those, I guess, from a baseball, a real baseball standpoint, okay, so runs is in there and runs batted in is in there, which is not exactly the same as runs, but kind of close.

And then home runs, there's a lot of overlap here. A home run, you get a run batted in at least one and you also score at least one run. So, some redundancy here. these are all still runs essentially is, is the idea here where stolen bases, that's a little further removed from runs. Like everything you do on offense, you intend it to further your goal of scoring runs,

but stolen bases, you can, you can have stolen bases and not score runs batting average. You could have a lot of hits and not score a lot of runs, or you could have a low batting average that day, not a lot of hits and still score enough runs to win. And you know, on the pitching side, okay, wins is, is literally a category. So like, I guess, you know, that's quite close to the way it works now. And saves, you can't get a save without a win to begin with, whereas the others, strikeouts, that's more of a stylistic thing. So you could win without getting a lot of strikeouts, though that's increasingly difficult

to do. Earned run average. Again, we go back to runs. Whip is highly correlated with the ERA and runs scoring, I would assume. So maybe we need to get a little more experimental here because as it is, it's just sort of, you know, different permutations of runs,

like different ways to express the concept of runs. But, you know, some of the more abstract ones are further removed from runs would be kind of interesting where, you know, like you still want to steal bases I guess because it will help you score runs but also it can hurt you in your attempt to score runs if you are thrown out like Anthony Volpe was by Carlos Narvaez so this would be an incentive to steal even if it did not result in run scoring because you're getting scored by steals. That's one of the criteria.

It feels disconnected to me. Like I just want to I want to take the whole I want to take in the whole thing and the ultimate score just seems like the best way to do that. And it doesn't mean that like, it's always representative of who should have won on any given night, but then it's fun to dive into like the little bits and bobs where you're like, wow, like this was an issue of sequencing or, yeah, I don't know. Maybe I'm just scarred by the experience

of having to set lineups every day. You just have to play fantasy. Well, you know, baseball teams, they need to set lineups every day. You just have to play fantasy. Well, you know, baseball teams, they need to set lineups every day too. I know, but that's not my problem. You know what I mean? That's the thing about fantasy. It's like, then it's my problem.

And that's what managers get paid for. I'm not getting paid to play fantasy. So I like that people like fantasy baseball. I'm not knocking it, but why it didn't work for me personally was that you have to play it so much. And so I was like, no, that's not my favorite, but I'm good with it as it's currently constituted because they're not, like you said, they're not completely unrelated from one another,

but the notion of getting points for things that ultimately don't result in runs. I don't know if I care for that, you know? Well, that is a very runs centric mindset because you're essentially saying, well, these are extraneous. We care about you're starting from the assumption that that runs are the goal. Whereas I guess in this scenario, runs are no longer the goal, or at least the sole goal. I can't break out of the runs mind prison. No, yeah, exactly. I'm trapped in there. Because in this scenario, runs, that's just, that's part of the goal. But there's a new scoring system. It's not just based on runs anymore. It's based on all these other things. But yet it is, I mean, scoring runs being the goal that is fairly fundamental to baseball.

Like in these hypotheticals, we often entertain the meta question, which is if baseball were different, how different would it be? And often the conclusion is not that different. But in this scenario, it's pretty different because you could win despite having fewer runs. That is, it's a pretty fundamental overturning of kind of a core principle of baseball. And you know, we've talked about the concept of fractional runs, like based on base runner advancement,

maybe you get a quarter of a run or whatever, a third of a run or something. If you advance a base and how would that change things? And I guess that's not so different from saying, well, what if you could win based on having lots of stolen bases, even if you didn't come around to score. But the whole structure of the sport to score, but the whole structure of the sport is set up such that your goal as an offensive player is to score a run and your goal as a defensive player is to prevent your opponent from scoring a run. And you can't change that fundamentally. Like if you just picked some random thing that happens in a baseball game and said, this counts just as

much now. There would be kind of a fundamental disconnect there because you're still going about the business of trying to circle the bases and score runs. And then you're being graded based on something else. And that would, I think, inherently be jarring. Yeah. I mean, I fully acknowledge that I am like, I have experienced baseball one way. And so the idea of it being, you know, it's just like, maybe we should do it because we have all these people. There aren't so many of them, but they do exist. And they look at our picture war and they're like, FIP isn't real. Can you imagine if we introduced this system to baseball? They'd lose their minds, but maybe they'd be less angry at us because they'd be like, actually FIP is about strikeouts a lot of the time

and those are real. So maybe it's, but then maybe they come around to this crazy scoring system and then I'm sitting here going, I'm at the mind prison. Yeah. So I don't know. It's just all the things that you're usually scored on in fantasy, even if they're not literally runs, they're components of run scoring. There are things that you do in order to serve the ultimate goal of scoring a run. And so then it's just sort of like, well, what's the point? Like if you just made hits, the criteria or singles, those are inherently valuable

because generally they lead to run scoring. I guess there's something to be said for, well, it's more entertaining for spectators if there are a lot of hits, regardless of whether they translate to runs, at least you've got action, you've got traffic on the basis, so we could reward getting hits. And it's just, it's going to be so closely correlated because it's not going to change your, well, it could change your incentive, I suppose, as a hitter.

If, if your goal is to get a hit, not to score a run, then you're, you're going to be a singles hitter, right? Like you're gonna be going with more of a contact oriented approach because that's a higher probability outcome. So maybe MLB would like that because they want more action and more hits and higher batting averages. So that might be kind of a corrective

to the all or nothing home run centric approach is, hey, you get something even if you just single, then you still could potentially win because you had more singles than your opponent if the singles was a stat. I mean, it is a stat, but you know, a more meaningful one. We are counting them. We are still counting them.

I promise we're counting them. Yeah, but you could just like incentivize contact or whatever by doing this because that's part of the problem, I guess, arguably with baseball is that the run scoring strategies are not always spectator friendly. And so maybe it does make sense to strike out more and get fewer hits because a higher percentage

of the hits that you do get are gonna be home runs. And maybe it does make sense to steal a little less or it did before they changed the rules to encourage that. So this would just be another way to change the rules to encourage the kind of exciting behavior that you want. We want lots of hits, we want steals. Okay, well, let's change the risk reward balance here and say that you could actually win a game if you end up with a bunch of hits and you don't push them across, but you stole a lot of bases, you ran, you made contact, you could even have just like balls in play be

You could, you could even have just like balls in play be a stat that you're graded on. And so you would be incentivized just to put the ball in play. I mean, then I guess you'd end up with a bunch of bunts and like weak, there'd be unintended consequences. That seems bad, doesn't it? Yeah, seems bad. Yes. But, but hits, I could see something to that, you know, just you want to have a more 80s style brand of baseball, which seems to be kind of the guiding principle

for MLB these days. Well, let's reward stolen bases more and let's have people put the ball in play and get hits. And it would still just be such a rewiring of sports fans' brains that I don't think you could actually convince them that this was good, even though so many sports fans do play fantasy and look at sports through a fantasy lens, if not a gambling betting based lens these days. But people are used to that mindset. There are a lot of fans who watch games or even experience sports through, hey, I'm really my primary affiliation is to my fantasy team.

And so there's a conflict of interest and, you know, your loyalties are divided sometimes. If you're watching your team and something that happens, it's good for your team is bad for your fantasy team. I didn't really want to be divided in that way when I was still a fan of a particular team, but everyone's familiar with that experience of, sure. Oh man, I want this guy to get a hit here for my fantasy team, even though it's bad for my real life team. So maybe people are conditioned based on that to take to this more readily than I'm imagining. Yeah, I mean, maybe, but I'm no.

It's no, it's tough. In my mind, you know what? I'm comfortable in my mind prison. Yeah, it goes against really just a lot of precedent that is pretty fundamental to not just baseball, but pretty much all the sports where scoring pretty important. That will do it for today and for this week. 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, help us stay almost ad free, and get yourself access to some perks, as have the following five listeners, Sydney Kushner, Sean Sachs, Samuel Derrick, Tommy Whitman, and Tommy Thompson, while we're talking about Tommies.

Those five supporters and many others can get access to Patreon perks that include monthly bonus episodes, playoff live streams, prioritized email answers, personalized messages, autographed books, discounts on merch, and ad-free fan crafts, memberships, and so much more. Check out all the offerings at patreon.com slash effectively wild. If you are a Patreon supporter, you can find it on our website, or you can find it on our website, or you can find it on our website,

or you can find it on our website, or you can find it on our website, or you can find it on our website, or you can find it on our website, or you can find it on our website, or you can find it on our website, or you can find it on our website, or you can find it on our website,

or you can find it on our website, or you can find it on our website, or you can find it on our website, or you can find it on our website, or you can find it on our website, or you can find it on our website, or you can find it on our website, or you can find it on our website,

or you can find it on our website, or you can find it on our website, or you can find it on our website, or you can find it on our website, or you can find it on our website, or you can find it on our website, or you can find it on our website, 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 sub-edit 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 next week. That was Pass-Pass and better for free Three new episodes for us each week

Effectively in my own Effectively in my own